Heinz-R. KĂśhler (5546495)

Michael Ziegler (141678)

Rita Triebskorn (515020)

Sabrina Wilhelm (5546498)

Stefanie Jacob (5546492)

Environmental Sciences Europe

FigShare

MOESM2 of Influence of different wastewater treatment technologies on genotoxicity and dioxin-like toxicity in effluent-exposed fish

Additional file 1: Semi-quantitative histolopathological assessment of liver, kidney and gill samples of fish exposed up- and downstream of WWTP B. Samples were classified into five categories described in detail by Wilhelm et al. [17] according to the symptoms displayed. Shortly, class 1 includes samples in control state, class 2 has been assigned to tissue samples displaying slight reactions, class 3 to samples with pronounced reactions, class 4 describes samples expressing beginning destructive alterations and class 5 has been assigned to liver samples with severe cellular destruction. Asterisks and horizontal lines indicate significant differences between two datasets according to likelihood ratio chi-square tests with subsequent Holm correction

MOESM1 of Influence of different wastewater treatment technologies on genotoxicity and dioxin-like toxicity in effluent-exposed fish

Abstract Background In situ exposure of rainbow trout up- and downstream of differently equipped wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and subsequent analyses of micronuclei frequencies and hepatic EROD activities were used to evaluate the impact of the effluents on fish health. Two of the facilities (WWTPs A and B) were conventional treatment plants. WWTP C has been equipped with a powdered activated carbon stage. Here, analyses were conducted prior and subsequent to this upgrade. Results Differences did not only occur when comparing conventional (WWTPs A, B and C prior to the upgrade) and advanced treatment (WWTP C after the upgrade), but also between the conventionally equipped WWTPs. There was no indication for genotoxic effects or pollution-related EROD induction in fish exposed at WWTP A. In contrast, trout exposed at WWTP B expressed strong reactions. However, here, adverse reactions were also observed in fish kept upstream. Similar observations were made for EROD activities in fish exposed at WWTP C prior to the upgrade, whereas genotoxic effects could only be seen in trout kept downstream of this effluent. Upgrading of WWTP C resulted in a significant reduction of both genotoxic effects and EROD levels. Conclusions The results show financial investments in advanced wastewater treatment to be beneficial for aquatic ecosystems, especially when conventional technologies do not sufficiently remove pollutants. Yet, negative impacts of effluents on aquatic organisms can, under certain conditions, also be avoided by conventional treatment. Therefore, we recommend deciding on the necessity and the type of WWTP upgrading on a case-by-case basis

Sabrina Wilhelm

Stefanie Jacob

Michael Ziegler

Heinz-R. Köhler

Rita Triebskorn

Directory of Open Access Journals

Influence of different wastewater treatment technologies on genotoxicity and dioxin-like toxicity in effluent-exposed fish

https://figshare.com/articles/MOESM2_of_Influence_of_different_wastewater_treatment_technologies_on_genotoxicity_and_dioxin-like_toxicity_in_effluent-exposed_fish/6853016

MOESM2 of Influence of different wastewater treatment technologies on genotoxicity and dioxin-like toxicity in effluent-exposed fish

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

FigShare

FigShare

Directory of Open Access Journals