Relation between consumption,
occurrence and technology
Insights from MORPHEUS
speaker: Małgorzata Szopińska, Gdansk University of Technology
Björklund, E., [email protected]
Kaiser, A., [email protected]
Suzdalev, S., [email protected]
Svahn, O., [email protected]
Szopińska, M., [email protected]
BEFORE THE START...
Q&A
Q&A
A. 10%B. 30%C. 50%D. 80%
1. HOW MUCH of consumed amount (in %) of Azithromycin (antibiotic) is released out from
the body (excretion rate) ?
Q&A
A. 10%B. 30%C. 50%D. 80%
1. HOW MUCH of consumed amount (in %) of Azithromycin (antibiotic) is released out from
the body (excretion rate) ?
Q&A
2. Where was the highest consumption of Diclofenac in 2015?
A. PolandB. GermanyC. Sweden
D. Lithuania
Q&A
A. PolandB. GermanyC. Sweden
D. Lithuania
2. Where was the highest consumption of Diclofenac in 2015?
Q&A
PHARMACEUTICALS
IN THE ENVIRONMENT
PEC
CONSUMPTION
DATA
EXCRETION FACTORS
Del 3.1
TOP – DOWN APPROACH
INTRODUCTION
Del 4.1
Del
5.1
MEC
CONCENTRATIONS IN WWTP
inlet and outlet
CURRENT TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
Del 5.1
PHARMACEUTICALS
IN THE ENVIRONMENT
BOTTOM – UP APPROACH
INTRODUCTION
?INTRODUCTION
EXAMPLES
Azithromycin (J - Antiinfectives for systemic use)
Carbamazepine (N - Nervous system)
Diclofenac (M - Muscolo-skeleton system)
Metoprolol (C - Cardiovascular system)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PEC, MEC & removal efficiencya bit of theory
𝑷𝑬𝑪𝒌𝒈
𝒂= 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆 ∗ 𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 ∗ 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒉𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇𝑾𝑾𝑻𝑷
𝑴𝑬𝑪𝒌𝒈
𝒂= 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘 ∗ 𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘
𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒗𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 % =𝒊𝒏𝒍𝒆𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄.−𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒍𝒆𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄.
𝒊𝒏𝒍𝒆𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄.∗ 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
MATERIALS AND METHODS
880 13
03
1700 34
00
3964
4516 10
000
1300
0
1812
7
3566
8
5200
0 1700
00
2356
45
3600
00
5713
50
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Deg
ebe
rga
Sato
w
Nid
a
Tolla
rp
Kra
kow
Laag
e
Jast
rze
bia
-Go
ra
Pal
anga
Kre
tin
ga
Swar
zew
o
Kri
stia
nst
ad
Kla
ipėd
a
Ro
sto
ck
Gdy
nia
-Deb
.
Gda
nsk-
Wsc
ho
d
Nu
mb
er o
f co
nn
ecte
d in
hab
itan
ts
WWTP
WWTPs size
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEC vs. PEC Azithromycin
excretion rate – 50%
0,0
1
0,3
9
0 0
1,8
1
0,7
8
4,0
9
0,4
3
0,5
5
0,0
0
0,0
5
0,0
1
0,0
2
0,1
6
0,1
9 0,3
7
0,0
5
0,0
7INFLO
W L
OA
DS [
KG
/A]
Azithromycin
MEC - measured
Azithromycin
PEC - predicted
15
,35
1,5
1
4,1
9
28
,32
24
7,7
2
26
5,3
1
1,3
0
0,2
5
0,6
5
9,6
6
13
,14
20
,86
<20 000 inh. >30 000 inh.
INCREASING number of connected inhabitants
PEC=0.0684*MEC
R2 = 0.8535
RESULTS
MEC vs. PEC Carbamazepine
excretion rate – 14%
0,4
1
0,0
7
0,0
7
0,0
8
0,7
2
0,4
2
0,6
6 0,7
5
0,2
3
0,0
6
0,1
6
0,0
5
0,2
5
0,5
0 0,5
6
1,0
0
0,3
7
0,5
2
INFLO
W L
OA
DS [
KG
/A]
Carbamazepine
MEC - measured
Carbamazepine
PEC - predicted
4,0
6
5,2
4
6,5
0
13
,91
37
,43
67
,69
3,5
8
3,8
3
4,8
6
29
,45 36
,09
57
,27
<20 000 inh. >30 000 inh.
INCREASING number of connected inhabitants
PEC=0.9107*MEC
R2 = 0.9272
RESULTS
MEC vs. PEC Carbamazepine
y = 0,9107xR² = 0,9272
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PE
C
MEC
Carbamazepine
expanded right
y = 0,9107xR² = 0,9272
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PE
C
MEC
Carbamazepine expanded
Linear relation between MEC and PEC
PEC=0.9107*MEC with an R2 = 0.9272
RESULTS
MEC vs. PEC Diclofenacexcretion rate – 15%
0,1
4
0,2
6 0,8
1
0,1
4
1,0
3
1,1
9 1,6
5
5,5
0
6,1
6
0,0
4
0,1
2
0,0
7
0,1
7
0,3
7
0,4
2
0,3
2
0,5
0
0,7
0
INFLO
W L
OA
DS [
KG
/A]
Diclofenac
MEC - measured
Diclofenac
PEC - predicted
12,9
7
5,2
0
40,9
9
50,4
2
76,2
4
104
,69
1,1
2
2,6
1 6,5
5
21,7
8
11,3
4 18,0
0
<20 000 inh. >30 000 inh.
