Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC) pose a substantial risk to the aquatic environment. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are major contributors to the estrogenic potency of surface waters. The methodology provided in this paper allows for an assessment of the efficacy and suitability of wastewater treatment processes with respect to EDC removal.
Endocrine Disrupting Compounds pose a substantial risk to the aquatic environment. Ethinylestradiol (EE2) and estrone (E1) have recently been included in a watch list of environmental pollutants under the European Water Framework Directive. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are major contributors to the estrogenic potency of surface waters. Much of the estrogenic potency of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents can be attributed to the discharge of steroid estrogens including estradiol (E2), EE2 and E1 due to incomplete removal of these substances at the treatment plant. An evaluation of the efficacy of wastewater treatment processes requires the quantitative determination of individual substances most often undertaken using chemical analysis methods. Most frequently used methods include Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GCMS/MS) or Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LCMS/MS) using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). Although very useful for regulatory purposes, targeted chemical analysis can only provide data on the compounds (and specific metabolites) monitored. Ecotoxicology methods additionally ensure that any by-products produced or unknown estrogenic compounds present are also assessed via measurement of their biological activity. A number of in vitro bioassays including the Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES) are available to measure the estrogenic activity of wastewater samples. Chemical analysis in conjunction with in vivo and in vitro bioassays provides a useful toolbox for assessment of the efficacy and suitability of wastewater treatment processes with respect to estrogenic endocrine disrupting compounds. This paper utilizes a battery of chemical and ecotoxicology tests to assess conventional, advanced and emerging wastewater treatment processes in laboratory and field studies.
Concerns regarding the adverse effects of endocrine disrupting compounds on wildlife reproductive health has led the European Union to place two estrogenic substances (estradiol and ethinylestradiol) on a "watch list" under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). EDC encompass a variety of chemical classes, including natural and synthetic steroid estrogens, drugs, pesticides, and industrial chemicals and constituents of consumer products with known adverse effects on wildlife. Some of these compounds may potentially impact human health1.
Research has shown that effluents from WWTP are estrogenic to fish2 and as a consequence many receiving waters are also estrogenic to fish3. This was first demonstrated through national surveys in the United Kingdom that showed increased vitellogenin concentrations (a female specific yolk protein precursor4) in the blood of wild male fish and a high prevalence of intersex (developing eggs and/or female reproductive ducts in the testis of male fish) in normally gonochoristic fish species5,6.
Conventional sewage treatment is typically a three stage process consisting of a preliminary screening followed by primary and secondary treatment which removes both dissolved and suspended organic matter. The efficacy of removal of individual EDC is dependent on the physicochemical properties of the substances and on the effectiveness of the treatment process applied. For many EDC removal via adsorption and biological degradation can be significant but incomplete. Tertiary treatment, such as sand filtration, can be effective at increasing EDC removal7 whereas advanced treatment using advanced oxidation (for example ozone) or activated carbon can be effective in achieving near complete removal7.
The assessment of any new technology for wastewater treatment needs to determine the efficacy of the proposed process in EDC removal. A battery of tests, including targeted chemical analysis alongside ecotoxicology testing, using in vivo and in vitro bioassays, provides comprehensive data for this purpose. Although very useful for regulatory purposes, targeted chemical analysis can only provide data on the compounds (and specific metabolites) monitored. Bioassays additionally allow the "detection" of adverse effects of metabolites and treatment-generated wastewater transformation by-products that would otherwise be undetected8,9. This paper describes the use of a battery of chemical and ecotoxicity laboratory assays to assess the efficacy of a number of advanced and emerging wastewater treatment processes in removing the estrogenic potency of crude and treated sewage and receiving waters.
Ethics statement: Protocols for assessing endocrine disrupting activity of chemicals/mixtures in fish have been approved by Brunel University London's Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) and by the UK Home Office under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
1. Water Sample Collection, Preservation and Extraction
Column: | PL gel, 50 A, 300 x 7.5 mm, 5 µm |
Guard Column: | PL gel, 50 x 7.5 mm, 5 µm |
Mobile phase: | Dichloromethane |
Flow rate: | 1 ml per min |
Column temperature: | 25 °C |
UV detector: | 210 nm |
Injection volume: | 95 µl |
Injection mode: | Standard |
Draw speed: | 500 ml per min |
Eject speed: | 500 ml per min |
Draw position: | 3 mm |
Fraction collected: | 3 ml fraction (7 – 10 min) in 10 ml vials |
Table 1. Conditions and parameters for Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC) clean-up of extracted wastewater samples. Table details GPC column, mobile phase, temperature, injection volume, and detector wavelength.
