Environ Sci Pollut Res DOI 10.1007/s11356-017-9302-0

P H A R M A C E U T I C A L S A N D D E T E R G E N T S I N H O S P I TA L A N D U R B A N WA S T E WAT E R : CHARACTERISATION AND IMPACTS

The SIPIBEL project: treatment of hospital and urban wastewater in a conventional urban wastewater treatment plant Teofana Chonova 1,2,3 & Vivien Lecomte 1 & Jean-Luc Bertrand-Krajewski 2 & Agnès Bouchez 3 & Jérôme Labanowski 4 & Christophe Dagot 5 & Yves Lévi 6 & Yves Perrodin 7 & Laure Wiest 8 & Adriana Gonzalez-Ospina 9 & Benoit Cournoyer 10 & Christel Sebastian 2

Received: 30 March 2017 / Accepted: 17 May 2017 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Abstract Hospital wastewater (HWW) receives increasing attention because of its specific composition and higher concentrations of some micropollutants. Better knowledge of HWW is needed in order to improve management strategies and to ensure the preservation of wastewater treatment efficiency and freshwater ecosystems. This context pushed forward the development of a pilot study site named Site Pilote de Bellecombe (SIPIBEL), which collects and treats HWW separately from urban wastewater, applying the same conventional treatment process. This particular configuration offers the opportunity for various scientific investigations. It enables to compare hospital and urban wastewater, the efficiency of the two parallel treatment lines, and the composition of the resulting hospital and urban treated effluents, as well as the evaluation of their effects on the environment. The

study site takes into account environmental, economic, and social issues and promotes scientific and technical multidisciplinary actions. Keywords Hospital wastewater . Urban wastewater . Wastewater treatment . Observatory . Project management . Pharmaceuticals . Activated sludge . Environmental risk assessment

Abbreviations AFFSET

Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail-French

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues * Teofana Chonova [email protected]

1

GRAIE, Groupe de Recherche Rhône-Alpes sur les Infrastructure et l’Eau, 66 bd Niels Bohr, 69100 Villeurbanne, France

2

Univ Lyon, INSA Lyon, Laboratoire DEEP, EA 7429, 34 Avenue des Arts, 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France

3

UMR CARRTEL, INRA, USMB, 75 Avenue de Corzent, F-742003 Thonon-les-Bains, France

4

Université de Poitiers, ENSIP, UMR CNRS 7285, IC2MP, 86073 Poitiers Cedex, France

5

Université de Limoges, UMR-INSERM1092, Faculté de médecine, 2 Rue du Dr Marcland, Limoges, France

6

Univ Paris sud, Univ. Paris-Saclay, UMR 8079, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Faculté de Pharmacie, 5 Rue Jean Baptiste Clément, 92290 Chatenay-Malabry, France

7

Université de Lyon; ENTPE; CNRS, UMR 5023 LEHNA, Rue Maurice Audin, 69518 Vaulx-en-Velin Cedex, France

8

Univ Lyon, CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Ens de Lyon, Institut des Sciences Analytiques, UMR 5280, 5 Rue de la Doua, F-69100 Villeurbanne, France

9

Suez–Treatment Infrastructure, Wastewater Technical & Innovation Division, 183 Avenue du 18 Juin 1940, 9250 Rueil Malmaison, France

10

UMR CNRS 5557 Ecologie Microbienne, INRA 1418-VetAgro Sup, Bat. principal, aile 3, 1er étage, 69280 Marcy L’Etoile, France

Environ Sci Pollut Res

ANSES

Aquaref

ARS CHAL CIPEL

ENTPE EVS GRAIE

HWW IC2MP INRA UMR CARRTEL INSA Lyon ISA ONEMA

PNRM SIG SIPIBEL UWW WWTP

Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail-French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety laboratoire national de référence pour la surveillance des milieux aquatiquesFrench reference laboratory for the monitoring of aquatic environments Agence Regionale Sante Rhone-alpesRhône Alpes Health agency Centre Hospitalier Alpes Léman Commission internationale pour la protection des eaux du Léman-International Commission for the Protection of the water of the Geneva Lake Ecole National de Travaux Publics de l’Etat Environnement ville et SociétéEnvironment, city and society Groupe de Recherche Rhône Alpes sur les Infrastructures et l’Eau-Rhône Alpes Research Group on Infrastructure and Water Hospital Wastewater Institut de Chimie des Milieux et des Matériaux de Poitiers Centre Alpin de Recherche sur les Réseaux Trophiques et Ecosystèmes Limniques Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon Institut des Sciences Analytiques-Institute of Analytical Sciences of Lyon office national eau milieu aquatiquesFrench National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environment Plan National sur les Résidus de Médicaments dans les eaux Services Industriels de Genève Site Pilote de Bellecombe Urban Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Plant

