Drugs of abuse and tranquilizers in Dutch surface waters, drinking ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RIVM Report 703719064compared to the effluent samples can only partly explain for this, since often thedetected concentrations in de effluent samples are above the LOQ of the influentsamples. Barbital, pentobarbital, diazepam, nordazepam, ketamine,methacathinone and ritalin were not detected in influents whereas they wereobserved in effluents. Concentrations in the STP effluent are mostly lower thanin the STP influent, especially for the cannabionoids and the cocainics,suggesting degradation or sorption of these compounds and metabolites in STPs.This is not the case for MDMA (ecstasy) and temazepam, which show higherconcentrations in STP effluents and phenobarbital, oxazepam, methadone, EDDPand 6-MAM, which show comparable concentrations in STP influents andeffluents.Deconjugation of conjugates within the STP has been reported as an explanationof higher concentrations of opiates which are excreted in urine mainly asglucuronide metabolites, in effluent compared to influent water (Bones et al.,2007; Rosa Boleda et al., 2007; Kvanli et al., 2008). However, since lag-timewas not accounted for in this research (sampling of both the influent andeffluent took place on the same day), these differences could also have beencaused by different STP influent concentrations one or a few days earlier. Matrixsuppression of the influent might also be an important factor. A conclusion thatcan be drawn however, is that 25 out of 37 DOA were able to pass the STP .Table 3.2. Average concentrations of DOA detected ≥ LOQ in STP influents andeffluentsChemical class Compound STP influent (n=8) STP effluent (n=8)avg conc.(ng/L) SD n ≥ LOQavg conc.(ng/L) SD n ≥ LOQAmphetamines amphetamine 334 179 8 (100%) 15 1 (13%)metamphetamine 151 180 2 (25%) 37 20 4 (50%)MDA 22 1 (13%)MDMA 109 51 8 (100%) 126 174 8 (100%)Barbiturates pentobarbital 13 9 4 (50%)phenobarbital 98 44 6 (75%) *a 96 54 8 (100%)barbital 15 1 (13%)Benzodiazepins diazepam 4 1 5 (63%)nordazepam 19 7 5 (63%)oxazepam 1167 445 8 (100%) 1122 375 8 (100%)temazepam 427 179 8 (100%) 568 198 8 (100%)Cannabinoids THC-COOH 424 137 7 (88%) *aCocaïnics cocaïne 438 245 8 (100%) 4 3 6 (75%)benzoylecgonine (BE) 1703 870 8 (100%) 26 25 8 (100%)cocaethylene (CE) 27 19 7 (88%)norbenzoylecgonine 36 16 6 (75%) 4 1 4 (50%)norcocaine 20 10 6 (75%) 4 1 (13%)ecgonine methylester 207 97 4 (100%) *b 41 2 3 (75%) *bOpiates fentanyl 8 1 (13%)6-MAM 3 1 (13%) 5 2 2 (25%)morphine 665 418 8 (100%) 31 22 7 (88%)codeïne 580 230 8 (100%) 192 88 8 (100%)methadon 37 20 4 (50%) 29 19 8 (100%)EDDP 84 41 4 (100%) *b 73 43 4 (100%) *bOthers ketamine 16 12 6 (75%)methacathinone 4 1 (13%)ritalin / methylphenidate 5 3 6 (75%)*a detected in one other STP influent sample but not quantified because below LOQ*b only four STPs (Utrecht, Apeldoorn, Amsterdam West and Eindhoven) analysed by UAPage 35 of 90
RIVM Report 7037190643.3 Estimated loads of DOA based on monitoring data3.3.1 Loads through the Rhine and Meuse riversThe loads of DOA transported by rivers are calculated by multiplying theconcentrations measured and the flow rate at the sample location on thesampling date. Flow rates on the sampling dates were obtained fromRijkswaterstaat – waterbase. Figure 3.12 shows the loads calculated for therivers Rhine and Meuse. For comparison, the load for oxazepam at Lobith iscomparable or even higher than the load of widely used pharmaceuticals, suchas various antibiotics, beta blockers, lipid regulators or anti-inflammatorypharmaceuticals (Ter Laak et al., 2010). The concentrations in the river Meusewere higher than in the