Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 28, pp 27756–27767 | Cite as

A study through batch tests on the analytical determination and the fate and removal of methamphetamine in the biological treatment of domestic wastewater

  • Maria Rosaria Boni
  • Agostina Chiavola
  • Camilla Di MarcantonioEmail author
  • Silvia Sbaffoni
  • Stefano Biagioli
  • Giancarlo Cecchini
  • Alessandro Frugis
New Challenges in the Application of Advanced Oxidation Processes

Abstract

Methamphetamine (MET) is one of the most used illicit drugs in Europe and is recognized as one of the Emerging Organic Micropollutants. It is discharged into the sewerage system from different sources and then enters the wastewater treatment plants. The present study aimed at providing a better knowledge of the fate of MET through the wastewater treatment plants. The study addressed two different issues: (1) optimization of the analytical methods for MET determination in both liquid and sludge phases, focusing on the effects of potentially interfering substances and (2) investigation on the behaviour of MET in the biological treatment process, with specific concern for the biomass activity at different drug concentrations. Results of the study on issue 1 highlighted that the applied analytical method for MET determination (UPLC–MS/MS) is affected by the main components of wastewater for about 9–23%, which is comparable with the uncertainties of the method (about ± 28%). The method showed also to be repeatable and reliable (recovery > 75%; repeatability < 10–15%; bias uncertainty < 30%), and relatively easy-to-use. Therefore, it can be considered suitable for measurements on routine base in the WWTPs. Batch tests conducted to address issue 2 showed total removal of 84, 90, and 96% at 50, 100, and 200 ng/L initial MET concentration, respectively, for a contact time of 6 h. The removal process was mainly ascribed to the biological activity of both heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria. The pseudo first-order kinetic model provided the best fitting of the experimental data of the overall biological processes at all the tested concentrations. Furthermore, the respirometric tests showed that MET does not induce any inhibition. Adsorption of MET on activated sludge was always very low.

Keywords

Biodegradation Emerging contaminants Domestic wastewater Illicit drugs Methamphetamine Respirometric test 

Supplementary material

11356_2018_1321_MOESM1_ESM.docx (56 kb)
ESM 1 Fig. 7 Batch tests at blank condition (MET concentration equal to 0 ng/L). Time-profiles of (a) COD removal efficiency and (b) ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite concentrations (error bars indicate the standard deviation) (DOCX 55 kb)

References

  1. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen HR, Hansen M, Kjølholt J, Stuer-Lauridsen F, Ternes T, Halling-Sørensen B (2005) Assessment of the importance of sorption for steroid estrogens removal during activated sludge treatment. Chemosphere 61(1):139–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.02.088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrés-Costa MJ, Andreu V, Picó Y (2017) Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry as a tool for wastewater-based epidemiology: assessing new psychoactive substances and other human biomarkers. TrAC. Trends Anal Chem 94:21–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2017.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagnall JP, Evans SE, Wort MT, Lubben AT, Kasprzyk-Hordern B (2012) Using chiral liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry for the analysis of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in surface and wastewater at the enantiomeric level. J Chromatogr A 1249:115–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2012.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagnall JP, Malia L, Lubben A, Kasprzyk-hordern B (2013) Stereoselective biodegradation of amphetamine and methamphetamine in river microcosms. Water Res 47(15):5708–5718.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker DR, Kasprzyk-Hordern B (2013) Spatial and temporal occurrence of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in the aqueous environment and during wastewater treatment: new developments. Sci Total Environ 454–455:442–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker DR, Kasprzyk-Hordern B (2011) Multi-residue analysis of drugs of abuse in wastewater and surface water by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography-positive electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1218(12):1620–1631.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2011.01.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodík I, Mackuľak T, Fáberová M, Ivanová L (2016) Occurrence of illicit drugs and selected pharmaceuticals in Slovak municipal wastewater. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(20):21098–21105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7415-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boix C, Ibáñez M, Sancho JV, Rambla J, Aranda JL, Ballester S, Hernández F (2015) Fast determination of 40 drugs in water using large volume direct injection liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta 131:719–727.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2014.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castiglioni S, Bijlsma L, Covaci A, et al (2016) Estimating community drug use through wastewater-based epidemiology. Assessing illicit drugs in wastewater: advances in wastewater-based drug epidemiology, EMCDDA Insights 22:17-33, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: https://doi.org/10.2810/017397
  11. Castiglioni S, Thomas KV, Kasprzyk-Hordern B, Vandam L, Griffiths P (2014) Testing wastewater to detect illicit drugs: state of the art, potential and research needs. Sci Total Environ 487:613–620.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiavola A, Tedesco P, Boni MR (2017) Fate of selected drugs in the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for domestic sewage. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9313-x
  13. Deblonde T, Cossu-Leguille C, Hartemann P (2011) Emerging pollutants in wastewater: a review of the literature. Int J Hyg Environ Health 214(6):442–448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devault DA, Néfau T, Levi Y, Karolak S (2016) The removal of illicit drugs and morphine in two waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) under tropical conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(33):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-6032-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Díaz-Cruz MS, García-Galán MJ, Guerra P, Jelic A, Postigo C, Eljarrat E, Farré M, López de Alda MJ, Petrovic M, Barceló D (2009) Analysis of selected emerging contaminants in sewage sludge. TrAC - Trends Anal Chem 28(11):1263–1275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2009.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2017), European drug report 2017: trends and developments, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg doi: https://doi.org/10.2810/610791
  17. Gerrity D, Trenholm RA, Snyder SA (2011) Temporal variability of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in wastewater and the effects of a major sporting event. Water Res 45(17):5399–5411.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gómez MJ, Herrera S, Solé D, García-Calvo E, Fernández-Alba AR (2012) Spatio-temporal evaluation of organic contaminants and their transformation products along a river basin affected by urban, agricultural and industrial pollution. Sci Total Environ 420:134–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irvine RJ, Kostakis C, Felgate PD, Jaehne EJ, Chen C, White JM (2011) Population drug use in Australia: a wastewater analysis. Forensic Sci Int 210(1-3):69–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.01.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nefau T, Karolak S, Castillo L, Boireau V, Levi Y (2013) Presence of illicit drugs and metabolites in influents and effluents of 25 sewage water treatment plants and map of drug consumption in France. Sci Total Environ 461–462:712–722.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (2010) Test No. 209: Activated Sludge, Respiration Inhibition Test. OECD Guidel Test Chem Sect 2 Eff Biot Syst 209:1–18. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264070080-en
  22. Pal R, Megharaj M, Kirkbride KP, Naidu R (2015) Adsorption and desorption characteristics of methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and pseudoephedrine in soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(12):8855–8865.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2940-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2009) Introduction to biostatistics second edition. Dover Publications Inc, NY 1081:1–590.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608117.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vilardi G, Verdone N, Di Palma L (2017) The influence of nitrate on the reduction of hexavalent chromium by zero-valent iron nanoparticles in polluted wastewater. Desalin Water Treat 20710:20710–20258.  https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ying Z, Droste RL (2015) Sorption of microconstituents onto primary sludge. Water Sci Technol 72(5):779–784.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Building and Environmental Engineering (DICEA)Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.ENEA-Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Research Centre CasacciaTechnical Unit for Environmental TechnologiesRomeItaly
  3. 3.ACEA ELABORI SpARomeItaly

Personalised recommendations