Relation between consumption,

occurrence and technology

Insights from MORPHEUS

speaker: Małgorzata Szopińska, Gdansk University of Technology

Björklund, E., erland.bjorklund@hkr.se

Kaiser, A., alena.kaiser@uni-rostock.de

Suzdalev, S., sergej.suzdalev@apc.ku.lt

Svahn, O., ola.svahn@hkr.se

Szopińska, M., malszopi@pg.edu.pl

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/