By Sally Brown, University of Washington
Abstracts of these resources are available in the searchable Information Portal offered to Northwest Biosolids members.
Occurrence and fate of pharmaceutical products and by-products from resource to drinking water
Pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds in U.S. drinking water https://nwbiosolids.org/resource/pharmaceuticals-and-endocrine-disrupting-compounds-us-drinking-water
Seasonal variations in concentrations of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in drinking water and reclaimed wastewater in Southern California
A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States — I) Groundwater
Pharmaceuticals, perfluorosurfactants, and other organic wastewater compounds in public drinking water wells in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the drinking water - are biosolids to blame?
Well, in a very general sense, the answer is yes. We have biosolids because we have people. We also have animal manure because most of us people are not vegetarians and like to have the occasional steak or fried chicken. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products are everywhere in our environment, including birds, fish and polar ice caps. This is because of two things; with over 7 billion people on the planet it is very difficult to find any place or animal that has not been impacted by our presence, and we are now able to detect things in extraordinarily low concentrations.
The library this month is all about pharmaceuticals and personal care products in our groundwater and drinking water. This comes from a request from our local Department of Ecology where a well sample showed signs of anthropogenic influence in the parts per trillion level- typically at 1-2 parts per trillion over the detection limit. What exactly is a trillion? A trillion is a thousand billion which in turn is a thousand million.
1 part per trillion = 1 in 1 000 000 000 000
In order to answer the question- are biosolids to blame, we have 5 articles that present results from groundwater surveys where people have looked for pharmaceuticals and other signs of human impact. If you take those 7 billion and combine those with the parts per trillion you are bound to find something- and all of the papers in the library did. I could stop this blurb right here, but I won’t. You can also stop reading right here and I won’t blame you if you do.
The first paper is a survey of the literature- always a good way to start. The authors divide pharmaceuticals into 24 classes of which 4 main groups dominate the literature and concerns. Those groups are:
• NSAIDs- non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen and diclofenac)
• Anticonvulsants- read carbamazepine as the main culprit
• Lipid regulators- drugs to lower cholesterol such as gemfibrozil or lopid.
The first table is an exhaustive (or exhausting) list of different types of drugs and some of their metabolites along with references. There is a great figure showing pathways of drugs to water with households and animal farming as the two points of origin. If you want to skip the article and just look at the figure - it is copied below.
The next table tells you what percentage of what you take ends up in your pee- aka excretion rates of different pharmaceuticals. It is important to realize that we don’t absorb a relatively high percentage of the pills that we take. From there, there are figures showing concentrations in surface waters for NSAIDS and antibiotics from a wide range of sources primarily in the US and Europe. There is also a discussion of likely fate in the environment.
The second paper is a broad survey of US drinking water including water from 19 water utilities servicing 28 million people. Source water (rivers and lakes primarily) were also sampled. Drugs were found, typically at concentrations less than 10 ng l or 10 ppt and were more common in source waters than in water following treatment:
The 11 compounds which were detected in greater than half
of source waters were atenolol, atrazine, carbamazepine,
estrone, gemfibrozil, meprobamate, naproxen, phenytoin,
sulfamethoxazole, TCEP, and trimethoprim.
It turns out that the type of chemical oxidation used at the plant (ozone or chlorine) impacts whether compounds will be identified. There is a table with compounds, minimum detection limits, range of concentrations in source and treated waters and removal efficiency. To reiterate the initial point- between the 7 billion and parts per trillion it is very hard to not find something if you look.
The third paper focuses on water in Southern California where source water for drinking is from the Colorado River and the CA State Water Project. Concentrations of compounds in source waters were highest when water flows were lowest and at the high points were comparable to those in reclaimed wastewaters. No surprise based on the first two papers. Concentrations were also generally lower in the treated waters in comparison to the source waters. The authors site wastewater discharge into the source waters as the primary source of the compounds.
So what if your drinking water comes from a well instead of a river? The last two papers in the library focus on concentrations of these compounds (here also personal care products and other anthropogenic indicators as well as pharmaceuticals) in groundwater. The first of the two is from the USGS group that has been a leader in finding these compounds in waters, soils and biosolids. They sampled waters where impacts were expected- near landfills, unsewered communities and animal feedlots. They found at least one detect in 81% of the 47 sites sampled. The most common detects were insect repellants (35%), bisphenol A (30%), tri(2-chloroethyl) phosphate [a flame retardant] (30%), sulfamethoxazole [antibiotic] (23%) and 4- octylphenol monoethoxylate [from detergents] (19%). They note that some of the hits may have come from the process of installing the sampling wells. The last study sampled wells in Cape Cod, MA where most residents are on septic systems. Twenty wells were sampled for 92 compounds and at least one of those 92 were found in 75% of the wells. The most commonly found compounds were an antibiotic (60% of the samples) and perfluorooctane sulfonate- a surfactant (40% of the samples). It appears that many of the residents in Cape Cod got the Stainmaster carpets. Nitrate concentrations in water were strongly correlated with PCPPs. Septic systems are the source of the nitrates and nitrates are much easier and cheaper to test for than pharmaceuticals.
So there you have it. As I said early on in this summary, it is very hard to find pristine waters. Even if you buy bottled, that bottle is often plastic and will often leave some trace. Buying bottled also leads to huge issues of waste and more evidence of our imprint on this planet. Lowering our footprint is the solution here, not banning biosolids.