What you extract is what you see: Optimising the preparation of water and wastewater samples for in vitro bioassays

Abstract

The assessment of water quality is crucial for safeguarding drinking water resources and ecosystem integrity. To this end, sample preparation and extraction is critically important, especially when investigating emerging contaminants and the toxicity of water samples. As extraction methods are rarely optimised for bioassays but rather adopted from chemical analysis, this may result in a misrepresentation of the actual toxicity.In this study, surface water, groundwater, hospital and municipal wastewater were used to characterise the impacts of common sample preparation techniques (acidification, filtration and solid phase extraction (SPE)) on the outcomes of eleven in vitro bioassays. The latter covered endocrine activity (reporter gene assays for estrogen, androgen, aryl-hydrocarbon, retinoic acid, retinoid X, vitamin D, thyroid receptor), mutagenicity (Ames fluctuation test), genotoxicity (umu test) and cytotoxicity. Water samples extracted using different SPE sorbents (Oasis HLB, Supelco ENVI-Carb+, Telos C18/ENV) at acidic and neutral pH were compared for their performance in recovering biological effects.Acidification, commonly used for stabilisation, significantly altered the endocrine activity and toxicity of most (waste)water samples. Sample filtration did not affect the majority of endpoints but in certain cases affected the (anti-)estrogenic and dioxin-like activities. SPE extracts (10.4× final concentration), including WWTP effluents, induced significant endocrine effects that were not detected in aqueous samples (0.63× final concentration), such as estrogenic, (anti-)androgenic and dioxin-like activities. When ranking the SPE methods using multivariate Pareto optimisation an extraction with Telos C18/ENV at pH 7 was most effective in recovering toxicity. At the same time, these extracts were highly cytotoxic masking the endpoint under investigation. Compared to that, extraction at pH 2.5 enriched less cytotoxicity.In summary, our study demonstrates that sample preparation and extraction critically affect the outcome of bioassays when assessing the toxicity of water samples. Depending on the

Identification of malachite green in industrial wastewater using lignocellulose biomass composite bio-sorbent and UPLC-MS/MS: a green environmental approach

“…SPE is the most widespread sample treatment technique to isolate the compounds of interest from a variety of complex matrices, such as wastewater, biological samples and beverages [31]. The alteration of sorbents with various functional groups or precipitates changes the extraction properties of the sorbents.…”

Poison in paradise: increase of toxic effects in restored sections of two rivers jeopardizes the success of hydromorphological restoration measures

“…No. 516-0885, 90 mm, particle retention: 1.0 µm, Darmstadt, Germany), and the filtrate was passed through conditioned Oasis HLB cartridges (200 mg, Waters, Milford, MA, USA) to capture mid-polar and non-polar substances [63]. Furthermore, a SPE blank was prepared by passing 1000 mL ultrapure water through conditioned cartridges.…”

National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI) Agriculture Sector Technology Roadmap 2021

“…In addition, not all constituents have toxicology that has been characterized, and long-term carcinogenetic effects can be difficult to predit. 158,159,160 The toxicity of endocrine disruptors is one example of the challenges these chemicals present. Zebrafish exposure and other bioassays have validity, but the analysis still presents a significant level of uncertainty.…”