Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions?

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic.Centro de Investigaciones del Medioambient

An Environmental Risk Assessment for Human-Use Trimethoprim in European Surface Waters

An environmental risk assessment (ERA) for the aquatic compartment in Europe from human use was developed for the old antibiotic Trimethoprim (TMP), comparing exposure and effects. The exposure assessment is based on European risk assessment default values on one hand and is refined with documented human use figures in Western Europe from IMS Health and measured removal in wastewater treatment on the other. The resulting predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) are compared with measured environmental concentrations (MECs) from Europe, based on a large dataset incorporating more than 1800 single MECs. On the effects side, available chronic ecotoxicity data from the literature were complemented by additional, new chronic results for fish and other organisms. Based on these data, chronic-based deterministic predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) were derived as well as two different probabilistic PNEC ranges. The ERA compares surface water PECs and MECs with aquatic PNECs for TMP. Based on all the risk characterization ratios (PEC÷PNEC as well as MEC÷PNEC) and risk graphs, there is no significant risk to surface waters

Halogenation of Pharmaceuticals Is an Impediment to Ready Biodegradability

International audienceFor pharmacological reasons many active organic pharmaceutical substances (AOPSs) are singly or multiply halogenated. Halogenation can confer optimised steric fitting of an AOPS to its molecular receptor; moreover, by increasing the lipophilicity of a compound, passive permeation through bilipid membranes into target cells is enhanced. As halogenation is widely suspected to inhibit biodegradability in wastewater treatment plants, the relationship of halogenation vs. ready biodegradability was investigated. Among 230 AOPSs with empirical ready biodegradability data, all 70 halogenated AOPSs are not readily biodegradable, and halogenation is confirmed to be an impediment to ready biodegradability. As a counterexample to halogenation, hydrophilic substitutions (hydroxy, carboxylic-acid or terminal-amine groups) are positively correlated with ready biodegradability. Regarding halogenation, therefore, pharmacological goals stand in stark contrast to environmental goals. Possible ideas toward solutions for this contradiction are discussed

Are newer pharmaceuticals more recalcitrant to removal in wastewater treatment?

International audienc

Long-Term Drift in Several Properties of Newer Pharmaceuticals: Are They Increasingly Recalcitrant to Removal in Wastewater Treatment?

International audienceThis study investigates whether newer pharmaceutical organic active substances (OASs) are more recalcitrant tobiodegradation than older ones, and examines possible consequences in terms of removal in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). 1850 unique small-molecule OASs were considered; for 1641 of them a year of introduction was found, ranging from 1840 to present. Experimental data on (i) n-octanol/water partition coefficients (logKow), (ii) ready biodegradability – as defined by the OECD Test Guidelines 301 (1992) – and (iii) removal in WWTPs, were collected from the literature as well as chemical databases; then the dataset was expanded using the common, free, quantitative structure-property software EPISuite (US EPA, 2017). After checking the goodness of fit of EPISuite predictions against the available experimental data, time series statistics were applied to the dataset.Molecular mass and logKow values displayed a positive shift over time with newly introduced OASs (Figure 1), hardly compatible with the hypothesis of same parent distributions. Readily biodegradable compounds were found to represent a relatively small proportion of all OASs, and this proportion tended to decrease over time. However, despite newer OASs being less biodegradable, the EPISuite-predicted removal in WWTPs showed an increase over time for the upper half of the values, reflecting an expected increase in adsorption to sludge. Likely reasons for this result will be discussed, together with the value of modelling tools like EPISuite for basic, initial environmental fate estimation for OASs

Assessment, Pretreatment and Treatment of Pharmaceutical Production Wastewaters in the Roche Group

The manufacturing of pharmaceuticals also produces wastes, mainly wastewaters (WWs). These WWs must be responsibly managed. Sometimes, the organic contents of these WWs are not easily removable in standard WW treatment, hence technical options must be investigated to pretreat such WWs in order to remove or destroy the recalcitrant compounds, mostly the active pharmaceutical ingredients themselves. This contribution from a pharmaceuticals company describes WW assessment and management principles, the search for pretreatment options and several case studies on WW (pre)treatment at some pharma production sites of the Roche Group

