Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Toxizität (2) (entfernen)
Institut
The development of our society contributed to increased occurrence of emerging substances (pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, etc.) in wastewater. Because of their potential hazard on ecosystems and humans, Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) need to adapt to better remove these compounds. Technology or policy development should however comply with sustainable development, e.g. based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) metrics. Nevertheless, the reliability or consistency of LCA results can sometimes be debatable. The main objective of this work was to explore how LCA can better support the implementation of innovative wastewater treatment options, in particular including removal benefits. The method was applied to support solutions for pharmaceuticals elimination from wastewater, regarding: (i) UV technology design, (ii) choice of advanced technology and (iii) centralized or decentralized treatment policy. The assessment approach followed by previous authors based on net impacts calculation seemed very promising to consider both environmental effects induced by treatment plant operation and environmental benefits obtained from pollutants removal. It was therefore applied to compare UV configuration types. LCA outcomes were consistent with degradation kinetics analysis. For the comparison of advanced technologies and policy scenarios, the common practice (net impacts based on EDIP method) was compared to other assessments, to better consider elimination benefits. First, USEtox consensus was applied for the avoided (eco)toxicity impacts, in combination with the recent method ReCiPe for generated impacts. Then, an eco-efficiency indicator (EFI) was developed to weigh the treatment efforts (generated impacts based on EDIP and ReCiPe methods) by the average removal efficiency (overcoming (eco)toxicity uncertainty issues). In total, the four types of comparative assessment showed the same trends: (i) ozonation and activated carbon perform better than UV irradiation, and (ii) no clear advantage distinguished between policy scenarios. It cannot be however concluded that advanced treatment of pharmaceuticals is not necessary because other criteria should be considered (risk assessment, bacterial resistance, etc.) and large uncertainties were embedded in calculations. Indeed, a significant part of this work was dedicated to the discussion of uncertainty and limitations of the LCA outcomes. At the inventory level, it was difficult to model technology operation at development stage. For impact assessment, the newly developed characterization factors for pharmaceuticals (eco)toxicity showed large uncertainties, mainly due to the lack of data and quality for toxicity tests. The use of information made available under REACH framework to develop CFs for detergent ingredients tried to cope with this issue but the benefits were limited due to the mismatch of information between REACH and USEtox method. The highlighted uncertainties were treated with sensitivity analyses to understand their effects on LCA results. This research work finally presents perspectives on the use of transparently generated data (technology inventory and (eco)toxicity factors) and further development of EFI indicator. Also, an accent is made on increasing the reliability of LCA outcomes, in particular through the implementation of advanced techniques for uncertainty management. To conclude, innovative technology/product development (e.g. based on circular economy approach) needs the involvement of all types of actors and the support from sustainability metrics.
Formulations of macrocyclic lactone anthelmintics such as moxidectin are regularly administered to sheep to combat parasites. A disadvantage of these pharmaceuticals are their side effects on non-target organisms when entering the environment. Little is known about anthelmintic effects on plant reproduction and whether the effects depend on environmental factors. For ecological and methodological reasons, we aimed at testing whether temperature affects the efficacy of a common moxidectin-based formulation on seed germination. We carried out a germination experiment including three typical species of temperate European grasslands (Centaurea jacea, Galium mollugo, Plantago lanceolata). We applied three temperature regimes (15/5, 20/10, 30/20°C), and a four-level dilution series (1:100–1:800) of formulated moxidectin (i.e., Cydectin oral drench). These solutions represent seed-anthelmintic contacts in the digestive tract of sheep shortly after deworming. In addition, a control was carried out with purified water only. We regularly counted emerging seedlings and calculated final germination percentage, mean germination time and synchrony of germination. Formulated moxidectin significantly reduced percentage, speed and synchrony of germination. A 1:100 dilution of the formulation reduced germination percentage by a quarter and increased mean germination time by six days compared to the control. Temperature moderated effects of the anthelmintic drug on germination in all response variables and all species, but in different patterns and magnitudes (significant anthelmintic x temperature x species interactions). In all response variables, the two more extreme temperature regimes (15/5, 30/20°C) led to the strongest effects of formulated moxidectin. With respect to germination percentage, G. mollugo was more sensitive to formulated moxidectin at the warmest temperature regime, whereas P. lanceolata showed the highest sensitivity at the coldest regime. This study shows that it is important to consider temperature dependencies of the effects of pharmaceuticals on seed germination when conducting standardised germination experiments.