Context and objectives Preservation and restoration of their quality are essential for surface and ground freshwater bodies, which provide resources not only for drinking water, but also for irrigation, aquaculture, ecosystems, and ecosystem services. However,

clean freshwater bodies are increasingly limited under the high pressure of urbanization, eutrophication, and pollution. Treated wastewater is often discharged into freshwater bodies and represents the main source of some organic pollutants like pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors (Fent et al. 2006; Petrovic et al. 2002). Compared to urban wastewater (UWW), hospital wastewater (HWW) may contain higher concentrations of some macro- and micropollutants, especially specific compounds used during hospitalization (e.g., Chonova et al. 2016; Wiest et al. 2017). However, UWW daily volumes are much higher than those of HWW and may consequently transport higher loads of micropollutants (Wiest et al. 2017, Chonova et al. 2017a). Wastewater from both origins is usually co-treated in conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) (Verlicchi et al. 2012), designed to eliminate suspended and organic matters and nutrients, but not specific emerging pollutants and drugs (Joss et al. 2005). This may lead to the release of micropollutants and their byproducts in water bodies and soils; it may cause toxic effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Orias and Perrodin 2013) and constitute a risk for drinking water production. This is becoming a major worldwide issue because of environmental, health, and financial reasons (WHO 2014). Therefore, better knowledge and management of HWW are needed to improve treatment strategies and to ensure the preservation of freshwater bodies. The SIPIBEL observatory (Site Pilote de Bellecombe), in France, is a unique site which treats the HWW from the CHAL regional hospital (Centre Hospitalier Alpes Léman), either separately or in combination with urban wastewater. This enables the chemical and toxicological characterization and the comparison of urban and hospital wastewater, before and after treatment, as well as the evaluation of the relevance of separate wastewater treatment. SIPIBEL was initiated thanks to the need of the local public water utility SRB (Syndicat des eaux des Rocailles et de Bellecombe, formerly SIB-Syndicat Intercommunal de Bellecombe) to enlarge its WWTP due to the construction of the new CHAL hospital. In its permit for the new WWTP dated May 7, 2009, the water authority required the evaluation of the benefit of a separate treatment of the CHAL wastewater. This requirement led to the collaboration of SRB and CHAL, the solicitation of Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail-French Agency for Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (AFFSET) and then the initiation of an ambitious research program on the characterization, treatability and impacts of HWW in an urban WWTP. Two main objectives were defined: (i) the entirely separated collection and treatment of the HWW by conventional activated sludge treatment for a minimum of 3 years and (ii) the characterization of the HWW before the construction of the CHAL hospital, and for a minimum of 3 years afterwards.

Environ Sci Pollut Res

The GRAIE non-profit organization (Groupe de Recherche Rhône Alpes sur les Infrastructures et l’Eau-Rhône Alpes Research Group on Infrastructure and Water) coordinated the preparation and the implementation of the SIPIBEL collaborative project involving scientists, local stakeholders, public and private utilities, consultants, and institutional partners. SIPIBEL was officially launched in March 2010 (http://www. graie.org/Sipibel/).

SIPIBEL organization and partners SIPIBEL is a multidisciplinary project with three main components: (1) an observatory for monitoring the hospital and urban raw and treated wastewater, and evaluating their impact on the Arve River; (2) a research support in four main domains: (i) measurement and modeling of concentrations and loads of micropollutants at the WWTP inlet; (ii) wastewater treatment processes; (iii) assessment of ecological, environmental, and health risks; and (iv) sociology and initiatives for changes in behavior and practice; (3) a global coordination of the partners: project management and knowledge transfer by means of website, management of the project data base, publications and reports, conferences, and press releases. This ensured well-coordinated cooperation, share of experience, and participation of SIPIBEL in regional, national, and European Interreg programs. SIPIBEL is elaborated with the interdisciplinary cooperation of numerous partners with different background and expertise. Each partner is involved in one or more domains (Table 1). Research partners have multidisciplinary skills in chemical analyses, field metrology, modeling, wastewater treatment, ecotoxicology, risk assessment, and human sciences. Consultants are specialized in ecotoxicological assays, communication, and management. Public and private utilities and operators of the SIPIBEL territory are trained to deal with specific issues related to hospital, wastewater treatment, river pollution, and quality of drinking water. The private company Suez is specialized in designing, building, and operating wastewater treatment plants, drinking water production facilities, biosolid processing, and pilots for advanced treatment of micropollutants. Several Swiss and French stakeholders and decision makers, as well as the following institutional partners, are also involved in the project: the RhôneMéditerranée-Corse Water Agency, the Auvergne Rhône Alpes Regional Council, the European Union, ONEMA (Office National de l’Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques-French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environment), the

Ministries in charge of Ecology and Health, the Rhône Alpes Health agency (ARS-Agence Régionale de Santé Rhône-Alpes), and the Haute-Savoie Council.

The study site General description SIPIBEL is located in Scientrier, Haute-Savoie, France (Fig. 1). The study site includes the following: (1) the CHAL hospital, opened in February 2012, with 450 beds, 8 surgery rooms, and various departments, including emergency, oncology, nuclear medicine diagnosis, internal medical labs, pharmacy, and kitchen (Sipibel Report 2016; ch-alpes-leman.fr); (2) the Bellecombe activated sludge WWTP, with the possibility to treat either separately or jointly the HWW from CHAL and the UWW from the local urban catchment (approx. 21,000 inhabitants); (3) the Arve River, flowing from the French Alps, used for drinking water production via bank filtration for Geneva, Switzerland which is located downstream the Bellecombe WWTP; the Arve River flows downstream into the Rhône River.

The initial capacity of the Bellecombe WWTP was 5400 PE (1280 m3). It was enlarged in 1995 with a second basin (10,600 PE—2720 m3). In 2009, a third basin was constructed (16,000 PE—4000 m3) which led to the current capacity (32,000 PE). The last extension was performed due to the connection of the CHAL hospital. The urban combined sewer network connected to the WWTP collects the UWW of approximately 21,000 inhabitants. The HWW was initially estimated at 2000 PE. It is collected without specific pretreatment (except iodine decay tanks located in the CHAL basement for the treatment of radioactive urine from a few rooms with patients treated for cancer) by a separate sewer system to the WWTP. The Bellecombe WWTP applies activated sludge treatment. It is equipped with pre-treatment bar screens and aerated grit chambers. Afterwards, the wastewater enters into basins with activated sludge operating sequentially under aerobic and anoxic conditions. Subsequently, the treated wastewater is pumped into a final clarifier for sludge separation before discharge into the Arve River (Chonova et al. 2016). The unique configuration of the Bellecombe WWTP with two independent parallel treatment lines provides appropriate conditions for treating and studying HWW and UWW separately. HWW can be treated either mixed with UWW in all three basins, or separately in the

Environ Sci Pollut Res Table 1

SIPIBEL partners

Scientific members and founders of SIPIBEL

Involvement in the monitoring campaigns

Studies and research initiatives Domain 1: micropollutant concentrations and loads

Domain 2: Wastewater treatment

Domain 4: Domain 3: Sociology Biological effects and risks and source control measures

INSA Lyon

X

X

-

-

-

ENTPE Lyon University of Limoges

X X

-

X X

X X

-

X X

X X

X

X X

-

-

-

-

X X

-

Vet’agro sup X BEHESP School of Public Health^ (École des hautes études en santé publique) EVS (Environment, city and society) -

-

-

X

-

-

-

-

X

-

-

-

X

Public water utility SRB (Syndicat des Rocailles and Bellecombe) Hospital CHAL

X

-

-

-

X

-

-

-

-

X

ARVE river public utility SM3A (Syndicat Mixte d’Aménagement de l’Arve et de ses Abords) Suez

-

-

-

-

X

-

-

X

-

-

Provademse Claire Tillon, Edel Agency and Kaleidoscop City of Annemasse (Annemasse Agglomération) The Genevois Council Community Council (Communautés de communes du Genevois) The Republic and Canton of Geneva SIG - Industrial Services of Geneva CIPEL (International Commission for the Protection of the water of the Geneva Lake) GRAIE

X -

-

-

X -

X

X

-

-

-

X

X

-

-

-

X

X

-

-

-

X

X -

X

-

-

X

X

-

-

-

X

University of Paris Sud Institute of Analytical Sciences of Lyon (ISA) Other scientific partners IC2MP (University of Poitiers) INRA UMR CARRTEL

Public and private utilities and operators

Consultants

French and Swiss stakeholders And decision makers

Non-profit organization

dedicated smallest basin (5400 PE) while UWW is treated in the two other basins. Similarly, the sludge treatment can be carried out separately for the HWW or mixed with the sludge from the UWW.

Evolution of the treatment configuration of the Bellecombe WWTP According to the research program, the treatment configuration of the WWTP changed over time as follows (Fig. 2):

(a) Initial condition (before opening of the CHAL hospital): UWW at Bellecombe WWTP and untreated wastewater of another close hospital in Annemasse, France, are monitored to establish a list of relevant parameters and estimate the characteristics of the wastewater of the future CHAL hospital (Fig. 2a). The Annemasse hospital was selected for three reasons: (i) it is located a few kilometers from the future CHAL hospital, (ii) it is possible to access to its wastewater collection system upstream the connection to the urban sewer systems of the city of Annemasse, and (iii) the CHAL hospital under

Environ Sci Pollut Res

treated UWW is added to the separate HWW treatment line, with the ratio of 1/3 of HWW and 2/3 of UWW. This ratio is automatically controlled in real time through a flowmeter measuring the HWW discharge and the pumped UWW discharge (Fig. 2c); (d) Mixed treatment: this configuration starts in April 2016 to study the fully mixed HWW and UWW in terms of treatment efficiency and the quality of the treated wastewater (Fig. 2d).

Fig. 1 Location of SIPIBEL (source: Sipibel Report 2016)

SIPIBEL monitoring Sampling sites and protocols

construction is built to replace two other hospitals with similar activities, respectively, in Annemasse and Bonneville; (b) Separate treatment of HWW and UWW, during 3.5 years from the opening of the CHAL hospital in February 2012 until September 2014. It aims at comparing the two types of wastewater (concentrations and loads of micropollutants, treatment efficiency, ecotoxicity, etc.) and their impacts on the Arve River receiving water (concentrations and loads of micropollutants, ecotoxicity, antibioresistance, etc.) (Fig. 2b); (c) Injection of UWW into the HWW under controlled conditions, from October 2014 to April 2016. Part of the preFig. 2 Successive configurations of Bellecombe WWTP a before February 2012, b between February 2012 and September 2014, c between October 2014 and April 2016, d from April 2016. Sampling locations are represented by circles (UWW = urban wastewater)

Sampling campaigns are carried out jointly by SRB and GRAIE. The monitoring protocols follow the Aquaref (French reference laboratory for monitoring water bodies) technical guide on BSampling Practices and conditioning for the search of priority and emerging micropollutants in collective and individual sanitation^ (Eymery et al. 2011). At the WWTP, one sampling campaign per month is performed for HWW and UWW (and their mixture if available), treated water and biosolids (Fig. 2). Sampling is done with automatic samplers only during dry weather periods, in order to avoid dilution by rainfall events. For wastewater and treated water, 24-h composite flow proportional samples are collected

Environ Sci Pollut Res Table 2

Parameters monitored in the SIPIBEL Observatory Parameters

Type of sample Waste water Treated water Biosolids Arve River

Physico-chemical BOD5, COD, TSS, nitrogen and phosphate for water; water parameters content and % of organic and mineral fractions for biosolids COD and NTK residuals pH, conductivity, TOC, DOC, 48 organohalogenated solvents and AOX Metals: Zn, Cu, Ni, Pb, Cr, Gd, Hg, As et Cd (measured in both dissolved and particulate fractions in water, only particulate fraction for biosolids) 4 alkylphenols

Micro-biology Bioassays

Hydro-biology

Detergents: anionic, cationic and non-ionic surfactants Pharmaceuticals: 15 molecules (paracetamol, salicylic acid, ketoprofen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, atenolol, propranolol, econazole, ethinyl estradiol, carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, aztreonam, meropenem and vancomycin) Integrons of antibiotic multiresistance Pseudomonas aeruginosa: nosocomial pathogens Acute ecotoxicity test: Daphnia magna (standard ISO 6341) Chronic ecotoxicity tests: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (standard NF T90–375 - not done in the river), Brachionus calyciflorus (standard NF ISO 20666) and Heterocypris incongruens (standard ISO 14371) Genotoxicity tests: SOS Chromotest (White et al. 1996), comet assay (Devaux et al. 1997; Kienzler et al. 2012) Detection of endocrine disruptors effects (Jugan et al. 2009) Indices of biological quality of rivers: IBGN, IPS and IBD (WFD standards)

(with a total of 200 subsamples for each sampling point), always from Tuesday to Wednesday to minimize daily fluctuations at the week scale. Grab samples of biosolids are taken each Wednesday morning. In the Arve River, three monitoring points are selected: upstream (0.5 km upstream), close downstream (1 km downstream), and far downstream (7 km downstream) the WWTP outlet (Fig. 2). Sampling is done three times per year, in dry winter days during low-flow conditions to avoid dilution effect and sampling problems (e.g., impossible access during high flows). At each point, 24-h time-proportional samples of 1020 mL (composed of six subsamples) are collected in separate glass bottles. A flow-proportional 24-h sample is then prepared manually by combining a fraction of each bottle according to the Arve River discharge measured close to the far downstream monitoring point (Chonova et al. 2017b). All samples are mechanically homogenized using a stirring blade and distributed in flasks before transfer to different analytical laboratories. To minimize contamination and adsorption, the sampling equipment follows the RSDE (programme national de Recherche des Substances Dangereuses dans l’Eau–French national program on hazardous substances in water) recommendations (French Ministry of Environment 2016): materials in contact with samples are mainly glass