2. Chemical Analysis Using LCMS/MS
LCMS | |||||
Liquid Chromatography | |||||
Column: | C18(2), 150 x 4.6 mm, 5 μm. | ||||
Injection volume: | 20 µl | ||||
Flow: | 0.5 ml per minute. | ||||
Mobile phase: | Solvent A: water containing 0.1% ammonia. | ||||
Solvent B: acetonitrile. | |||||
Gradient program: | |||||
Time (min) | 0 | 10 | 18 | 24 | 28 |
A:B solvent ratio | 90:10:00 | 50:50:00 | 0.479167 | 0.479167 | 90:10:00 |
Mass Spectrometry | |||||
Source: | Electrospray (negative ion) | ||||
Gas and source: | CUR: 20 psi, GS1: 70 psi, GS2: 30 psi | ||||
TEM: 600 °C, CAD gas 5 and IonSpray voltage -900 | |||||
MRM transitions: | |||||
E1: | 269/145 & 269/143 | ||||
E2: | 271/145 & 271/143 | ||||
EE2: | 295/145 & 295/143 | ||||
E1-D4 : | 273/147 | ||||
E2-D4: | 275/147 | ||||
EE2-D4: | 299/145 |
Table 2. Details parameters and conditions for LCMS/MS analysis of steroid estrogens in wastewater extracts. Table gives sample injection volume and flow rate, mobile phase conditions and gradient.
3. Estrogenic Activity Using In Vitro Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES) Assay8
(a) Minimal Medium (pH 7.1): |
Prepare a Fe2(SO4)3 solution by adding 40 mg of Fe2(SO4)3 to 50 ml of double-distilled water (ddH2O) |
Add 1 L ddH2O to a 2 L glass beaker |
Add the following components to the beaker: |
13.61 g KH2PO4 |
1.98 g (NH4)2SO4 |
4.2 g KOH |
0.2 g MgSO4 |
1 ml of the Fe2(SO4)3 solution |
50 mg L-leucine |
50 mg L-histidine |
50 mg adenine |
20 mg L-arginine-HCl |
20 mg L-methionine |
30 mg L-tyrosine |
30 mg L-isoleucine |
30 mg L-lysine-HCl |
25 mg L-phenylalanine |
100 mg L-glutamic acid |
150 mg L-valine |
375 mg L-serine |
Put the beaker on heated stirrer with a magnetic flea and stir until it is all dissolved |
Check that the pH is 7.1 and adjust if necessary |
Using a 50 ml sterile syringe dispense 45 ml aliquots into glass bottles with metal screw top lids |
Sterilize the Minimal Medium at 121 °C for 10 min in an autoclave |
Store at room temperature |
(b) D-(+)-Glucose: |
Prepare a 20% w/v solution in ddH2O |
Dispense 20 ml aliquots in to glass vials with metal screw top lids |
Sterilize the Glucose solution at 121 °C for 10 min in an autoclave |
Store at room temperature |
(c) L-Aspartic Acid: |
Make a stock solution of 4 mg/ml in ddH2O |
Dispense 20 ml aliquots in to glass vials with metal screw top lids |
Sterilize the L-Aspartic Acid solution at 121 °C for 10 min in an autoclave |
Store at room temperature |
(d) Vitamin Solution: |
Prepare a biotin solution by adding 2 mg of biotin to 100 ml of ddH2O |
Weigh out 8 mg thiamine, 8 mg pyridoxine, 8 mg pantothenic acid, 40 mg inositol. Add all the dry components and 20 ml of the biotin solution to 180 ml ddH2O |
Make 10 ml sterile aliquots by filtering through a 0.2-µm pore size disposable filter into sterile glass bottles, in a laminar air flow cabinet |
Store at 4 °C |
(e) L-Threonine: |
Prepare 100 ml of 24 mg/ml L-threonine in ddH2O |
Dispense 10 ml aliquots in to glass vials with metal screw top lids |
Sterilize the L-threonine solution at 121 °C for 10 min in an autoclave |
Store at room temperature |
(f) Copper(II) Sulfate: |
Prepare 25 ml of a 20 mM Copper(II) Sulfate solution in ddH2O |
Make 5 ml sterile aliquots by filtering through a 0.2-µm pore size filter into sterile glass bottles, in a laminar flow cabinet |
Store at room temperature |
(g) Chlorophenol red-β-D-galactopyranoside (CPRG): |
Prepare 25 ml of a 10 mg/ml solution of CPRG in ddH2O |
Make 5 ml sterile aliquots by filtering through a 0.2-µm pore size filter into sterile glass bottles, in a laminar flow cabinet |
Store at 4 °C |
Table 3. Yeast Estrogen Screen assay; preparation and storage of minimal medium and medium components.
