Advertisement

Triclosan in Treated Wastewater from a City Wastewater Treatment Plant and its Environmental Risk Assessment

  • S. MohanEmail author
  • P. Balakrishnan
Article

Abstract

Triclosan (TCS) is a potential endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC), which produces an adverse impact on aquatic life and human beings. Wastewater discharge is considered as the primary source of triclosan in water bodies. The study is aimed to investigate the occurrence and environmental risk of triclosan released by municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). An analytical protocol was developed and validated to determine the presence of TCS in the samples through offline solid-phase extraction (SPE) and liquid chromatography - electron spray ionization (ESI)—quadrupole mass spectrum (LC/ESI/MS). The limit of detection and quantification of protocol was estimated as 2.8 ng/L and 6.25 ng/L, respectively. The season-wise influent and effluent samples from two WWTP in Chennai, India, were monitored. The TCS concentrations in samples were found in the range of 443 to 1757 ng/L. The Risk Quotient (RQ) method was performed to evaluate the environmental (ecotoxicological and human health) risk associated with the exposure of TCS-containing wastewater. The results of the study revealed that primary producer (algae) was highly vulnerable to exposure of TCS in the aquatic environment. The estimated daily intake of TCS was much lower than the reference dosage, and this indicates that TCS did not produce any considerable risk to human health. Also, it suggested that additional treatment was required for complete removal of triclosan residues.

Keywords

Endocrine-disrupting compounds Triclosan LC/ESI/MS Environmental risk assessment Risk quotient 

