Influence of different wastewater treatment technologies on genotoxicity and dioxin-like toxicity in effluent-exposed fish

Abstract

Background: In situ exposure of rainbow trout up-and downstream of differently equipped wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and subsequent analyses of micronuclei frequencies and hepatic EROD activities were used to evaluate the impact of the effluents on fish health. Two of the facilities (WWTPs A and B) were conventional treatment plants. WWTP C has been equipped with a powdered activated carbon stage. Here, analyses were conducted prior and subsequent to this upgrade. Results:Differences did not only occur when comparing conventional (WWTPs A, B and C prior to the upgrade) and advanced treatment (WWTP C after the upgrade), but also between the conventionally equipped WWTPs. There was no indication for genotoxic effects or pollution-related EROD induction in fish exposed at WWTP A. In contrast, trout exposed at WWTP B expressed strong reactions. However, here, adverse reactions were also observed in fish kept upstream. Similar observations were made for EROD activities in fish exposed at WWTP C prior to the upgrade, whereas genotoxic effects could only be seen in trout kept downstream of this effluent. Upgrading of WWTP C resulted in a significant reduction of both genotoxic effects and EROD levels. Conclusions:The results show financial investments in advanced wastewater treatment to be beneficial for aquatic ecosystems, especially when conventional technologies do not sufficiently remove pollutants. Yet, negative impacts of effluents on aquatic organisms can, under certain conditions, also be avoided by conventional treatment. Therefore, we recommend deciding on the necessity and the type of WWTP upgrading on a case-by-case basis. which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Freshwater ecosystems profit from activated carbon-based wastewater treatment across various levels of biological organisation in a short timeframe

“…This project aimed to survey the efficiency of advanced wastewater treatment for (1) the reduction in micropollutants and bacteria in the effluent and (2) the possible improvement in wildlife health in WWTP-connected rivers. To the best of our knowledge, SchussenAktivplus is the first project worldwide that has addressed this topic using a holistic approach, simultaneously recording the Definition of sensitive taxa according to assessment procedures from Austria [56,57]. The assessment of the macrobenthos community is generally based on [58,59] presence, concentrations, and impact of chemical compounds and opportunistic pathogens, both in the effluent of the WWTP and in the connected river.…”

“…After the installation of the additional treatment with powdered activated carbon, these differences were no longer visible. In particular, a pronounced reduction in deleterious histopathological alterations in different organs [30], as well as a reduction in genotoxic (micronuclei) and dioxin-like (EROD activity) effects [26,32,56], could be detected in fish exposed downstream of the effluent after the WWTP upgrade. Very similar observations were made in rainbow trout and brown trout exposed at the bypass station and in feral fish caught downstream of the WWTP.…”

Seasonal variation in oestrogenic potency and biological effects of wastewater treatment works effluents assessed using ERE-GFP transgenic zebrafish embryo-larvae

“…Evidence from both field and laboratory studies have shown a clear link between exposures to WwTW effluents and adverse health effects in aquatic wildlife. In fish, these effects include altered reproductive development (Tetreault et al, 2012;Thorpe et al, 2009), genotoxic damage (Rocco et al, 2012;Wilhelm et al, 2018), alterations in immune function (Borgia et al, 2018;Liney et al, 2006), cytotoxic and oxidative damage (Gagné et al, 2006;Lacaze et al, 2017b), nephrotoxicity (Liney et al, 2006) and alterations in behaviour (Gauthier and Vijayan, 2020;McCallum et al, 2017).…”

Wastewater alters feeding rate but not vitellogenin level of Gammarus fossarum (Amphipoda)

“…Consequently, micropollutants are detected at concentrations in the ng to mg/L range in surface waters, which may elicit effects on aquatic organisms (Han Tran et al, 2018;Wilhelm et al, 2018;Ashauer, 2016;Malaj et al, 2014).…”