Meeting Report: Risk Assessment of Tamiflu® use under Pandemic Conditions

On 3 October 2007, 40 participants with diverse expertise attended the workshop Tamiflu and the Environment: Implications of Use under Pandemic Conditions to assess the potential human health impact and environmental hazards associated with use of Tamiflu during an influenza pandemic. Based on the identification and risk-ranking of knowledge gaps, the consensus was that oseltamivir ethylester-phosphate (OE-P) and oseltamivir carboxylate (OC) were unlikely to pose an ecotoxicologic hazard to freshwater organisms. OC in river water might hasten the generation of OC-resistance in wildfowl, but this possibility seems less likely than the potential disruption that could be posed by OC and other pharmaceuticals to the operation of sewage treatment plants. The workgroup members agreed on the following research priorities: a) available data on the ecotoxicology of OE-P and OC should be published ; b) risk should be assessed for OC-contaminated river water generating OC-resistant viruses in wildfowl ; c) sewage treatment plant functioning due to microbial inhibition by neuraminidase inhibitors and other antimicrobials used during a pandemic should be investigated ; and d) realistic worst-case exposure scenarios should be developed. Additional modeling would be useful to identify localized areas within river catchments that might be prone to high pharmaceutical concentrations in sewage treatment plant effluent. Ongoing seasonal use of Tamiflu in Japan offers opportunities for researchers to assess how much OC enters and persists in the aquatic environment

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions?

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic.Fil: Boxall, Alistair B. A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Rudd, Murray A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Brooks, Bryan W.. Baylor University; Estados UnidosFil: Caldwell, Daniel J.. Johnson & Johnson; Estados UnidosFil: Choi, Kyungho. Seoul National University; Corea del SurFil: Hickmann, Silke. Umweltbundesamt; AlemaniaFil: Innes, Elizabeth. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Ostapyk, Kim. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Staveley, Jane P.. Exponent; Estados UnidosFil: Verslycke, Tim. Gradient; Estados UnidosFil: Ankley, Gerald T.. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados UnidosFil: Beazley, Karen F.. Dalhousie University Halifax; CanadáFil: Belanger, Scott E.. Procter And Gamble; Estados UnidosFil: Berninger, Jason P.. Baylor University; Estados UnidosFil: Carriquiriborde, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Departamento de Química. Centro de Investigaciones del Medio Ambiente; ArgentinaFil: Coors, Anja. Ect Oekotoxikologie Gmbh; AlemaniaFil: DeLeo, Paul C.. American Cleaning Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Dyer, Scott D.. Procter And Gamble; Estados UnidosFil: Ericson, Jon F.. Pfizer Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Gagné, François. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Giesy, John P.. University of Saskatchewan; CanadáFil: Gouin, Todd. Unilever; Reino UnidoFil: Hallstrom, Lars. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Karlsson, Maja V.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Joakim Larsson, D.G.. University of Göteborg; AlemaniaFil: Lazorchak, James M.. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados UnidosFil: Mastrocco, Frank. Pfizer Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: McLaughlin, Alison. Health Canada; CanadáFil: McMaster, Mark E.. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Meyerhoff, Roger D.. Eli Lilly And Company; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Roberta. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Parrott, Joanne L.. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Snape, Jason R.. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Murray-Smith, Richard. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Servos, Mark R.. University of Waterloo; CanadáFil: Sibley, Paul K.. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: Straub, Jürg Oliver. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; SuizaFil: Szabo, Nora D.. University of Ottawa; CanadáFil: Topp, Edward. Agriculture Et Agroalimentaire Canada; CanadáFil: Tetreault, Gerald R.. University of Waterloo; CanadáFil: Trudeau, Vance L.. University of Ottawa; CanadáFil: Van Der Kraak, Glen. University of Guelph; Canad