Notes

References

  1. Agüera, A., Fernández-Alba, A. R., Piedra, L., Mézcua, M., & Gómez, M. J. (2003). Evaluation of triclosan and biphenylol in marine sediments and urban wastewaters by pressurized liquid extraction and solid phase extraction followed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta, 480(2), 193–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(03)00040-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiello, A. E., Larson, E. L., & Levy, S. B. (2007). Consumer antibacterial soaps: effective or just risky? Clinical Infectious Diseases, 45(Supplement_2), S137–S147.  https://doi.org/10.1086/519255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archana, G., Dhodapkar, R., & Kumar, A. (2017). Ecotoxicological risk assessment and seasonal variation of some pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the sewage treatment plant and surface water bodies (lakes). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(9), 446.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6148-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bester, K. (2005). Fate of triclosan and triclosan-methyl in sewage treatment plants and surface waters. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 49(1), 9–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-004-0155-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bever, C. S., Rand, A. A., Nording, M., Taft, D., Kalanetra, K. M., Mills, D. A., et al. (2018). Effects of triclosan in breast milk on the infant fecal microbiome. Chemosphere, 203, 467–473.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bock, M., Lyndall, J., Barber, T., Fuchsman, P., Perruchon, E., & Capdevielle, M. (2010). Probabilistic application of a fugacity model to predict triclosan fate during wastewater treatment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 6(3), 393–404.  https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2009-070.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brausch, J. M., & Rand, G. M. (2011). A review of personal care products in the aquatic environment: environmental concentrations and toxicity. Chemosphere, 82(11), 1518–1532.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.11.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The world fact book https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html Accessed on 2 May 2018.
  9. Chalew, T. E., & Halden, R. U. (2009). Environmental exposure of aquatic and terrestrial biota to triclosan and triclocarban 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(1), 4–13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00284.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, F. K., Shiea, J., & Tsai, H. J. (2017). Urinary concentrations of triclosan, benzophenone-3, and bisphenol a in Taiwanese children and adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1545.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coogan, M. A., Edziyie, R. E., La Point, T. W., & Venables, B. J. (2007). Algal bioaccumulation of triclocarban, triclosan, and methyl-triclosan in a North Texas wastewater treatment plant receiving stream. Chemosphere, 67(10), 1911–1918.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.12.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daughton, C. G., & Ternes, T. A. (1999). Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents of subtle change? Environmental Health Perspectives, 107(Suppl 6), 907.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.99107s6907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamanti-Kandarakis, E., Bourguignon, J. P., Giudice, L. C., Hauser, R., Prins, G. S., Soto, A. M., et al. (2009). Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: an Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocrine Reviews, 30(4), 293–342.17.  https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2009-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dussault, È. B., Balakrishnan, V. K., Sverko, E. D., Solomon, K. R., & Sibley, P. K. (2008). Toxicity of human pharmaceuticals and personal care products to benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27(2), 425–432.  https://doi.org/10.1897/07-354R.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EPA, U. (2003). Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite, version 4.10. Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics (OPPT) and Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC), Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. European Union Commission implementing decision (EU) 2016/110: Not approving triclosan as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product type1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016D0110. Accessed on 10 March 2018.
  17. Feng, Y., Zhang, P., Zhang, Z., Shi, J., Jiao, Z., & Shao, B. (2016). Endocrine disrupting effects of triclosan on the placenta in pregnant rats. PLoS One, 11(5), e0154758.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiss, E. M., Rule, K. L., & Vikesland, P. J. (2007). Formation of chloroform and other chlorinated byproducts by chlorination of triclosan-containing antibacterial products. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(7), 2387–2394.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es062227l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foran, C. M., Bennett, E. R., & Benson, W. H. (2000). Developmental evaluation of a potential non-steroidal estrogen: triclosan. Marine Environmental Research, 50(1–5), 153–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1136(00)00080-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo, J., & Iwata, H. (2017). Risk assessment of triclosan in the global environment using a probabilistic approach. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 143, 111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.05.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakimska, A., Huerta, B., Bargańska, Ż., Kot-Wasik, A., Rodríguez-Mozaz, S., & Barceló, D. (2013). Development of a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry procedure for determination of endocrine disrupting compounds in fish from Mediterranean rivers. Journal of Chromatography A, 1306, 44–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2013.07.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolpin, D. W., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Thurman, E. M., Zaugg, S. D., Barber, L. B., & Buxton, H. T. (2002). Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999− 2000: a national reconnaissance. Environmental Science & Technology, 36(6), 1202–1211.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es011055j.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kookana, R. S., Ying, G. G., & Waller, N. J. (2011). Triclosan: its occurrence, fate and effects in the Australian environment. Water Science and Technology, 63(4), 598–604.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.205
  24. Lyndall, J., Barber, T., Mahaney, W., Bock, M., & Capdevielle, M. (2017). Evaluation of triclosan in Minnesota lakes and rivers: part I–ecological risk assessment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 142, 578–587.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.04.049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masoner, J. R., Kolpin, D. W., Furlong, E. T., Cozzarelli, I. M., Gray, J. L., & Schwab, E. A. (2014). Contaminants of emerging concern in fresh leachate from landfills in the conterminous United States. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 16(10), 2335–2354.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C4EM00124A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer, F. L., & Ellersieck, M. R. (1986). Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals (pp. 5–73). Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service https://www.cerc.usgs.gov/Assets/UploadedFiles/ExternalDocs/90506-intro.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018
  27. Mottaleb, M. A., Usenko, S., O’Donnell, J. G., Ramirez, A. J., Brooks, B. W., & Chambliss, C. K. (2009). Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry screening methods for select UV filters, synthetic musks, alkylphenols, an antimicrobial agent, and an insect repellent in fish. Journal of Chromatography A, 1216(5), 815–823.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oliveira, R., Domingues, I., Grisolia, C. K., & Soares, A. M. (2009). Effects of triclosan on zebrafish early-life stages and adults. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 16(6), 679–688.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0119-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orvos, D. R., Versteeg, D. J., Inauen, J., Capdevielle, M., Rothenstein, A., & Cunningham, V. (2002). Aquatic toxicity of triclosan. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(7), 1338–1349.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620210703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rahman, M. S., Molla, A. H., Saha, N., & Rahman, A. (2012). Study on heavy metals levels and its risk assessment in some edible fishes from Bangshi River, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Food Chemistry, 134(4), 1847–1854.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.03.099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reiss, R., Mackay, N., Habig, C., & Griffin, J. (2002). An ecological risk assessment for triclosan in lotic systems following discharge from wastewater treatment plants in the United States. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(11), 2483–2492.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620211130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ripp, J. 1996. Analytical detection limit guidance and laboratory guide for determining method detection limits. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Laboratory Certification Program Report No. PUBL-TS-056-96. Madison, WI, USA, 30 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Roberts, J., Price, O. R., Bettles, N., Rendal, C., & van Egmond, R. (2014). Accounting for dissociation and photolysis: a review of the algal toxicity of triclosan. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(11), 2551–2559.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salim S (2016) Fish consumption pattern in India, exports - overview http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/10991/1/Food%20and%20Beverage%20News_Shyam%20Salim%202016.pdf. Assessed on 10 March 2018.
  35. Santos, M. M. D., Brehm, F. D. A., Filippe, T. C., Knapik, H. G., & Azevedo, J. C. R. D. (2016). Occurrence and risk assessment of parabens and triclosan in surface waters of southern Brazil: a problem of emerging compounds in an emerging country. RBRH, 21(3), 603–617.  https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0331.011616018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shanmugam, G., Ramasamy, K., Selvaraj, K. K., Sampath, S., & Ramaswamy, B. R. (2014). Triclosan in fresh water fish gibelion catla from the Kaveri River, India, and its consumption risk assessment. Environmental Forensics, 15(3), 207–212.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2014.930940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tamura, I., Kagota, K. I., Yasuda, Y., Yoneda, S., Morita, J., Nakada, N., et al. (2013). Ecotoxicity and screening level ecotoxicological risk assessment of five antimicrobial agents: triclosan, triclocarban, resorcinol, phenoxyethanol and p-thymol. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 33(11), 1222–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.2771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. TGD, E (2003). Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances, and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Part I–IV, European Chemicals Bureau (ECB), JRC-Ispra (VA), Italy, April 2003. Part II. European Commission Joint Research Centre. EUR, 20418.Google Scholar
  39. Thomaidi, V. S., Matsoukas, C., & Stasinakis, A. S. (2017). Risk assessment of triclosan released from sewage treatment plants in European rivers using a combination of risk quotient methodology and Monte Carlo simulation. Science of the Total Environment, 603, 487–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Triclosan List B Case No. 2340. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. September. EPA 739-RO-8009. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/2340red.pdf. Accessed on 10 March 2018.
  41. United State Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2016). FDA issues final rule of safety and effectiveness on antibacterial soaps. https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm517478.htm. Accessed on 10 March 2018.
  42. Wang, Y., Li, P., Liu, Y., Chen, B., Li, J., & Wang, X. (2013). Determination of triclocarban, triclosan and methyl-triclosan in environmental water by silicon dioxide/polystyrene composite microspheres solid-phase extraction combined with HPLC-ESI-MS. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 1(02), 13.  https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2013.12003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Health Organization (WHO. (2002). Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. International Program on Chemical Safety. http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/endocrine_disruptors/en/. Accessed on 10 March 2018.
  44. Yang, L. H., Ying, G. G., Su, H. C., Stauber, J. L., Adams, M. S., & Binet, M. T. (2008). Growth-inhibiting effects of 12 antibacterial agents and their mixtures on the freshwater microalga pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27(5), 1201–1208.  https://doi.org/10.1897/07-471.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ying, G. G., & Kookana, R. S. (2007). Triclosan in wastewaters and biosolids from Australian wastewater treatment plants. Environment International, 33(2), 199–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental and Water Resources Engineering Division, Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations