Antibiotic, Heavy Metal, and Biocide Concentrations in a Wastewater Treatment Plant and Its Receiving Water Body Exceed PNEC Limits: Potential for Antimicrobial Resistance Selective Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the rise in antimicrobial resistance has been attributed mainly to the extensive and indiscriminate use of antimicrobials such as antibiotics and biocides in humans, animals and on plants, studies investigating the impact of this use on water environments in Africa are minimal. This study quantified selected antibiotics, heavy metals, and biocides in an urban wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and its receiving water body in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa, in the context of the predicted no-effect concentrations (PNEC) for the selection of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Water samples were collected from the WWTP effluent discharge point and upstream and downstream from this point. Heavy metals were identified and quantified using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) method 200.7. Biocides and antibiotic residues were determined using validated ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry-based methods. The overall highest mean antibiotic, metal and biocide concentrations were observed for sulfamethoxazole (286.180 µg/L), neodymium (Nd; 27.734 mg/L), and benzalkonium chloride (BAC 12) (7.805 µg/L), respectively. In decreasing order per sampling site, the pollutant concentrations were effluent > downstream > upstream. This implies that the WWTP significantly contributed to the observed pollution in the receiving water. Furthermore, most of the pollutants measured recorded values exceeding the recommended predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) values, suggesting that the microbes in such water environments were at risk of developing resistance due to the selection pressure exerted by these antimicrobials. Further studies are required to establish such a relationship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".