river Rhine, as shown in Figure 3.13. However, the loadsin the river Rhine are higher because of the much higher flow rate.The loads are also calculated at two locations downstream: Keizersveer (riverMeuse) and Maassluis (river Rhine). As shown in Figure 3.13, the loads increasedownstream for the five compounds presented, except for codeine andbenzoylecgonine in the river Meuse. These numbers are indicative because theyare based on only one sampling date and further research with more monitoringdata is necessary on this topic. However, increasing loads of the rivers Rhineand Meuse when flowing through the Netherlands are plausible because theprescription drugs phenobarbital, oxazepam, temazepam and codeine areconsumed in the Netherlands in quantities of approximately 200 - 1500 kg peryear, according to sales data from the Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statisticsin the Netherlands (SFK, 2007). Residues of these compounds can reach theDutch surface waters through STP wastewater discharges since they are poorlyremoved in STPs. For the river Meuse there can also be a contribution fromBelgian and German rivers that discharge their waters into the river Meusedownstream from Eijsden.estimated load (g/day)2500200015001000500Meuse - EijsdenMeuse - KeizersveerRhine - LobithRhine - Maassluis0phenobarbitaloxazepamtemazepamcodeïnebenzoylecgonineFigure 3.12. Estimated loads (g/day) of DOA based on monitoring data and riverflow rates on one sampling date in October 2009Page 36 of 90
Page 1: ugs ofbuse andDrugs of abuse and tr
Page 5 and 6: RIVM Report 703719064Page 4 of 90
Page 13 and 14: RIVM Report 703719064 Urban wastewa
Page 15 and 16: RIVM Report 703719064As this first
Page 17 and 18: RIVM Report 7037190642. to evaluate
Page 19 and 20: RIVM Report 703719064Results of a p
Page 21 and 22: RIVM Report 703719064Table 2.1. Ove
Page 23 and 24: RIVM Report 703719064The addition o
Page 25 and 26: RIVM Report 703719064Table 2.4. Ove
Page 27 and 28: RIVM Report 7037190643.1.1 DOA in t
Page 29 and 30: RIVM Report 703719064Andijk70ng/l60
Page 31 and 32: RIVM Report 703719064At Weesperkars
Page 33 and 34: RIVM Report 703719064Ouddorp70ng/l6
Page 35: RIVM Report 703719064Bankfiltrate70
Page 39 and 40: RIVM Report 703719064further resear
Page 41 and 42: RIVM Report 703719064were ≥ LOQ a
Page 43 and 44: RIVM Report 703719064An illustrativ
Page 45 and 46: RIVM Report 703719064concentration
Page 47 and 48: RIVM Report 703719064Barbiturates a
Page 49 and 50: RIVM Report 703719064Further resear
Page 51 and 52: RIVM Report 703719064Huerta-Fontela
Page 55 and 56: RIVM Report 703719064This LOQ estim
Page 58 and 59: RIVM Report 703719064Appendix B HPL
Page 60 and 61: RIVM Report 703719064Quality contro
Page 62 and 63: RIVM Report 703719064Table B.2. Res
Page 64 and 65: RIVM Report 703719064Table B.2. Res
Page 66 and 67: RIVM Report 703719064Appendix C HPL
Page 68 and 69: RIVM Report 703719064Table C.3 pres
Page 70 and 71: RIVM Report 703719064Appendix D HPL
Page 72 and 73: RIVM Report 703719064Appendix E Mon
Page 74 and 75: RIVM Report 703719064LEGEND - below
Page 76 and 77: RIVM Report 703719064Appendix F Mon
Page 78 and 79: RIVM Report 703719064Chemical class
Page 80 and 81: RIVM Report 703719064Appendix G Coc
Page 82 and 83: RIVM Report 703719064Appendix H Pro
Page 84 and 85: RIVM Report 703719064haemodynamic c
Page 86 and 87:
RIVM Report 703719064carcinogenicit
Page 88 and 89:
RIVM Report 703719064provisional dr
Page 90 and 91:
RIVM Report 703719064ReferencesAmio
Page 92:
N.G.F.M. van der Aa | E. Dijkman |
show all

Drugs of abuse and tranquilizers in Dutch surface waters, drinking ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?