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

-

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

-

X X

X X X X

X X X X

X -

X X X X

X

X

-

-

X -

X -

-

X X

and PTFE. Specific cleaning protocols for the sampling equipment are applied before each sampling campaign. Furthermore, tests of blank samples are regularly carried out for each sampler to check the reliability of the protocols and validate the data. Blank samples with deionized water are tested to assess possible contamination and pollutant release. Blank samples with real samples are tested to evaluate possible adsorption of compounds on materials of the sampling equipment. Parameters In total, more than 130 parameters are monitored in HWW, UWW, treated water, biosolids, and Arve River for SIPIBEL. They are listed in Table 2. Data management Table 3 presents the number of sampling campaigns performed between February 2011 and December 2015, with the corresponding number of analyzed samples and amount of data (note: all parameters listed in Table 2 are analyzed for each campaign).

Environ Sci Pollut Res Table 3 Number of campaigns, samples, and data

Initial condition—all sampling locations (2011) Sampling campaigns Analyzed samples Data

WWTP Bellecombe (2012–2015)

Arve River (2012–2015)

2 14

38 220

9 26

1600

26,000

3800

A specific database was developed for SIPIBEL, with a format compatible with the Norman European data base on emerging contaminants (http://www.norman-network.net). It integrates all SIPIBEL data and their metadata (practical details and information, characteristics, and specificities of each measurement, etc.). A data quality index (valid, uncertain, or incorrect) is associated to each data, based on seven different criteria related to sampling procedures and analyses. In April 2016, the database contains more than 40,000 results: 35,000 physico-chemical data, 1000 microbiological data, 5000 results of bioassays, hundreds of hydrobiological measurements, and results of blank samples. This database aims to facilitate the sharing and the utilization of the data by all SIPIBEL partners, as well as external partners.

–

–

pharmaceuticals, detergents, and biocides; characterization of the release of pharmaceuticals; development of methods to analyze metabolites of specific pharmaceutical compounds. PERSIST’ENV (ANSES funding) (2011–2016): Environmental persistence of pharmaceuticals and pathogenic bacteria in biofilms and water (Laurent 2013; Labanowski et al. 2016). NoPiLLS (IV B Interreg project) (2012–2015): The NoPILLS project (no-pills.eu) aims to identify key research questions on pharmaceuticals in the environment, taking into account results of the previous PILLS project. The PILLS project (pills-project.eu) deals with the efficiency of and requirement for treatment technologies at pharmaceutical pollution point sources (mainly hospitals).

Research projects based on or linked to SIPIBEL A series of research projects and actions, including 6 PhD theses, are developed with SIPIBEL. They are presented in Table 4, according to the four domains of SPIBEL (see Table 1). Some of the most significant research projects are as follows: –

–

–

–

IRMISE (French-Swiss Interreg project) (2013–2015): Impact of micropollutants (especially pharmaceuticals) discharged from the WWTP on the Arve River. It includes a survey revealing the perceptions of health and water professionals and inhabitants of the studied area, which results in different scenarios to reduce releases of pharmaceuticals in the environment; TRIUMPH (2012–2016): Application of combined biological and chemical oxidation with ozone for the treatment of organic micropollutants, with global evaluation of the treatment performance (process conditions and removal efficiency, ecotoxicological effects, chemicals footprints) from mixed HWW and UWW; Micropollutants in biosolids: Fate of micropollutants in biosolids during the treatment and in further spreading for agriculture: focus on trace metallic elements (cadmium and cooper) and pharmaceutical compounds from the conventional biological treatment of HWW and UWW. RILACT (2014–2018): Detection and quantification of the degradation and transformation processes of

Main findings With 40 sampling campaigns between February 2011 and December 2015 and more than 130 measured parameters, the SIPIBEL observatory provides high-quality monitoring of urban and hospital effluents and of their impacts on the environment. The results highlight the specificities of the hospital wastewater which, compared to urban wastewater, is characterized by higher pharmaceutical concentrations (e.g., Chonova et al. 2016; Wiest et al. 2017) and ecotoxicity, as well as the presence of bacteria with potentially higher antibioresistance (Stalder et al. 2013). The research actions supported by the observatory achieved important improvements in modeling of the pharmaceutical loads (Pouzol et al. 2016), efficiency of complementary wastewater treatment using biological and ozonation technologies (Gonzalez-Ospina et al. 2016), fate of micropollutants (Wiest et al. 2017; Lachassagne et al. 2013), development of biological indicators, and analytical methods (Perrodin et al. 2013, 2016; Berlioz-Barbier et al. 2015; Labanowski et al. 2016; Orias et al. 2015). Treating hospital effluent separately appeared not as an appropriate solution because of the following reasons: –

mixed treatment (applied after October 2014) did not show any disruption on the treatment level according to

Environ Sci Pollut Res Table 4

Research projects linked to SIPIBEL

Domain

Description

Main tasks

Research projects and actions

Comparison of concentrations and loads of pollutants in HWW and UWW. The modeling of loads of drug residues is based on i) drug consumption at CHAL, using data of the Central Pharmacy of the hospital and ii) sales in retail pharmacies of the urban watershed, coupled with measured concentrations of drug residues in HWW and UWW at the WWTP. Special attention is also paid to quantifying the contributions of detergents and biocides. The Bellecombe WWTP enables to test the treatment of Domain 2 HWW by conventional activated sludge process and to — HWW compare the treatment of HWW and UWW under various treatment processes operating conditions. Different approaches are used: monitoring of bacterial activity, diversity of the bacterial population, structure of the bacterial flocs and efficiency of treatment of micropollutants.

1. Drug consumption and sales; 2. Development of analytical methods; 3. Measurement of HWW and UWW loads entering the WWTP; 4. Evolution of pollutants during transfer in the sewer system; 5. Modeling of concentrations and the loads of pharmaceutical residues. 1. Impact of HWW on a biological treatment processes; 2. Characterization of pharmaceuticals removal in biological treatment; 3. Advanced processes for HWW treatment.

IRMISE, RILACT: 1 PhD Thesis

Aimed at assessing environmental and health risks through the comparison of the relative toxicity of effluents (before and after treatment), presence of pathogenic bacteria and evaluation of the occurrences of antibiotic resistances between hospital and urban treatment systems. The environmental impact is assessed by monitoring of biological indicators including biofilm, bacteriomes (through sequencing of DNA markers) and by an implantation of passive samplers in the receiving environment. Aimed at developing research actions and sociological study to define risk perceptions, expectations and innovations according to particular uses that can contribute to limit the release of pharmaceuticals, detergents and biocides in waters. It describes human behaviors involved in the discharge of micropollutants in HWW and UWW on the entire chain of responsibility, uses and activities. These will help designing the best technical and social strategies to change individual and social practices, mainly contributing to the release of micropollutants into waters.

1. Characterization of toxicity and ecological impact caused by pharmaceutical residues in the effluents; 2. Microbiological characterization of effluents and their impacts; Antibioresistance 3. Implementation of passive samplers for the measurement of micropollutants.

Domain 1 — measurement and modeling of HWW and UWW

Domain 3 — toxicological and ecological risks

Domain 4 — sociology and behavior changes

–

–

the monitored conventional parameters, medicines, detergents, and biological indicators. the results of the analyses carried out on the sludge from the mixed treatment comply with the regulations for all physico-chemical and microbiological parameters. However, attention is needed concerning other nonregulatory parameters which can cause environmental impacts (such as pharmaceutical residues, surfactants, and resistance genes) whose study is being pursued in SIPIBEL the evaluation of the cost-benefit ratios made in PILLS and NO PILLS programs (Pills report 2012; No-pills report 2015) is globally not favorable to separated HWW treatment; technical and economy studies have shown that the option is neither cost, nor environmentally effective, in particular by considering all non-hospital releases. In an urbanized area with a hospital center, the hospital-

1. Study of the perception of healthcare professionals, water professionals and citizens; 2. Description of the chain of responsibility, uses and activities; 3. Experiments to change behavior and practice; 4. Technical Innovations.

NO PILLS 1 PhD thesis on sludge TRIUMPH including 1 PhD thesis on ecotoxicological assessment Persist’env, RILACT 2 PhD Theses

IRMISE, RILACT, MediATeS 1 PhD Thesis

related discharge of drug residues represents only about 20% of the total discharge (Pills report 2012).

Perspectives Based on the first 5 years of experience, the following points will be further investigated in the SIPIBEL observatory: – – –

Revision of the list of pollutants to be monitored; Further development/improvement of analytical methods for parent molecules, conjugates and metabolites in particulate phase, sludge, and biota; Refining the analyses and monitoring of detergents and biocides;

Environ Sci Pollut Res

– – – –

Transfer of pharmaceuticals, detergents, and biocides in WWTP biosolids and their further dissemination by agricultural spreading; Evaluation of new biological indicators, bioassays, and risk assessment indicators; Further development of social sciences aspects to facilitate the evolution of practice for both health professionals and citizens; Contribution to the evolution of the national regulatory framework on pharmaceuticals and biocides in water.

This introductory paper is followed by five research articles presenting detailed results from the SIPIBEL observatory: – –

– – –

Two year survey of specific hospital wastewater treatment and its impact on pharmaceutical discharges by Wiest et al. (2017) Occurrence of multi-class surfactants in urban wastewater: contribution of a healthcare facility to the pollution transported into the sewerage system by Bergé et al. (2017) Chemometric and high-resolution mass spectrometry tools for the characterization and comparison of raw and treated wastewater samples by Kiss et al. (2017) Ecotoxicity and antibiotic resistance of a mixture of hospital and urban sewage in a wastewater treatment plant by Laquaz et al. (2017) River biofilm community changes related to pharmaceutical loads emitted by a wastewater treatment plant by Chonova et al. (2017b)

Acknowledgements The SIPIBEL observatory partners are grateful to the following supporters and co-financing institutions: RhôneMéditerranée-Corse Water Agency, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Regional Council, European Union, Haute-Savoie Department, Auvergne-RhôneAlpes Regional Health Agency, French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environment (ONEMA), French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), French Ministry in charge of Environment and French Ministry in charge of Health.

References Bergé A, Wiest L, Giroud B, Baudot R, Vulliet E (2017) Occurrence of multi-class surfactants in urban wastewater: contribution of a healthcare facility to the pollution transported into the sewerage system. Environ Sci Pollut Res (in this issue) Berlioz-Barbier A, Baudot R, Wiest L, Gust M, Garric J, Cren-Olive C, Bulete A (2015) MicroQuEChERS–nanoliquid chromatography– nanospray–tandem mass spectrometry for the detection and quantification of trace pharmaceuticals in benthic invertebrates. Alanta 132:796–802 Chonova T, Keck F, Labanowski J, Montuelle B, Rimet F, Bouchez A (2016) Separate treatment of hospital and urban wastewaters: a real scale comparison of effluents and their effect on microbial communities. Sci Total Environ 542:965–975

Chonova T, Labanowski J, Bouchez A (2017a) Contribution of hospital effluents to the load of micropollutants in WWTP influents. In: Verlicchi P (ed) Hospital wastewaters – characteristics, management, treatment and environmental risks. The handbook of environmental chemistry. Springer, Heidelberg. Environ Sci Pollut Res (in this issue) Chonova T, Labanowski J, Cournoyer B, Chardon C, Keck F, Laurent E, Mondamert L, Vasselon V, Wiest L, Bouchez A (2017b) River biofilm community changes related to pharmaceutical loads emitted by a wastewater treatment plant. Environ Sci Pollut Res (in this issue) Devaux A, Pesonen M, Monod G (1997) Alkaline comet assay in rainbow trout hepatocytes. Toxicol in Vitro 11(71–73):75–79 Eymery F, Choubert JM, Lepot B, Gasperi J, Lachenal J, Coquery M (2011) G1uide technique opérationnel: Pratiques d’échantillonnage et de conditionnement en vue de la recherche de micropolluants prioritaires et émergents en assainissement collectif et industriel, Version 1 Aquaref Cemagref, 85p Fent K, Weston AA, Caminada D (2006) Ecotoxicology of human pharmaceuticals. Aquat Toxicol 76:122–159 French Ministry of Environment (2016) Note technique du 12 août 2016 relative à la recherche de micropolluants dans les eaux brutes et les eaux usées traitées de stations de traitement des eaux usées et à leur reduction. http://www.ineris.fr/rsde/doc/note_technique_RSDE_ STEU_2016_signeeDEB.pdf (in French) Gonzalez-Ospina A, Domenjoud B, Vulliet E, Kiss A, Berge A, Bony S, Devaux A, Wigh A, Aït-Aïssa S, Baig S (2016) Pharmaceutical compounds removal in wastewater plants by biological treatments and tertiary ozonation. Tech Sci Méthodes. 6-111:45–58 (in French) Joss A, Keller E, Alder AC, Göbel A, McArdell CS, Ternes T, Siegrist H (2005) Removal of pharmaceuticals and fragrances in biological wastewater treatment. Water Res 39:3139–3152 Jugan ML, Oziol L, Bimbot M, Huteau V, Tamisier-Karolak S, Blondeau JP, Lévi Y (2009) In vitro assessment of thyroid and estrogenic endocrine disruptors in wastewater treatment plants, rivers and drinking water supplies in the greater Paris area (France). Sci Total Environ 407:3579–3587 Kienzler A, Tronchère X, Devaux A, Bony S (2012) Assessment of RTGW1, RTL-W1, and PLHC-1 fish cell lines for genotoxicity testing of environmental pollutants by means of a Fpg-modified comet assay. Toxicol in Vitro 26:500–510 Kiss A, Bergé A, Domenjoud B, Gonzalez-Ospina A, Vulliet E (2017) Chemometric and high-resolution mass spectrometry tools for the characterization and comparison of raw and treated wastewater samples. Environ Sci Pollut Res (in this issue) Labanowski J, Laurent E, Chonova T, Bouchez A, Cournoyer B, Marjolet L, Marti R, Mondamert L (2016) Hospital effluents and environmental persistence of pathogenic bacteria and pharmaceutical compounds – the Persist-Env approach. Tech Sci Méthodes. 6:22–30 (in French) Lachassagne D, Casellas M, Graveleau L, Gonzalez-Ospina A, Dagot C (2013) Trace metallic element behaviour in regards to sludge characteristics prior to land application. J Residuals Sci Technol 10(2): 109–115 Laquaz M, Dagot C, Bazin C, Bastide T, Gaschet M, Ploy MC, Perrodin Y (2017) Ecotoxicity and antibiotic resistance of a mixture of hospital and urban sewage in a wastewater treatment plant. Laurent E (2013) Évaluation de l’état de contamination des bassins versants par les résidus de médicaments: utilisation des biofilms épilithiques comme marqueur d’imprégnation du milieu. PhD, University of Poitiers NoPills report, Interreg IV B NWE project partnership 2012 – 2015 (2015) No pills in waters. Available on the website http://www.nopills.eu/conference/BS_NoPills_Final%20Report_long_EN.pdf Orias F, Perrodin Y (2013) Characterisation of the ecotoxicity of hospital effluents: a review. Sci Total Environ 454–455:250–276

Environ Sci Pollut Res Orias F, Simon L, Perrodin Y (2015) Experimental assessment of the bioconcentration of 15N-tamoxifen in Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. Aquat Toxicol 2015:122–125 Perrodin Y, Bazin C, Bony S, Devaux A, Roch A, Brelot E (2013) A priori assessment of ecotoxicological risks linked to building a hospital. Chemosphere 90:1037–1046 Perrodin Y, Bazin C, Orias F, Bastide T, Wigh A, Berlioz-Barbier A, Vuillet E, Wiest L (2016) A posteriori assessment of ecotoxicological risks linked to building a hospital. Chemosphere 144:440–445 Petrovic M, Sole M, Lopez de Alda MJ, Barcelo D (2002) Endocrine disruptors in sewage treatment plants, receiving river waters, and sediments: integration of chemical analysis and biological effects on feral carp. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:2146–2156 Pills report (2012) Pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic system – a challenge for the future. Insights and activities of the European cooperation project PILLS. Available at the website http://www.pillsproject.eu/PILLS_summary_english.pdf Pouzol T, Kopf C, Lévi Y, Bertrand-Krajewski J-L (2016) Stochastic modelling of pharmaceuticals path from sales and deliveries to wastewater treatment plant at hourly scale. Proceedings of SPN 88th international conference on Sewer Processes and Networks, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 31 Aug.-2 Sept

Sipibel Report (2016) Effluents hospitaliers et stations d’épuration urbaines: caractérisation, risques et traitabilité – Synthèse des résultats de quatre années de suivi, d’études et de recherche sur le site pilote de Bellecombe. Available at the web site from September 2016: http://www.graie.org/Sipibel/publications.html. (in French) Stalder T, Barraud O, Jove T, Casellas M, Gaschet M, Dagot C, Ploy MC (2013) Quantitative and qualitative impact of hospital effluent on dissemination of the integron pool. ISME J 8:768–777 1–10 Verlicchi P, Al Aukidy M, Galletti A, Petrovic M, Barceló D (2012) Hospital effluent: investigation of the concentrations and distribution of pharmaceuticals and environmental risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 430:109–118 White PA, Rasmussen JB, Blaise C (1996) A semi-automated, microplate version of the SOS Chromotest for the analysis of complex environmental extracts. Mutat Res/Environ Mutagen Relat Subj 360:51–74 WHO (2014) Progress on sanitation and drinking-water −2014 update. WHO press, Geneva 76 p Wiest L, Chonova T, Bergé A, Baudot R, Bessueille-Barbier F, AyouniDerouiche L, Vulliet E (2017) Two year survey of specific hospital wastewater treatment and its impact on pharmaceutical discharges