Occurrence of Triclocarban and Triclosan in an ... - ACS Publications

Subscriber access provided by UNIV NEW ORLEANS

Article

Occurrence of triclocarban and triclosan in an agro-ecosystem following application of biosolids Jessica J. Sherburne, Amanda M. Anaya, Kim J. Fernie, Jennifer S. Forbey, Edward T. Furlong, Dana Ward Kolpin, Alfred M. Dufty, and Chad Alan Kinney Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01834 • Publication Date (Web): 07 Nov 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on November 14, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 41

Environmental Science & Technology

119x81mm (150 x 150 DPI)

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1

Occurrence of triclocarban and triclosan in an agro-ecosystem

2

following application of biosolids

3

Jessica J. Sherburne §, Amanda M. Anaya ҂, Kim J. Fernie ∞,§, Jennifer S. Forbey §, Edward T.

4

Furlong †, Dana W. Kolpin ≡, Alfred M. Dufty §, Chad A. Kinney* , ҂.

5

§

6

83725

7

҂

8

∞

9

and Climate Change Canada, 867 Lakeshore Rd., Burlington, ON CANADA L7S 1A1

Page 2 of 41

Department of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, 1900 University Dr., Boise, ID

Department of Chemistry, Colorado State University, 2200 Bonforte Blvd., Pueblo, CO 81001 Ecotoxicology and Wildlife Health Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment

10

†

11

95, Denver, CO 80225

12

≡

13

* Correspondance:

U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver Federal Center, Building

U.S. Geological Survey, 400 S. Clinton St., Iowa City, IA 52240 Email : [email protected]

14

Tel : (719) 549-2600

15

Mail : Colorado State University-Pueblo

16

Chemistry Department

17

2200 Bonforte Blvd

18

Pueblo, CO 81001

1


Page 3 of 41


19

ABSTRACT

20

Triclocarban (TCC) and triclosan (TCS), two of the most used antimicrobial compounds, can be

21

introduced into ecosystems by applying wastewater treatment plant biosolids to agricultural

22

fields. Concentrations of TCC and TCS were measured in different trophic levels within a

23

terrestrial food web encompassing land-applied biosolids, soil, earthworms (Lumbricus), deer

24

mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and eggs of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and

25

American kestrels (Falco sparverius), at an experimental site amended with biosolids for the

26

previous seven years. The samples from this site were compared to the same types of samples

27

from a reference (biosolids-free) agricultural site. Inter-site comparisons showed that

28

concentrations of both antimicrobials were higher on the experimental site in the soil,

29

earthworms, mice (livers), and European starling eggs (TCC: 15.4-31.4 ng/g), but not American

30

kestrel eggs (TCC: 3.6 ng/g) compared to the control site. Inter-species comparisons on the

31

experimental site indicated significantly higher TCC concentrations in mice (TCC: 12.6-33.3

32

ng/g) and in starling eggs (TCC: 15.4-31.4 ng/g) than in kestrel eggs (TCC: 3.6 ng/g). Nesting

33

success of kestrels only was significantly lower on the experimental site compared to the

34

reference site due to nest abandonment. This study demonstrates that biosolids-derived TCC and

35

TCS are present throughout the terrestrial food web, including secondary (e.g., starlings) and

36

tertiary (i.e., kestrels) consumers, after repeated, long-term biosolids application.

2



37 38

Page 4 of 41

INTRODUCTION Triclocarban (TCC) and triclosan (TCS) are two widely used antimicrobial compounds

39

that have been used in personal care products for decades.1 The accumulation of these

40

antimicrobials in biosolids produced at wastewater treatment plants (i.e. treated sewage sludge),

41

and subsequently environmental systems, raises concern for both humans and wildlife. In the

42

terrestrial environment, TCC and TCS have been observed to accumulate in plants and

43

earthworms inhabiting soils amended with biosolids, and the overuse of antimicrobial products is

44

reported to result in the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in soil.2, 3, 4,5

45

Both TCC and TCS are antimicrobial chemicals introduced into the environment

46

primarily through human activities. When products containing TCC or TCS are used, the

47

antimicrobials wash into sewer systems and enter the wastewater treatment process. TCC and

48

TCS are incompletely removed during such wastewater treatment processes.6 Much of the

49

removal can be attributed to partitioning of TCC and TCS to carbon-rich biosolids during

50

treatment.1,4 As a result, relatively high concentrations of TCS (30,000 ± 11,000 ng/g) and TCC

51

(50,000 ± 15,000 ng/g) are frequently detected in biosolids.7,8

52

In the United States, approximately 8 million dry metric tons of biosolids are produced

53

annually, about half of which is applied to land as fertilizer, and the other half is either

54

incinerated or deposited in landfills.9 Biosolids are classified as treated municipal solid waste

55

that must meet regulatory standards primarily for pathogen and metal content, but are not