INCREASING number of connected inhabitants
PEC=0.1953*MEC
R2 of 0.7613
RESULTS
MEC vs. PEC Metoprololexcretion rate – 10%
0,2
7
0,3
0
0,1
6 0,3
2
1,5
8
0,9
7
0,4
6
3,3
2
2,8
6
0,1
3
0,2
3
0,1
1
0,4
9 0,7
1
0,8
1
0,0
8
0,8
0
1,1
2
INFLO
W L
OA
DS [
KG
/A]
Metoprolol
MEC - measured
Metoprolol
PEC - predicted
1,6
9
7,3
3
20
,71
43
,77
21
,98
37
,60
0,2
9
7,4
9 10
,51
42
,32
2,9
5
4,6
9
<20 000 inh. >30 000 inh.
INCREASING number of connected inhabitants
PEC=0.5495*MEC
R2 = 0.5808
RESULTS
MEC vs. PEC main hint
CARBAMAZEPINE and METOPROLOL showed the best
correspondence between consumption and occurrence data
in most of the WWTPs
CONSUMPTION OCCURRENCE
CONCLUSION
Removal efficiency vs. WWTP sizeAzithromycin
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150re
mo
va
l eff
icie
nc
y[%
]Degeberga
Satow
Nida
Tollarp
Krakow
Laage
Jastrzebia-Gora
Palanga
Kretinga
Swarzewo
Kristianstad
Klaipėda
Rostock
Gdynia-Debogorze
Gdansk-Wschod
INCREASING number of connected inhabitants
RESULTS
Removal efficiency vs. WWTP sizeMetoprolol
INCREASING number of connected inhabitants
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
rem
ov
al e
ffic
ien
cy
[%]
Degeberga
Satow
Nida
Tollarp
Krakow
Laage
Jastrzebia-Gora
Palanga
Kretinga
Swarzewo
Kristianstad
Klaipėda
Rostock
Gdynia-Debogorze
Gdansk-Wschod
RESULTS
Removal efficiency, WWTP size & MEC Metoprolol
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
[%]
Removal efficiency
0
10
20
30
40
50
[kg
/a]
MEC (inflow load)
RESULTS
Removal efficiency vs. MEC Metoprolol
RESULTS
y = -0,4249x + 43,68
R² = 0,0405
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Re
mo
va
leff
icie
nc
y[%
]
MEC [kg/a]
Metoprolol
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 2 4 6 8R
em
ov
ale
ffic
ien
cy
[%]
MEC [kg/a]
Metoprolol expanded
Removal efficiency vs. treatment methodsmain hints
AZITHROMYCIN showed the best removal efficiency in most of
the WWTPs (mean: 53.2%; median: 74%)
CONSUMPTION & OCCURRENCE TECHNOLOGY
CONCLUSION
Removal efficiency vs. treatment methodsmain hints
There are some observation that removal efficiency of
METOPROLOL is decreasing during increase of inflow loads
CONCLUSION
Removal efficiency vs. sludge age
RESULTS
RESULTS
Removal efficiency vs. sludge age
Removal efficiency vs. sludge agemain hint
There seem to be no strong relation between
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY and SLUDGE AGE
CONCLUSION
SUMMARY
Based on the presented results Carbamazepine is a good
candidate to be used as predictor of expected chemical load
to a WWTP using consumption data in a certain region
The number of connected inhabitants and sludge age have no
visible effect on reduction efficiency of the selected
4 pharmaceuticals
CONCLUSION
Removal efficiency may corresponding to pharmaceutical
load. In case of Metoprolol, it was observed, that removal efficiency is decreasing with the load increase.
● Deliverable 3.1 (regional consumption per
inhabitant in 2015)
● Deliverable 4.1 (pharmaceutical inflow loads of
model WWTPs and pharmaceutical removal
rates of model WWTPs) – comming soon
● Deliverable 5.1 (model WWTPs characteristics)
● excretion rates of pharmaceuticals (literature)
● Deliverable 4.2 Relation between
pharmaceutical consumption, environmental
pharmaceutical burdens and current treatment
technologies – comming soon
MORE INTERESTED?Please see:
Del. 5.1
Del. 4.1
Del. 3.1
http://www.morpheus-project.eu/
http://www.morpheus-project.eu/downloads/
MORE INTERESTED?Please see
Authors of the presented work
- MORPHEUS team
http://www.morpheus-project.eu/