@misc{TernesBauerBraueretal., author = {Ternes, Thomas and Bauer, Karl-Heinz and Brauer, Frank and Drewes, J{\"u}rgen and Jewell, Kevin and Joss, Adriano and Oehlmann, J{\"o}rg and Radtke, Michael and Schulte-Oehlmann, Ulrike and Schwartz, Thomas and Seel, Peter and V{\"o}lker, Jeanette and Weber, Lilo and Weber, Marcus}, title = {Handlungsempfehlung zur integrativen Bewertung der weitergehenden Abwasserbehandlung von kommunalen Kl{\"a}ranlagen}, series = {DWA-Themen}, volume = {T1/2023}, journal = {DWA-Themen}, publisher = {DWA}, abstract = {Der DWA-Themenband beschreibt ein Konzept zur weitergehenden Abwasserbehandlung f{\"u}r die Bewertung von Aufbereitungsverfahren, sowohl in einer Pilotphase zur Auswahl von Verfahrensoptionen als auch f{\"u}r die Bewertung großtechnischer Anlagen. Emissionsseitig basiert das Konzept auf bereits regulatorisch definierten Parametern wie anorganischen Stickstoff-Verbindungen oder Phosphat sowie auf neuen noch nicht in der Abwasserverordnung regulierten Parametern. Die immissionsseitige Betrachtung erfolgt auf Basis der rechtlich durch die Europ{\"a}ische Wasserrahmenrichtlinie und andere Anforderungen bindenden Instrumente. Hierf{\"u}r werden spezifische Vorgehensweisen vorgeschlagen. Anhand zweier ausgew{\"a}hlter Praxisbeispiele wird deutlich, dass es zur Bewertung der Verfahrensoptionen an einem Standort dienlich ist, ausgew{\"a}hlte Reduktionen bzw. Entfernungen von Stoffen, Organismen und Effekten zu bestimmen.}, language = {de} } @book{TernesBauerBraueretal., author = {Ternes, Thomas and Bauer, Karl-Heinz and Brauer, Frank and Drewes, J{\"o}rg and Joss, Adriano and Hiller, Georg and Jewell, Kevin and Oehlmann, J{\"o}rg and Radke, Michael and Schulte-Oehlmann, Ulrike and Schwartz, Thomas and Seel, Peter and V{\"o}lker, Jeanette and Weber, Lilo and Weber, Marcus}, title = {Handlungsempfehlung zur integrativen Bewertung der weitergehenden Abwasserbehandlung von kommunalen Kl{\"a}ranlagen}, volume = {T1/2023}, editor = {Wilhelm, Christian}, publisher = {DWA / GDCh}, isbn = {978-3-96862-563-8}, abstract = {Das vorliegende Statuspapier beschreibt ein Konzept zur weitergehenden Abwasserbehandlung f{\"u}r die Bewertung von Aufbereitungsverfahren, sowohl in einer Pilotphase zur Auswahl von Verfah- rensoptionen als auch f{\"u}r die Bewertung großtechnischer Anlagen.}, language = {de} } @article{HeyeBeckerLuetkeEverslohetal., author = {Heye, Katharina and Becker, Dennis and L{\"u}tke-Eversloh, Christian and Durmaz, Vedat and Ternes, Thomas and Oetken, Matthias and Oehlmann, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Effects of carbamazepine and two of its metabolites on the non-biting midge Chironomus riparius in a sediment full life cycle toxicity test}, series = {Water Research}, volume = {98}, journal = {Water Research}, pages = {19 -- 27}, abstract = {The antiepileptic drug carbamazepine (CBZ) and its main metabolites carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide (EP-CBZ) and 10,11-dihydro-10,11-dihydroxy-carbamazepine (DiOH-CBZ) were chosen as test substances to assess chronic toxicity on the non-biting midge Chironomus riparius. All three substances were tested in a 40-day sediment full life cycle test (according to OECD 233) in which mortality, emergence, fertility, and clutch size were evaluated. In addition, these parameters were integrated into the population growth rate to reveal population relevant effects. With an LC50 of 0.203 mg/kg (time-weighted mean), the metabolite EP-CBZ was significantly more toxic than the parent substance CBZ (LC50: 1.11 mg/kg). Especially mortality, emergence, and fertility showed to be sensitive parameters under the exposure to CBZ and EP-CBZ. By using classical molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, the binding of CBZ to the ecdysone receptor was investigated as one possible mode of action but showed to be unlikely. The second metabolite DiOH-CBZ did not show any effects within the tested concentration rage (0.171 - 1.22 mg/kg). Even though CBZ was less toxic compared to EP-CBZ, CBZ is found in the environment at much higher concentrations and causes therefore a higher potential risk for sediment dwelling organisms compared to its metabolites. Nevertheless, the current study illustrates the importance of including commonly found metabolites into the risk assessment of parent substances.}, language = {en} } @article{AbbasSchneiderBollmannetal., author = {Abbas, Aennes and Schneider, Ilona and Bollmann, Anna and Funke, Jan and Oehlmann, J{\"o}rg and Prasse, Carsten and Schulte-Oehlmann, Ulrike and Seitz, Wolfram and Ternes, Thomas and Weber, Marcus and Wesely, Henning and Wagner, Martin}, title = {What you extract is what you see: Optimising the preparation of water and wastewater samples for in vitro bioassays}, series = {Water Research}, volume = {152}, journal = {Water Research}, doi = {10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.049}, pages = {47 -- 60}, abstract = {The assessment of water quality is crucial for safeguarding drinking water resources and ecosystem integrity. To this end, sample preparation and extraction is critically important, especially when investigating emerging contaminants and the toxicity of water samples. As extraction methods are rarely optimised for bioassays but rather adopted from chemical analysis, this may result in a misrepresentation of the actual toxicity. In this study, surface water, groundwater, hospital and municipal wastewater were used to characterise the impacts of common sample preparation techniques (acidification, filtration and solid phase extraction (SPE)) on the outcomes of eleven in vitro bioassays. The latter covered endocrine activity (reporter gene assays for estrogen, androgen, aryl-hydrocarbon, retinoic acid, retinoid X, vitamin D, thyroid receptor), mutagenicity (Ames fluctuation test), genotoxicity (umu test) and cytotoxicity. Water samples extracted using different SPE sorbents (Oasis HLB, Supelco ENVI-Carb+, Telos C18/ENV) at acidic and neutral pH were compared for their performance in recovering biological effects. Acidification, commonly used for stabilisation, significantly altered the endocrine activity and toxicity of most (waste)water samples. Sample filtration did not affect the majority of endpoints but in certain cases affected the (anti-)estrogenic and dioxin-like activities. SPE extracts (10.4 × final concentration), including WWTP effluents, induced significant endocrine effects that were not detected in aqueous samples (0.63 × final concentration), such as estrogenic, (anti-)androgenic and dioxin-like activities. When ranking the SPE methods using multivariate Pareto optimisation an extraction with Telos C18/ENV at pH 7 was most effective in recovering toxicity. At the same time, these extracts were highly cytotoxic masking the endpoint under investigation. Compared to that, extraction at pH 2.5 enriched less cytotoxicity. In summary, our study demonstrates that sample preparation and extraction critically affect the outcome of bioassays when assessing the toxicity of water samples. Depending on the water matrix and the bioassay, these methods need to be optimised to accurately assess water quality.}, language = {en} }