ARE EXPOSURE PREDICTIONS, USED FOR THE PRIORITISATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN THE ENVIRONMENT, FIT FOR PURPOSE?
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, May 2017
Burns, Emily E., Thomas‐Oates, Jane, Kolpin, Dana W., Furlong, Edward T., Boxall, Alistair B.A., Emily E. Burns, Jane Thomas‐Oates, Dana W. Kolpin, Edward T. Furlong, Alistair B.A Boxall
Prioritisation methodologies are often used for identifying those pharmaceuticals that pose the greatest risk to the natural environment and to focus laboratory testing or environmental monitoring towards pharmaceuticals of greatest concern. Risk-based prioritisation approaches, employing models to derive exposure concentrations, are commonly used but the reliability of these models is unclear. The present study evaluated the accuracy of exposure models commonly used for pharmaceutical prioritisation. Targeted monitoring was conducted for 95 pharmaceuticals in the Rivers Foss and Ouse in the City of York, UK. Predicted environmental concentration (PEC) ranges were estimated based on localised prescription, hydrological data, reported metabolism and wastewater treatment plant (WwTP) removal rates, and were compared to measured environmental concentrations (MECs). For the River Foss, PECs, obtained using highest metabolism and lowest WwTP removal, were similar to MECs. In contrast, this trend was not observed for the River Ouse, possibly due to pharmaceutical inputs beyond our modelling. Pharmaceuticals were ranked by risk based on either MECs or PECs. With two exceptions (dextromethorphan and diphenhydramine), risk ranking based on both MECs and PECs produced similar results in the River Foss. Overall, these findings indicate that PECs may well be appropriate for prioritisation of pharmaceuticals in the environment when robust and local data on the system of interest are available and reflective of most source inputs to the system. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
|Members of the public||2||50%|
|Readers by professional status||Count||As %|
|Student > Ph. D. Student||27||34%|
|Student > Bachelor||11||14%|
|Student > Master||9||11%|
|Student > Doctoral Student||5||6%|
|Readers by discipline||Count||As %|
|Agricultural and Biological Sciences||7||9%|
|Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology||5||6%|
|Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science||3||4%|