| Literature DB >> 35886459 |
Lei Duan1,2, Siyue Yang1,2, Yaqiao Sun1,2, Fei Ye1,2, Jie Jiang1,2, Xiaomei Kou3,4, Fan Yang3,4.
Abstract
The hazards of antibiotics as emerging contaminants to aquatic ecosystems and human health have received global attention. This study investigates the presence, concentration levels, spatial and temporal distribution patterns, and their potential risks to aquatic organisms and human health of sulfonamides (SAs) in the Shaanxi section of the Weihe River. The SA pollution in the Weihe River was relatively less than that in other rivers in China and abroad. The spatial and temporal distribution showed that the total concentrations of SAs in the Weihe River were highest in the main stream (ND-35.296 ng/L), followed by the south tributary (3.718-34.354 ng/L) and north tributary (5.476-9.302 ng/L) during the wet water period. Similarly, the order of concentration from highest to lowest during the flat water period was main stream (ND-3 ng/L), north tributary (ND-2.095 ng/L), and south tributary (ND-1.3 ng/L). In addition, the ecological risk assessment showed that the SAs other than sulfadiazine (SDZ) and sulfamethoxazole (SMZ) posed no significant risk (RQS < 0.01) to the corresponding sensitive species during both periods, with no significant risk to human health for different age groups, as suggested by the health risk assessment. The risk of the six SAs to both aquatic organisms and human health decreased significantly from 2016 to 2021.Entities:
Keywords: Shaanxi section of the Weihe River; ecological risk assessment; emerging contaminants; health risk assessment; sulfonamides
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886459 PMCID: PMC9323655 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Distribution of sampling sites in Shaanxi section of the Weihe River.
Toxicity data and PNEC values for sensitive species to antibiotics.
| Sulfonamides | Corresponding Sensitive Species | EC50/(mg/L) | Toxicity Type | AF | PNEC/(ng/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SDZ | Fish | 890 | Acute toxicity | 1000 | 890,000 |
| 0.135 | 135 | ||||
| Algae | 0.52 | 520 | |||
| Water flea | 0.21 | 210 | |||
| SPZ | Lemna minor | 0.46 | Acute toxicity | 1000 | 460 |
|
| 5.28 | 5280 | |||
| SM2 | Fish | 517 | Acute toxicity | 1000 | 517,000 |
| Algae | 38 | 38,000 | |||
| Water flea | 4 | 4000 | |||
| SMM | Fish | 450 | Acute toxicity | 1000 | 450,000 |
| Algae | 8.56 | 8560 | |||
| SMZ | Fish | 890 | Acute toxicity | 1000 | 89,000 |
| 2.4 | 2400 | ||||
|
| 26.27 | 26,270 | |||
| Algae | 51 | 51,000 | |||
| Water flea | 4.5 | 4500 | |||
| SQZ | Algae | 20 | Acute toxicity | 50 | 400 |
| Water flea | 84.46 | 1000 | 84,460 | ||
| SCP |
| 32.25 | Acute toxicity | 1000 | 32,250 |
BW and DWI values for adults and children.
| Research Subjects | Gender | BW/kg | DWI/L·d |
|---|---|---|---|
| Children | Male | 24 | 0.81 |
| Female | 23 | 0.76 | |
| Adults | Male | 66.1 | 2.48 |
| Female | 57.8 | 2.12 |
ADI values of different sulfonamides.
| Sulfonamides | ADI/(μg·kg−1·d−1) | References |
|---|---|---|
| SDZ | 20 | [ |
| SPZ | 10 | |
| SM2 | 20 | |
| SMM | 6 | [ |
| SMZ | 130 | [ |
| SQZ | 10 | [ |
| SDM | 10 | |
| SCP | 50 | [ |
| SMR | 50 | |
| STZ | 50 |
Concentration levels of sulfonamides in the Shaanxi section of the Weihe River.