4. Laboratory Based Assessment of Estrogenic Activity Using In Vivo Vitellogenin Induction in Male Fathead Minnows
Figure 1. Diagram representing experimental design of an in vivo fathead minnow vitellogenin bioassay to determine removal of ecotoxicity of 17α-ethinylestradiol using TAML/peroxide water treatment. The experimental set up consists of eight 11 L glass aquaria each fed with continuous flow of water. Individual chemical stock solutions and water (filtered de-chlorinated) are delivered to the mixing chambers. Nominal concentrations (without reaction) in the mixing vessels are 2 ng/L EE2, 80 nM TAML and 0.16 µg/L H2O2. Chemical stock solutions (EE2, H2O2 and TAML) are prepared and dosed separately so that the reactions commence in the mixing vessels. Fish (8 male fathead minnows per tank) are exposed to the mixture(s) after a reaction contact time of approximately 45 minutes. Water samples are taken from the exposure tanks weekly. Plasma samples are taken from fathead minnows to measure the estrogenic biomarker vitellogenin (VTG) from a baseline group, at the start of the study, and all other fish after 21 days of exposure. The specific treatments are: '-C'; negative control (dilution water only), '+'; positive control of EE2, '+H'; EE2 plus H2O2, '+T'; EE2 plus H2O2 plus TAML. This figure has been modified from Mills et al. 201512. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2. Photos depicting male fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), plasma collection and location of testis. At the end of the 21-day exposure all fish should be killed to collect blood samples. Once under this terminal anesthetic fish length (fork length, mm) should be measured, quickly followed by blood collection from the caudal artery. Photo-A: red dotted line indicates location for tail amputation (a disposable scalpel should be used to amputate the tail). Photo-B shows a heparinized hemocrit tube used to collect the blood. Each fish should then be killed immediately after its blood sample has been taken, in this case the whole head has been severed from the body (Photo-C). Once the fish has been killed the body cavity can be opened up to reveal the internal organs. Photo-C shows the location of the testis (gonad) in relation to the swim bladder (SB) in cyprinid fish, e.g., fathead minnow, roach, carp, etc. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
5. Field Assessments of Advanced/Novel Wastewater Treatment Technologies to Mitigate Estrogenic Activity Using In Vivo Vitellogenin and Intersex Induction in Roach (Rutilus rutilus)
Step Number | Treatment | Purpose | Time (hr) |
1 | 70% IMS | Dehydration | 3 |
2 | 90% IMS | Dehydration | 2.5 |
3 | 95% IMS | Dehydration | 1.5 |
4 | 100% IMS | Dehydration | 1.5 |
5 | 100% IMS | Dehydration | 1.5 |
6 | 100% IMS | Dehydration | 1.5 |
7 | 100% IMS | Dehydration | 1.5 |
8 | Histology clearing agent | Clearing | 1.5 |
9 | Histology clearing agent | Clearing | 1.5 |
10 | Histology clearing agent | Clearing | 1.5 |
11 | WAX | Wax infiltration | 1.25 |
12 | WAX | Wax infiltration | 1.25 |
20 hr TOTAL |
Table 4. Processing regime for wax impregnating tissues for histopathology. Tissues should be processed in an automatic tissue processor. Tissues should be immersed in the solutions detailed for the period of time specified.
Stain no. | Stain | Purpose | Time (min) |
1 | Histology Clearing agent | Dissolves wax | 15 |
2 | 100% IMS | Hydration | 2 |
3 | 90% IMS | Hydration | 2 |
4 | 70% IMS | Hydration | 2 |
5 | TAP WATER (RUNNING) | Rinse | 2 |
6 | HAEMOTOXYLIN | Stains cell nuclei blue | 10 |
7 | TAP WATER (RUNNING) | Remove excess | 10 |
8 | Acidified IMS | Dechlorination | 20 sec |
9 | TAP WATER (RUNNING) | Rinse | 20 sec |
10 | LiCO3 | Salt | 20 sec |
11 | TAP WATER (RUNNING) | Rinse | 20 sec |
12 | 1% EOSIN (AQUEOUS) | Stains cytoplasm pink | 20 sec |
13 | TAP WATER (RUNNING) | Remove excess | 5 |
14 | 70% IMS | Dehydration | 2 |
15 | 90% IMS | Dehydration | 2 |
16 | 100% IMS | Dehydration | 5 |
17 | Histology Clearing agent | Remove IMS, binding agent | 5 |
Table 5. Solutions and immersion times for Haematoxylin and Eosin (H & E) staining of fish gonadal tissues. Slides should be placed in each bath for the allocated time in sequence. H & E staining of tissues is required to determine developmental or organizational impacts of estrogenic wastewater effluents on fish gonads.
Score | Section Description |
0 | Normal male testis |
1 | Multifocal ovotestis with 1–5 oocytes (usually singly) scattered among the testicular tissue |
2 | Multifocal ovotestis, 6–20 oocytes often in small clusters scattered among the testicular tissue |
3 | Multifocal ovotestis, 21–50 oocytes in clusters |
4 | >50 and <100 oocytes. Section is usually multifocal and has the appearance of a mosaic of testicular and ovarian tissue. |
5 | >100 oocytes, usually multifocal but could also be focal with clearly identifiable zones of ovarian and testicular tissue separated from the testicular tissue. |
6 | >50 per cent of the gonadal tissue on the section is ovarian and is clearly separated from the testicular tissue by epithelial cells and phagocytic tissues. |
7 | 100 per cent of gonadal tissue on the section is ovarian. |
Table 6. Scoring system to assess severity of intersex condition in roach. Histologically prepared slides of gonadal tissue should be examined under light microscope, at 20X, 100X and 400X magnification, to assess any abnormalities and the presence of oocytes in testicular tissue. This table is modified from Jobling et al. 20066.
