Anthropogene Spurenstoffe und Krankheitserreger im urbanen Wasserkreislauf

Jekel, Martin; Baur, Nina; Böckelmann, Uta; Dünnbier, Uwe; Eckhardt, Alexander; Gnirß, Regina; Grummt, Tamara; Hummelt, Daniel; Lücke, Thomas; Meinel, Felix G.; Miehe, Ulf; Mutz, Daniel; Lima, Stephan Pflugmacher; Reemtsma, Thorsten; Remy, C. David; Schlittenbauer, Linda; Schulz, Wolfgang A.; Seiwert, Bettina; Sperlich, Alexander; Stapf, Michael; Zerball-Baar, Patricia van; Wenzel, Melanie; Zietzschmann, Frederik; Ruhl, Aki Sebastian

doi:10.14279/depositonce-4979

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To address the goals of the EU Water Framework Directive and as part of the implementation of the Swiss policy to upgrade their WWTPs, several projects have assessed advanced wastewater treatment. Thus, we complemented the peer-reviewed literature with nine relevant project reports. − …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies cover 28 end points, including several endocrine end points, induction of xenobiotic metabolism, neurotoxicity, phytotoxicity, oxidative stress response, baseline toxicity, as well as genotoxicity and mutagenicity (Tables S7 and S8). ,,,− ,,− By far the best-studied end point is estrogenicity (22 out of 31 studies), followed by genotoxicity (18), mutagenicity (12), phytotoxicity(11), bacterial toxicity (11), androgenicity (11), antiandrogenicity (9), aryl-hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) activity (8), antiestrogenicity (7), as well as acetylcholinesterase (AchE) inhibition (4) and glucocorticoid and thyroid activity (4). For all other end points, only data from less than four studies was available.…”

Section: Removal Of In Vitro Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twelve studies used the UmuC assay, which determines the induction of DNA repair mechanisms, to assess genotoxicity of the wastewater. ,,,,,,,,− The extracts of conventionally treated wastewater were genotoxic in the majority of studies. Both advanced wastewater treatment processes lead to a considerable reduction of the genotoxicity.…”

Section: Removal Of In Vitro Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third option to assess genotoxicity is the micronucleus assay, which has been used by six studies to assess advanced WWTPs. ,,,,, Four studies reported a sporadic micronucleus formation, ,,, while in the majority of cases, the effluents of both CT and advanced technologies were not genotoxic (see SI section 3.3 for further information).…”

Section: Removal Of In Vitro Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Ames fluctuation test with the bacterium Salmonella typhimurium is widely applied to analyze mutagenicity and was included by 11 studies to evaluate advanced WWTPs. ,,,,,,,,,, Several strains responsive to different types of mutation exist. To assess wastewater, the standard strains TA98 (frameshift mutation) and TA100 (base pair mutation) are most commonly used.…”

Section: Removal Of In Vitro Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic Review of Toxicity Removal by Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technologies via Ozonation and Activated Carbon

Völker

Stapf

Miehe

et al. 2019

Environ. Sci. Technol.

Self Cite

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Upgrading wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) with advanced technologies is one key strategy to reduce micropollutant emissions. Given the complex chemical composition of wastewater, toxicity removal is an integral parameter to assess the performance of WWTPs. Thus, the goal of this systematic review is to evaluate how effectively ozonation and activated carbon remove in vitro and in vivo toxicity. Out of 2464 publications, we extracted 46 relevant studies conducted at 22 pilot or full-scale WWTPs. We performed a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of in vitro (100 assays) and in vivo data (20 species), respectively. Data is more abundant on ozonation (573 data points) than on an activated carbon treatment (162 data points), and certain in vitro end points (especially estrogenicity) and in vivo models (e.g., daphnids) dominate. The literature shows that while a conventional treatment effectively reduces toxicity, residual effects in the effluents may represent a risk to the receiving ecosystem on the basis of effect-based trigger values. In general, an upgrade to ozonation or activated carbon treatment will significantly increase toxicity removal with similar performance. Nevertheless, ozonation generates toxic transformation products that can be removed by a post-treatment. By assessing the growing body of effect-based studies, we identify sensitive and underrepresented end points and species and provide guidance for future research.

show abstract