| Sulfonamides | Wet Water Period | Flat Water Period | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min/(ng/L) | Max/(ng/L) | Mean/(ng/L) | Detectionrates/% | Min/(ng/L) | Max/(ng/L) | Mean/(ng/L) | Detection Rates/% | |
| SDZ | ND | 2.584 | 0.106 | 12.90 | ND | ND | ND | 0 |
| SPZ | ND | ND | ND | 0 | ND | 2.113 | 0.210 | 10.00 |
| SM2 | ND | 0.756 | 0.064 | 12.90 | ND | 1.4 | 0.090 | 6.70 |
| SMM | ND | 1.260 | 0.212 | 51.60 | ND | 0.500 | 0.067 | 13.30 |
| SMZ | ND | 34.256 | 10.126 | 90.30 | ND | 1.3 | 0.087 | 6.70 |
| SQZ | ND | 1.84 | 0.884 | 54.80 | ND | 1.2 | 0.160 | 13.30 |
ND, not detected.
Figure 2The proportion of sulfonamides: (a) the wet water period; (b) the flat water period.
Figure 3Consumption of antibiotics in different regions of China.
The concentrations of sulfonamides in domestic and foreign rivers (ng/L).
| Name | Concentration/(ng/L) | References | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | SDZ | SPZ | SM2 | SMM | SMZ | SQZ | ||
| Shaanxi section of the Weihe River | Max | 2.584 | ND | 0.756 | 1.26 | 34.256 | 1.84 | - |
| Min | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ||
| Guangzhou section of the Pearl River | Max | 13.7 | 10.4 | 256 | 56.8 | 210 | 3.02 | [ |
| Min | 3.5 | ND | 8.2 | 9.14 | 2.66 | ND | ||
| Nanjing section of the Yangtze River | Max | 6.59 | 1.01 | - | ND | 6.76 | - | [ |
| Min | 2.52 | 0.36 | - | ND | 8.98 | - | ||
| Haihe River | Max | 270 | - | 940 | - | 660 | - | [ |
| Min | ND | - | ND | - | ND | - | ||
| Liaohe River | Max | - | 0.96 | 15.91 | - | 670.27 | 14.59 | [ |
| Min | - | ND | ND | - | ND | ND | ||
| Songhua River | Max | 505 | 85.0 | 16.1 | ND | 940 | - | [ |
| Min | 0.86 | ND | ND | ND | ND | - | ||
| Hongkong River | Max | 14.8 | 3.2 | 580.4 | - | 3.1 | - | [ |
| Min | 1 | 0.9 | 16.5 | - | 1.1 | - | ||
| Bangladesh River | Max | 0.58 | - | 11.35 | - | 7.24 | - | [ |
| Min | 0.03 | - | 0.02 | - | 0.03 | - | ||
| Mekong River | Max | - | - | 328 | - | 174 | - | [ |
| Min | - | - | 15 | - | 20 | - | ||
| Ebro River | Max | 6.4 | - | ND | - | 35.6 | - | [ |
| Min | 1.3 | - | ND | - | 1.88 | - | ||
| Youngshan River | Max | 20 | - | 20 | - | 110 | - | [ |
ND, not detected.
Figure 4Seasonal distribution of SAs detection rate and concentration in the Shaanxi section of the Weihe River.
Figure 5Distribution of SAs in the Shaanxi section of the Weihe River: (a) the wet water period; (b) the flat water period.
Figure 6Distribution of SAs in the main steams and tributaries of the Weihe River: (a) the wet water period; (b) the flat water period.
Figure 7The RQs of SAs in Shaanxi section of the Weihe River.
Figure 8Comparison of the RQs of sulfonamides in Shaanxi section of the Weihe River from 2016 to 2021.
Figure 9Comparison of the RQH in Shaanxi section of the Weihe River from 2016 to 2021: (a) the flat water period in 2016; (b) the wet water period in 2016; (c) the wet water period in 2020; (d) the flat water period in 2021.