Attempts to understand the impact of improvements to wastewater treatment processes or to determine the most appropriate technology to retrofit equipment as tertiary treatment at existing WWTP with respect to the efficacy of removal of endocrine disrupting activity of discharged effluents, requires not only the measurement of key chemical components that enter the works but requires the analysis of the breakdown products which may also have endocrine disrupting activity. In domestic sewage effluents, the most estrogenic substances present are the steroid hormones, estrone (E1), 17β-estradiol (E2) and 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2)5,8. Steroid estrogens are primarily excreted from the body as a mixture of inactive conjugates16,17. These conjugated estrogens are substantially deconjugated in the sewerage system by bacterial activity and further degradation occurs in the WWTP. The deconjugated steroids are removed from the wastewater stream by adsorption to sludge or biodegraded during secondary treatment resulting in the formation, firstly of transformation byproducts and ultimately complete mineralization can occur of the initial active component. The chemical analysis of all individual compounds in the effluent stream would be difficult, time consuming and costly and would not cover unknown active components present in a sample. Furthermore, a sum of the estrogenic contribution of each component will only provide an indication of the cumulative estrogenic potency of a sample of the compounds analyzed. This is a risk where transformation processes generate unknown estrogenic substances or where the influent is of industrial origin. Combining chemical analysis with in vivo and in vitro ecotoxicology bioassays provides a solution to the presence of unknown estrogenic components in mixtures such as treated sewage. In vitro assays such as the Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES) have been used extensively to determine the estrogenic activity of sewage effluents and to help identify the active components in treated samples8,18,19. However, comparisons between in vivo and in vitro testing can be significant11 and a comprehensive assessment of new processes with respect to treatment of endocrine disrupting potency requires a battery of chemical and ecotoxicology tests.
A determination of whether individual treatment plants or processes remove active compounds from the wastewater stream can be achieved using chemical analysis which follows sample extraction, concentration and clean-up of the extract prior to analysis, most often undertaken using LCMS(/MS) or GCMS(/MS) methods. The data obtained from chemical analysis can be used to determine compliance with individual predicted no effect concentrations (PNEC)20 or environmental quality standards (EQS)21 of specific individual compounds and therefore such methods are vital for regulatory compliance data. Furthermore, targeted or non-targeted chemical analysis methods allow the identification and quantitation of individual compounds or isomers compared with biological methods, which provide a total response. Chemical analysis methods therefore allow the assessment of discrete compounds to be made to meet and to address these wastewater treatment challenges on an individual treatment plant basis. Studies have shown that conventional wastewater treatment (e.g., activated sludge plants) can be highly effective in the removal of natural steroid hormones although removal of the synthetic hormone EE2 tends to be less effective. Field studies using advanced treatment utilizing techniques such as ozone, granulated activated carbon (GAC) and membranes have demonstrated, albeit at high cost, that they can be used as an end-of-pipe solution to remove EE2 to below predicted effect levels and to below the detection limits. Figure 3 shows the removal of EE2 using GAC at a pilot scale municipal wastewater treatment plant. Studies undertaken at pilot scale at municipal wastewater treatment plants using end of pipe GAC treatment also show the reduction in estrogenic potency following GAC measured using the Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES) as seen in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Example field data showing the removal of ethinylestradiol following advanced tertiary treatment. (A) Samples are collected from the WWTP following conventional (activated sludge plant) treatment following the procedures described for sample preservation. (B) Samples are extracted using solid phase extraction, cleaned-up to remove interfering substances using normal phase SPE and gel permeation chromatography. (C) The clean concentrated extract is concentrated to a low volume and analyzed using negative ion electrospray LCMS/MS in MRM mode. Results are calculated using internal standardization using isotopically labeled internal standards. In the example shown, EE2 is present in the final ASP effluent at a concentration above the predicted no effect level (PNEC) of 0.1 ng/L and is removed using GAC and ozone (O3) to an environmentally safe concentration. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4. Photo of a Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES) assay plate (A) showing color change from yellow to red, relating to estrogenic activity of the samples. Plots created from the YES assay plate showing corrected absorbance (540 nm) of the estradiol standard (B), activated sludge process effluent (ASP) and Granular activated carbon (GAC) treated wastewater effluent samples (C). Each sample was tested in duplicate. ASP and GAC effluents were extracted and concentrated using the SPE methods outlined in section 1. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Ozonation is also efficient in removing steroid estrogens and estrogenic activity from conventionally treated wastewater treatment plants. Ozone is able to oxidize a wide range of organic contaminants and dissolved organic matter in wastewater samples and provides disinfection properties. The effectiveness of ozonation depends on water characteristics such as pH, amount of organic matter and the applied dose of ozone. Estrogens that are poorly removed by conventional treatment can be removed from wastewater with doses between 0.8 and 2 mg O3/mg DOC. Ozone is a selective oxidizing agent, which reacts with electron rich sites (unsaturated carbon-carbon bonds, aromatic compounds including aromatic alcohols), which makes ozone applicable for the breakdown of a number of EDC. However, the elimination of individual compounds does not necessarily lead to the complete mineralization of the original compound. Organic substances following ozonation may be transformed generating intermediates or transformation oxidation by-products which include a number of low molecular weight, polar classes of compounds such as aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, keto acids, and brominated compounds. Examples include, bromate, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and carboxylic acids. Using in vivo and in vitro bioassays it has been shown that although ozone only partially oxidizes some chemical substances, the resulting major transformation products have a lower estrogenic potency and hence the application of ozone at an appropriate dose results in a high removal of estrogenic activity.
One of the major benefits of additional treatment of wastewaters is the reduction in the feminization of male fish in receiving waters; an adverse effect that can lead to reduced fertility3. In vivo studies using fish (e.g., roach or fathead minnow) exposed to wastewater show female germ cells or oocytes in the testis of male fish (e.g., as seen in Figure 5). Intersex or male VTG is absent or significantly reduced in fish following advanced treatment such as GAC7 or ozone22. These studies show that transformation products produced during ozonation are not estrogenic, however this does not address the toxicity of the effluent produced. This issue has been addressed in other studies, for example a study by Magdeburg et al.23 which shows that ozone oxidation by-products are toxic to rainbow trout but this toxicity can be removed by downstream sand filtration following ozonation.
Figure 5. Photomicrographs of a normal male (A) and intersex (B, C) gonads from adult roach (Rutilus rutilus) exposed to wastewaters in a field based assessment. Photomicrograph-A, depicts a histological section of normal male testis. Photomicrograph-B and -C, depicts histological sections of an intersex male fish, having been exposed to activated sludge process wastewater effluent for six months. Arrows indicate oocytes present in the testicular tissue. Scale bar represents 100 µm in each photomicrograph. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
The high cost of end of pipe treatment using ozone, GAC or membrane technology necessitates the development of alternative lower cost, sustainable methods for endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) removal. Furthermore, adsorption and separation methods simply separate EDC from one phase to another rather than eliminating them via degradation. TAML activators have been developed to catalyze hydrogen peroxide oxidation of organic micropollutants in wastewater12,24–26. TAML activators with H2O2 effectively degrade EE2 and other steroid estrogens in pure laboratory water as well as in effluents from municipal wastewater treatment plants and in spiked urine samples12. Laboratory studies, shows TAML/H2O2 treatment provides high steroid estrogen removal including EE2 removal and substantially reduces estrogenic activity measured in vitro using the YES bioassay and substantially diminishes fish feminization in vivo measured using the VTG bioassay (Figure 1 and Figure 6).
Figure 6. Average EE2 concentration and estrogenic activity in treated and untreated tank waters (A) and plasma vitellogenin in baseline and exposed male fish (B). A) EE2 concentration (ng/L, dark blue bars) was measured by LCMS/MS, estrogenic activity (EE2 equivalent ng/L, dark green bars) was measured via in vitro Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES). B) Plasma vitellogenin (ng/ml, light blue bars) concentration in male fathead minnows were measured via a quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). EE2 chemical analysis results reported as < 0.03 ng/L EE2 (i.e., lower than detection limit (LOD)) were treated as having half LOD (i.e., 0.015 ng/L EE2) for use in calculations of averages, standard error and statistical analysis. EE2 and estrogenic activity are average measured concentrations sampled over the 21 day exposure. Plasma VTG was measured prior to exposure (baseline) and after 21 days exposure. The treatment regime consisted of; negative control (dilution water only), EE2+H2O2+TAML, EE2+H2O2, and EE2-only. Error bars in graph-A represent standard error of the mean, error bars in graph-B represent standard deviation. Letters above bars in graph-B represent statistical similarity. This figure has been modified from Mills et al.12 Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Wastewater treatment plants are the major route of surface water contamination with EDC. An evaluation of the efficacy of removal of endocrine activity of conventional, advanced or emerging treatment processes requires the use of a variety of chemical and biological assays. Chemical analysis using non-targeted and targeted analysis provides qualitative or quantitative data on the efficacy of removal of individual components and therefore allows an assessment to be made against environmental quality standards or predicted no effect concentrations for the compounds or mixtures of compounds analyzed.
The generation of transformation products resulting from incomplete mineralization of substances following treatment and the presence of unknown biologically active components in wastewater limits the usefulness of chemical testing alone. A combination of in vivo and in vitro bioassays in combination with analytical chemistry screening provides a useful toolbox to determine the efficacy of EDC removal by emerging wastewater treatment processes. These tests, when conducted alongside traditional water quality parameters and other toxicological and microbiological end-points allow a critical evaluation of current and emerging wastewater treatment technologies.
It is important to note that Yeast based estrogen screens (e.g., YES) are not the only in vitro assays to determine estrogenic potency of chemicals and wastewaters. A number of stably transfected mammalian cell based assays have been developed too, for example, the ER-CALUX27 and hERα-HeLa-990328 with human breast cancer cells or cervical tumor cells respectively. The YES has been compared to similar mammalian cell based assays and has been found to have a comparable high level of reproducibility, true positive and true negative estrogenic identification rates29, although it is sometimes considered to be slightly less sensitive27. One benefit of Yeast based reporter assays is that in labs without significant experience with mammalian cell culture the YES can be more easily adopted, as it requires less stringent bio-control measures and sterile techniques (YES can be performed on the bench top if necessary). The human cell based assays also require CO2 incubators and luminometers compared to the standard incubator and microplate readers used in the YES. Two yeast based estrogen reporter assays (YES, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and A-YES, Arxula adeninivorans) are currently undergoing inter-laboratory trails for the validation of ISO 19040 "Water quality – Determination of the estrogenic potential of water and waste water" highlighting the industries interest in these techniques.
There are a number of limitations of the methods described which include the potential contamination of samples during sampling, sample storage and analysis with estrogenic substances originating from the field or laboratory environment or by human contamination (e.g., plasticizers, surfactants, personal care products). This type of contamination in the YES assay (or other cell based reporter assays) will elevate the background and impact the use of the assay. Water samples or solvents stored in plastic bottles can easily cause false positives. False negatives are also of concern as both LCMS/MS and the YES assay require SPE to concentrate estrogens to detectable levels. The matrix, the choice of SPE sorbent and elution solvent can affect the extraction efficiency and the types of compounds eluted. Using C18 SPE cartridges for extraction using the conditions described in this protocol may generate a negative bias, as highly polar and basic compounds would be poorly retained by the sorbent. Furthermore, this protocol requires reconstitution of the eluted YES eluent from methanol to ethanol via evaporation to dryness funder nitrogen resulting in the loss of volatile compounds. As a result the protocol could provide underestimated estrogenic activity of tested samples. These limitations are especially important when considering the YES assay as unknown or unexpected compounds might be missed, because they have not been extracted or they are lost due to evaporation. Furthermore, the LCMS/MS technique makes use of labeled internal standards to correct for recovery; this approach cannot be used with the YES assay.
Significant limitations of de vivo testing of effluents include high cost and time required for assessment compared to in vitro methods. Currently the use of fish embryo tests to detect estrogenic activity is limited. However, there has been some success with producing estrogen responsive transgenic glowing fish embryos30, which could have future applications. Fathead minnows (used in this protocol) are a common laboratory species and VTG induction in male fish is a well-documented bio-marker of estrogenic exposure and a quantifiable measure of wastewater effluent estrogenicity22 or other estrogenic compounds or mixtures31. OECD test guidelines for endocrine disrupting chemicals have been validated using adult fathead minnow, Japanese medaka and zebrafish32,33, with VTG being a sensitive biomarker of estrogen exposure in all three species. However, VTG induction does not directly correlate to reproductive impairment and therefore the ecological consequences of wastewater exposure, as seen in severely intersex roach3. On the other hand, roach are not a classic 'laboratory species' for ecotoxicology research due to their large size, long generation time (2-3 years to reach sexual maturity), reproductive style; group spawning (breeding) takes place once a year, and the difficulty to identify males from females (other than during the spawning season). However, this normally gonochoristic species has been very well studied in the UK, due to the discovery that downstream of estrogenic wastewater effluents, male fish exhibited perturbations to their endocrinology (e.g., presence of female-specific vitellogenin in their blood) and histopathology (ovotestes – developing eggs in the testis and/or female reproductive ducts)5,6. Therefore, as a future application of these protocols, roach (or similar species) could be a useful wild sentinel species to show if real improvements to wastewater quality (and reduced estrogenicity) are seen in rivers receiving advanced treated effluents. They can also be employed in end of pipe systems to monitor technologically improved effluents from pilot scale plants7. When considering which species to use in in vivo wastewater assessments there is a tradeoff between relatively quick and controlled testing using laboratory species compared to the longer field based, but more environmentally relevant, testing using native species. However, such in vivo assessments are high cost and should only be considered as the final set of tests following assessments using chemical analysis and in vitro assays.
Critical steps within the protocols described include the preparation and handling of samples and glassware (i.e., bottles and sampling equipment should be pre-treated with suitable surface active cleaning agent) to avoid contamination of samples from environmental contaminants including limiting contact of samples with plastics and other materials that can produce false positives. This is equally important when designing and building aquaria and fish exposure systems. Ideally aquaria (housing stocks and during exposures) should be built from materials with low adsorption32 with minimal contamination risk. Stainless steel can be used for effluent or water holding tanks. Whereas tanks of a glass construction are preferred for fish tanks (as this also provides easy observation of the fish). The use of low grade plastic pipes or tubing should be avoided32, PVC34 and ABS can be used if 'properly seasoned', i.e., left to leach out any contaminants in running dilution water for at least 12 hr prior to use. Medical grade silicon tubing has been employed successfully in our facility for peristaltic pump delivery of chemicals and wastewater/dilution water to tanks. As well as considering estrogenic contamination in construction and running of the aquatics system, it is also important to think about the diet of the fish; many propriety fish foods have been found to be estrogenic to fish. Therefore it is important to test any foods for activity (e.g., in the Yeast Estrogen Screen, See Beresford et al.14) prior to using them in these types of studies.
Troubleshooting of the chemical analysis or YES assay protocols described is simplified if quality assurance samples including multiple travel, laboratory and solvent blanks are analyzed alongside positive controls and real samples to eliminate false positive and false negative results. Positive (e.g., EE2) and negative (dilution water only) control should also always be used in the in vivo assays to confirm sensitivity of expected biological biomarker or endpoint (i.e., VTG or histopathology), and allow any unexpected contamination to be detected (e.g., from experimental set up, diet, or dilution waters). Any modifications in the protocol should be validated prior to conducting any study.
With stricter regulation of estrogenic compounds entering the environment via WWTP effluents it is envisage that more effective wastewater treatment technologies will need to be developed. The battery of tests described in this manuscript compliment the ecotoxicological and chemical evaluation tests normally applied to wastewater treatment plant effluent discharges. Therefore, future application of this type of holistic battery of test should enable wastewater technology developers, and plant operators, to implement the most ecologically safe designs considering the best methods to remove both specific regulated estrogenic chemicals and overall biological activity.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Projects presented in this paper were funded by Severn Trent Water and Brunel University London. The authors would like to thank Alan Henshaw and John Churchley for providing field and laboratory assistance. T.J.C. thanks the Heinz Endowments for support. M.R.M. thanks the Steinbrenner Institute for a Steinbrenner Doctoral Fellowship and Carnegie Mellon University for a Presidential Fellowship.
Wellwash Versa plate washer | Thermo Scientific | 5165010 | |
Plate reader | Molecular Devices | SpectraMax 340PC | |
Incubator | Memmert | INB 400 | 37oC incubation required for carp assay |
Fisherbrand whirlimixer | Fisher Scientific | 13214789 | |
Icemaker | Scotsman | AF80 | |
12-Channel F1 digital multichannel pipette | Thermo Scientific Finnpipette | 4661070 | |
ELISA kits | Biosense Laboratories | V01018401-096 (Fathead minnow) V01003402-096 (Carp) |
|
Microfuge tubes, 0.5ml | Alpha labs | LW2372 | |
Microfuge tubes, 1.5ml | Alpha labs | LW2375 | |
Sulphuric acid, 95-98% | Sigma-Aldrich | 258105 | |
Name of Reagent/ Equipment | Company | Catalog Number | Comments/Description |
Histology | |||
Tissue processor | Leica Biosystems | TP1020 | |
Wax dispenser | Thermo Scientific Raymond Lamb | E66HC | |
Metal embedding mold | Leica Biosystems | Various | |
Hot plate | Thermo Scientific Shandon | 3120063 | |
Cold plate (EG1150 C) | Leica Biosystems | 14038838037 | |
Heated forceps (EG F) | Leica Biosystems | 14038835824 | |
Microtome | Leica Biosystems | RM2235 | |
Paraffin section floatation bath | Electrothermal | MH8517 | |
Slide drying bench | Electrothermal | MH6616 | |
Stainmate automated stainer | Thermo Scientific Shandon | E103/S10L | |
Cassettes, Histosette II, biopsy | Simport | M493 | |
Paraffin wax | Thermo Scientific Raymond Lamb | W1 | |
Histo-Clear II | National Diagnostics | HS-202 | |
IMS (ethanol mix), IDA99 | Tennants | ID440 | |
Polysine adhesion slides | Thermo Scientific Gerhard Menzel | J2800AMNZ | |
Cover slips, 22x50mm | VWR | 631-0137 | |
Histomount | National Diagnostics | HS-103 | |
Haematoxylin Harris GURR | VWR | 351945S | |
Eosin, 1%, aqueous | Pyramid Inovation | S20007-E | |
Fisherbrand slide boxes | Fisher Scientific | 11701486 | |
Microtome blades, MB35 | Thermo Scientific Shandon | 3050835 | |
Bouin’s solution | Sigma Aldrich | HT10132-1L | |
Name of Reagent/ Equipment | Company | Catalog Number | Comments/Description |
Yeast screen | |||
Flow cabinet | Labcaire Systems Ltd | SC12R | |
Cooled incubator | LMS Cooled Incubator | 303 | |
Incubator | Memmert | INB 400 | |
Shaker | Grant | PSU-10i | |
Fisherbrand whirlimixer | Fisher Scientific | 13214789 | |
Plate shaker | Heidolph Titramax 100 | 544-11200-00 | |
12-Channel F1 digital multichannel pipette | Thermo Scientific Finnpipette | 4661070 | |
12-channel pipette, electronic | Sartorius | 735441 | |
96-well flat-bottom microplates | MP Biomedicals Thermo Scientific Nunc Sarstedt |
76-232-05 260860 82.1581.001 |
We have found that these multiwell plates all produce low backgrounds |
