{"title":"Occurrence, persistence, and removal of contaminants of emerging concern through drinking water treatment processes – A case study in South Africa","authors":"Paki Israel Dikobe , Memory Tekere , Vhahangwele Masindi , Spyros Foteinis","doi":"10.1016/j.enmm.2024.100997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The presence of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in drinking water is a global issue of concern. Evidence galore of the potential impacts of CECs on human health, yet there are no concrete guidelines or regulatory oversight to effectively tackle CECs exposure from drinking water. As a result, CECs concentrations can be well-above the suggested thresholds, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to undeveloped or underdeveloped (waste)water treatment infrastructure and/or substandard treatment practices. Yet, CECs occurrence and particularly their persistence during drinking water treatment is not well-documented in such settings. For this reason, here, the occurrence of 19 CECs was monitored across the different treatment steps (coagulation, sedimentation, sand filtration, and chlorination) of a typical water treatment plant in South Africa using UPLC-MS/MS. The most dominant CEC was, by and large, efavirenz (1103.9 ± 743.1 ng/L in raw water) tracing back to antiretroviral treatment for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and revealing unpleasant realities about the HIV epidemic crisis in Sub-Sahara Africa (Global South) and possible drug abuse for illicit drug (whoonga/nyaope) manufacturing. For the other examined CECs, their concentrations in drinking water were, from higher to lower score: 1,7 dimethylxanthine (403.3 ± 244.2 ng/L) ≥ emtricitabine (358.4 ± 250.8 ng/L) ≥ atrazine (227.0 ± 61.0 ng/L) ≥ caffeine (194.1 ± 216.5 ng/L) ≥ tramadol (189.5 ± 112.4 ng/L) ≥ carbamazepine (122.9 ± 24.5 ng/L) ≥ sulfamethoxazole (107.8 ± 55.1 ng/L) ≥ methaqualone (72.2 ± 20.5 ng/L) ≥ benzotriazole (61.2 ± 18.8 ng/L) ≥ trimethoprim (59.1 ± 30.4 ng/L) ≥ cetirizine (33.7 ± 19.6 ng/L) ≥ codeine (26.7 ± 57.2 ng/L) ≥ naproxen (25.7 ± 11.3 ng/L) ≥ venlafaxine (21.6 ± 16.3 ng/L) ≥ acetaminophen (17.7 ± 25.8 ng/L) ≥ benzoylecgonine (9.6 ± 5.1 ng/L) ≥ methamphetamine (8.6 ± 6.4 ng/L) ≥ diclofenac (5.2 ± 7.9 ng/L). The large standard deviations indicate the high temporal variations in CECs releases in freshwater. The silver lining is that in the final drinking water, CECs concentrations are greatly reduced, with percentage removals in the range of 9 % (diclofenac) to 75 % (efavirenz). Nonetheless, in LMICs tangible limits and regulatory frameworks for the effective removal of CECs from drinking water, along with more robust polishing techniques such as activated carbon treatment, are missing and should be introduced to avoid the worst effects of CECs exposure.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11716,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring and Management","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100997"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215153224000850/pdfft?md5=f50c0967419f7e9072ae435115ee2fa5&pid=1-s2.0-S2215153224000850-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215153224000850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The presence of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in drinking water is a global issue of concern. Evidence galore of the potential impacts of CECs on human health, yet there are no concrete guidelines or regulatory oversight to effectively tackle CECs exposure from drinking water. As a result, CECs concentrations can be well-above the suggested thresholds, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to undeveloped or underdeveloped (waste)water treatment infrastructure and/or substandard treatment practices. Yet, CECs occurrence and particularly their persistence during drinking water treatment is not well-documented in such settings. For this reason, here, the occurrence of 19 CECs was monitored across the different treatment steps (coagulation, sedimentation, sand filtration, and chlorination) of a typical water treatment plant in South Africa using UPLC-MS/MS. The most dominant CEC was, by and large, efavirenz (1103.9 ± 743.1 ng/L in raw water) tracing back to antiretroviral treatment for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and revealing unpleasant realities about the HIV epidemic crisis in Sub-Sahara Africa (Global South) and possible drug abuse for illicit drug (whoonga/nyaope) manufacturing. For the other examined CECs, their concentrations in drinking water were, from higher to lower score: 1,7 dimethylxanthine (403.3 ± 244.2 ng/L) ≥ emtricitabine (358.4 ± 250.8 ng/L) ≥ atrazine (227.0 ± 61.0 ng/L) ≥ caffeine (194.1 ± 216.5 ng/L) ≥ tramadol (189.5 ± 112.4 ng/L) ≥ carbamazepine (122.9 ± 24.5 ng/L) ≥ sulfamethoxazole (107.8 ± 55.1 ng/L) ≥ methaqualone (72.2 ± 20.5 ng/L) ≥ benzotriazole (61.2 ± 18.8 ng/L) ≥ trimethoprim (59.1 ± 30.4 ng/L) ≥ cetirizine (33.7 ± 19.6 ng/L) ≥ codeine (26.7 ± 57.2 ng/L) ≥ naproxen (25.7 ± 11.3 ng/L) ≥ venlafaxine (21.6 ± 16.3 ng/L) ≥ acetaminophen (17.7 ± 25.8 ng/L) ≥ benzoylecgonine (9.6 ± 5.1 ng/L) ≥ methamphetamine (8.6 ± 6.4 ng/L) ≥ diclofenac (5.2 ± 7.9 ng/L). The large standard deviations indicate the high temporal variations in CECs releases in freshwater. The silver lining is that in the final drinking water, CECs concentrations are greatly reduced, with percentage removals in the range of 9 % (diclofenac) to 75 % (efavirenz). Nonetheless, in LMICs tangible limits and regulatory frameworks for the effective removal of CECs from drinking water, along with more robust polishing techniques such as activated carbon treatment, are missing and should be introduced to avoid the worst effects of CECs exposure.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring and Management is a journal devoted to the publication of peer reviewed original research on environmental nanotechnologies, monitoring studies and management for water, soil , waste and human health samples. Critical review articles, short communications and scientific policy briefs are also welcome. The journal will include all environmental matrices except air. Nanomaterials were suggested as efficient cost-effective and environmental friendly alternative to existing treatment materials, from the standpoints of both resource conservation and environmental remediation. The journal aims to receive papers in the field of nanotechnology covering; Developments of new nanosorbents for: •Groundwater, drinking water and wastewater treatment •Remediation of contaminated sites •Assessment of novel nanotechnologies including sustainability and life cycle implications Monitoring and Management papers should cover the fields of: •Novel analytical methods applied to environmental and health samples •Fate and transport of pollutants in the environment •Case studies covering environmental monitoring and public health •Water and soil prevention and legislation •Industrial and hazardous waste- legislation, characterisation, management practices, minimization, treatment and disposal •Environmental management and remediation