An integrative approach combining passive sampling, bioassays, and effect‐directed analysis to assess the impact of wastewater effluent

Abstract

Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents are major sources of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and other chemicals of toxicological concern for the aquatic environment. In the present study, we used an integrated strategy combining passive sampling (Chemcatcher®), developmental toxicity, and mechanism-based in vitro and in vivo bioassays to monitor the impacts of a WWTP on a river. In vitro screening revealed the WWTP effluent as a source of estrogen, glucocorticoid, and aryl hydrocarbon (AhR) receptor-mediated activities impacting the downstream river site where significant activities were also measured, albeit to a lesser extent than in the effluent. Effect-directed analysis of the effluent successfully identified the presence of potent estrogens (estrone, 17α-ethinylestradiol, and 17β-estradiol) and glucocorticoids (clobetasol propionate and fluticasone propionate) as the major contributors to the observed in vitro activities, even though other unidentified active chemicals were likely present. The impact of the WWTP was also assessed using zebrafish embryo assays, highlighting its ability to induce estrogenic response through up-regulation of the aromatase promoter-dependent reporter gene in the transgenic (cyp19a1b-green fluorescent protein [GFP]) zebrafish assay and to generate teratogenic effects at nonlethal concentrations in the zebrafish embryo toxicity test. The present study argues for the use of such an integrated approach, combining passive sampling, bioassays, and effect-directed analysis, to comprehensively identify endocrine active compounds and associated hazards of WTTP effluents. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2079-2088. © 2018 SETAC.

Implementation of Water-Saving Measures in Hotels in Mallorca

“…The least popular advanced innovations are the collection and use of rainwater and the use of wastewater for irrigation (with 17% and 10.2%, respectively). This is understandable to a point since (treated) wastewater may still contain a variety of chemicals [36] and the risk it poses should always be assessed [37].…”

Aryl hydrocarbon receptor‐mediated activity of gas‐phase ambient air derived from passive sampling and an in vitro bioassay

“…In addition, future work employing effect-directed analysis, as has been used in passive sampling studies of wastewater (Sonavane et al 2018), could aid in identifying contaminants driving observed biological effects. Although some AhR-mediated activity was seen in the sampler blank, the activity of field samples was found to be significantly elevated above blank levels, suggesting that interference from the sampler matrix or typical laboratory contamination did not prohibit the use of polyethylene passive sampler extracts in bioassays for AhR activation.…”

Factors Affecting Sampling Strategies for Design of an Effects‐Directed Analysis for Endocrine‐Active Chemicals

“…The EAC detection bioassays assessed in the present study were: 1) luciferase transactivation cell bioassays-VM7Luc4E2 (Rogers and Denison 2000), MDA-kb2 (Wilson et al 2002), and PR-CALUX (Biodetection Systems;Van der Linden et al 2008); 2) yeast cell bioassays-BLYES (Sanseverino et al 2005), BLYAS (Sanseverino et al 2009), and hPR, PRE-yEGFP (Chatterjee et al 2008); and 3) transgenic (tg) zebrafish bioassay tg(CYP19a1b)-GFP (Tong et al 2009). These bioassays were selected based on their application in EDA for EACs (Brennan et al 2013;Creusot et al 2013;Fetter et al 2014;Jonker et al 2016;Brinkmann et al 2018;Sonavane et al 2018;Zwart et al 2018), or (for the BLYES, BLYAS, PR-CALUX, and hPR, PRE-yEGFP assays) for their ability to detect EACs in environmental waters (Chatterjee et al 2008;Van der Linden et al 2008;Wang et al 2015;Kassotis et al 2016). Literature EC50 values of EACs were obtained for each of the bioassays (Supplemental Data, Table S5).…”

“…The LucTA detector may be more sensitive than the yeast detector for detection of EACs due to the presence of reporter gene signal-enhancing coregulators in the LucTA detector but not the yeast detector (Chu et al 2009). The EACs identified from waters as active components in EDA studies utilizing LucTA assays include estrogen receptor (ER) agonists (E1, E2, E3, EE2, and BPA), an androgen receptor (AR) agonist (ATD), and glucocorticoid receptor (GR) agonists (clobetasol propionate and fluticasone propionate; Furuichi et al 2004;Sonavane et al 2018;Zwart et al 2020). However, more EDA studies utilized a yeast bioassay than a LucTA-type bioassay (Table 1), possibly due to the decreased expense and training required for running yeast bioassays as well as the increased availability of yeast bioassays.…”

“…Effects-directed analysis (EDA) is a technique utilized to isolate and identify biologically active chemicals such as endocrine-active chemicals (EACs) from complex mixtures. The technique has been applied for EAC isolation from waters and sediments (Reineke et al 2002;Jenkins et al 2003;Furuichi et al 2004;Beck et al 2006;Fetter et al 2014;Jonker et al 2015;Hashmi et al 2018Hashmi et al , 2020Sonavane et al 2018;Zwart et al 2018). Not only can EDA guide the identification of the responsible EACs, but it can also help rule out candidate EACs not responsible for the observed biological activity or effect(s).…”