Researchers have discovered that sand filtration might work as well to remove oestrogen from wastewater as expensive and more technologically complex methods. The findings from the new study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, might help protect wild fish from oestrogens at low cost, researchers say. Many scientists have found that oestrogen steroids can feminise male fish at low levels, around nanograms per litre, sometimes causing the males to grow female gonads and become infertile. Such levels are typical for wastewater effluent. Sewage treatment plants around the world use a variety of methods to remove oestrogens. The methods include activated carbon–whose production takes a lot of energy and releases carbon dioxide–and simpler sand filters paired with microbes that consume organic matter. After hearing that a local utility was planning to test methods ability to remove oestrogens, researchers led by Alice Baynes of Englands Brunel University suggested adding biological assays on fish to the planned chemical tests. Together, they sampled four wastewater streams for oestrone, 17?-oestradiol, and 17?-ethinylestradiol: one stream treated only with so-called activated sludge, a standard approach in most wastewater treatment plants; one treated with activated sludge followed by a sand filter containing microbes that can break down compounds; and two streams that passed through activated sludge, a sand filter, and an additional cleanup material, either granular activated carbon or oxidation by chlorine dioxide. The researchers analysed weekly samples by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry, and expressed amounts of the sum of the three oestrogens in terms of the biological activity of 17?-ethinylestradiol, the most biologically active steroid in the mix. Chlorine dioxide removed the most oestrogens, with its waste stream peaking at 11.0 ng 17?-ethinylestradiol equivalents per litre. Activated sludge alone performed least well: It let through a maximum of 21.8 ng/L of the bulk oestrogen equivalent. The sand filter-sludge combination did nearly as well as the chlorine dioxide treatment, letting through at most a bulk oestrogen equivalent of 11.1 ng/L. When the researchers considered the average concentrations, sand filtration looked less promising: Its mean was 5.84 ng/L while chlorine dioxides was 1.95 ng/L. In addition, the researchers employed their biological assay: They exposed a native species of fish called a roach (Rutilus rutilus) to each of the waste streams. After the fish lived in the waste streams for six months, the researchers dissected them to search for signs of feminisationovaries in male fish, for example. The fish living in the water that had gone through sand filtration or activated carbon treatment showed no feminisation at all. But some male fish living in the chlorine-dioxide treated wastewater streams had intersex gonads, despite the fact that it contained the least oestrogen of any stream. The team is now looking for compounds in this treated waste that might block male hormones. The studys main takeaway, Baynes says, is that sand filtration can be a cost-effective method of removing oestrogen. The new work is important, says Beate Escher of the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology in Brisbane, Australia, because it shows that judgments about a treatment methods efficacy must be made with the whole chemical and biological story in mind. Pairing cheap methods to remove oestrogen turned out to be better for fish than a more-expensive treatment, she notes, and an apparently better treatment process, that also happens to be more expensive, might not be necessary.
Chemical & Engineering News, 20 April 2012 ;http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news ;