HPLC grade water | Rathburn | RH1020 | |
Absolute ethanol | Hayman Kimia | F200238 | |
Potassium phosphate monobasic anhydrous | Sigma-Aldrich | P-5655 | |
Ammonium sulphate | Sigma-Aldrich | A-2939 | |
Potassium hydroxide, pellets | Sigma-Aldrich | P-1767 | |
Magnesium sulfate, anhydrous | Sigma-Aldrich | M-2643 | |
Iron (III) sulfate | Sigma-Aldrich | 307718 | |
L-Leucine | Sigma-Aldrich | L-8912 | |
L-Histidine | Sigma-Aldrich | H-6034 | |
Adenine | Sigma-Aldrich | A-2786 | |
L-Argenine, hydrochloride | Sigma-Aldrich | A-6969 | |
L-Methionine | Sigma-Aldrich | M-5308 | |
L-Tyrosine | Sigma-Aldrich | T-8566 | |
L-Isoleucine | Sigma-Aldrich | I-7403 | |
L-Lysine, hydrochloride | Sigma-Aldrich | L-8662 | |
L-Phenylalanine | Sigma-Aldrich | P-5482 | |
L-Glutamic acid | Sigma-Aldrich | G-8415 | |
L-Valine | Sigma-Aldrich | V-0513 | |
L-Serine | Sigma-Aldrich | S-4311 | |
Thiamine, hydrochloride | Sigma-Aldrich | T-1270 | |
Pyridoxine | Sigma-Aldrich | P-5669 | |
D-Pantothenic acid, hemicalcium salt | Sigma-Aldrich | P-5155 | |
Inositol | Sigma-Aldrich | I-5125 | |
d-Biotin | Sigma-Aldrich | B-4639 | |
D-(+)-Glucose anhydrous; mixed anomers | Sigma-Aldrich | G-7021 | |
L-Aspartic acid | Sigma-Aldrich | A-4534 | |
L-Threonine | Sigma-Aldrich | T-8441 | |
Copper (II) sulfate, anhydrous | Sigma-Aldrich | C-1297 | |
Chlorophenolred-b-D galactopyranoside (CPRG) | Sigma-Aldrich | 10884308001 | |
Glycerol | Sigma-Aldrich | G-2025 | |
17 β-Estradiol | Sigma-Aldrich | E-8875 | |
Name of Reagent/ Equipment | Company | Catalog Number | Comments/Description |
Steroids | |||
Acetone | Rathburn | ||
Acetonitrile | Rathburn | ||
Ammonia solution | Rathburn | ||
Ethylacetate | Rathburn | ||
Copper(II) nitrate. | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
Acetone | Rathburn | ||
Dichloromethane | Rathburn | ||
2, 4, 16, 16-d4-17b-estradiol | CDN Isotopes | ||
2, 4, 16, 16-d4-estrone | CDN Isotopes | ||
2, 4, 16, 16-d4-17a-ethynyl oestradiol. | CDN Isotopes | ||
17b-estradiol | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
Estrone | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
17a-ethynyl oestradiol. | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
Hexane | Rathburn | ||
Hydrochloric acid | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
Methanol | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
Sodium hydrogen carbonate | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
Sodium hydroxide | Sigma-Aldrich | ||
Styrene divinyl benzene cartridge (Isolute ENV+) solid phase extraction cartridge (200 mg/6 ml) | Biotage | ||
Isolute aminopropyl solid phase extraction cartridge (500 mg/6 ml) | Biotage | ||
Name of Reagent/ Equipment | Company | Catalog Number | Comments/Description |
Fish study | |||
orange-white silicon manifold tubing 0.63 bore pk 6 | watson marlow | 982.0063.000 | |
straight connectors for 0.5/0.8 bore pk 20 | watson marlow | 999.2008.000 | |
pumsil silicon tubing 0.8 bore 15m | watson marlow | 913.A008.016 | |
200 series multi-channel persitaltic pump | watson marlow | 205CA | |
Silicone tubing x15m (dosing tanks) | vwr | SFM1-3250 | |
silicone tubing x 15m (large for inflow/outflow) | vwr | SFM1-5450 | |
2.5L glass winchester pk 4 | Fisher Scienctific | BTF-505-050B | |
magnetic stir bar 51x8mm pk 10 | Fisher Scienctific | FB55595 | |
Ethyl 3-aminobenzoate methanesulfonate (MS222) | sigma aldrich | E10521-10G | |
17α-Ethynylestradiol | sigma aldrich | E4876-100MG | |
Absolute ethanol | Hayman Kimia | F200238 | |
Name of Reagent/ Equipment | Company | Catalog Number | Comments/Description |
SPE | |||
1/8 inch PTFE tubes 'straws' colour coded pk4 | sigma aldrich | 57276 | |
disposable liners for manifold | sigma aldrich | 57059 | |
filtration tubes without frits 6ml pk 30 | sigma aldrich | 57242 | |
reservior adaptors pk 12 | sigma aldrich | 57020-U | |
stainless steel weight for manifold pk 4 | sigma aldrich | 57278 | |
male luer plug for manifold pk12 | sigma aldrich | 504351 | |
SPE Vacuum Manifold | sigma aldrich | 57265 | |
stop cocks for extraction mainfold (supelco) pk 12 | waters | WAT054806 | |
Sep-Pak Plus C18 cartridge box 50 | waters | WAT020515 | |
Methanol HPLC grade 2.5L | fisher scientific | M/4056/17 | |
7ml glass vials with lids (58x17mm) pk 399 | fisher scientific | TUL-520-031K | |
Absolute ethanol | Hayman Kimia | F200238 | |
vacuum pump e.g. VP Series Vacuum Pump | Camlab | 1136915 |