56

regulated or monitored for TCC and TCS concentrations.10 When biosolids containing TCC and

57

TCS are applied to agricultural fields, both antimicrobial compounds have been detected in the

58

soil.4 Several studies demonstrate that the fate of TCC and TCS includes accumulation at lower

59

trophic levels in the ecosystems exposed to biosolids including food crops (e.g., soybean), 3


Page 5 of 41


60

meadow fescue (Festuca pratense) and earthworms (Lumbricus).3,11,12 TCC and TCS have been

61

detected in samples from organisms at higher trophic levels, including aquatic vertebrates and in

62

the breast milk, plasma, and urine of humans.13,14

63

In addition to concerns raised by the detection of antimicrobials across trophic levels,

64

elevated concentrations of antimicrobials can alter the physiology of animals. Exposure to TCS

65

resulted in a decrease in total serum thyroxine concentrations in Long-Evans female rats (Rattus

66

norvegicus) and altered skeletal muscle function in fat head minnows (Pimephales

67

promelas).15,16 Elevated TCC and TCS concentrations have also been shown to be highly toxic to

68

Japanese rice fish (Oryzias latipes) during their early life stages, and in the presence of

69

testosterone, can enhance androgenic effects in these fish.17

70

Despite known accumulation in ecosystems and the negative physiological consequences

71

of exposure to TCC and TCS in some organisms, these antimicrobials have not been adequately

72

studied in higher trophic levels in natural systems. For the purposes of this study, we investigated

73

a terrestrial food web encompassing biosolids; soil; earthworms (primary consumer); deer mice

74

(Peromyscus maniculatus) (secondary consumer); European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), a

75

secondary consumer of invertebrates; and American kestrels (Falco sparverius), a tertiary

76

consumer of rodents, small birds, and invertebrates.18,19 The objectives of this study were to (a)

77

determine the concentrations of the antimicrobials, TCC and TCS, in biosolids, soil, earthworms,

78

deer mice, and eggs of the European starling and the American kestrel collected from a

79

biosolids-amended experimental agricultural site and a reference, biosolids-free, agricultural site,

80

and (b) determine if there were correlative relationships between concentrations of TCC, TCS,

81

and reproductive endpoints, specifically egg viability and nesting success, of the two avian

82

species examined. We hypothesized that substrates and organisms at the experimental site would 4



Page 6 of 41

83

contain higher concentrations of TCC and TCS than those from the reference site due to the

84

application of biosolids. We also hypothesized that kestrels would have higher concentrations of

85

TCC and TCS than starlings because they occupy a higher trophic level than starlings. In

86

addition, we hypothesized that exposure to TCC and TCS would be associated with lower egg

87

viability and lower nesting success by these birds. To our knowledge, this is the first study that

88

focuses on the presence and potential consequences of TCC and TCS in higher trophic levels of a

89

terrestrial food web.

90 91

EXPERIMENTAL

92

Study Areas

93

The study area consisted of an experimental (i.e. biosolids applied site) and reference site

94

(i.e biosolids free site). These sites were separated by approximately 10 km. The reference site is

95

located near Nampa, Idaho in Ada and Canyon Counties (43°32’83” N, 116°27’31”W, elevation

96

797-m, Fig. S1a and b). This reference site consisted of an area of 85-km² including agricultural

97

and residential development that has never received biosolids according to county records.

98

Within the reference site, we monitored 74 wooden nest boxes (Fig. S1b) mounted at

99

approximately 2.5-m high on poles, 20 of which were used by American kestrels and 22 by

100 101

European starlings over two field seasons. The experimental site was a 16-km², municipal-owned farm located near Kuna, Idaho in

102

Ada County (43°23’38”N, 116°17’87”W, elevation 866-m, Fig. S1a and c). The experimental

103

site currently uses dewatered and anaerobically digested municipal biosolids from the Ada

104

County Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) as fertilizer for alfalfa, corn, and winter wheat 5


Page 7 of 41


105

used for livestock feed. The Ada County WWTF treats wastewater primarily by secondary

106

treatment processes from Boise, Idaho (population: 205,671), a city that produces approximately

107

1.1 x 108 L of wastewater per day. When this study was conducted, the experimental site had a

108

continuous, seven-year history of biosolids application for certain plots within the site. All fields

109

within the experimental site were tested for heavy metals. When concentrations of heavy metals

110

were below county standards, biosolids were applied to these fields. Biosolids were not applied

111

to all fields every year, in response to annual variation in heavy metal content measured in soil.

112

Biosolids were applied at a rate of approximately 3 tons per acre (673 kg/1000 m2, 1/4 inch-thick

113

layer covering approximately 50% of the soil surface), and then were incorporated via disc

114

harrow into the soil to a depth of 20 cm. Given the variation in history of biosolids application

115

on the experimental site, we selected and sampled fields receiving biosolids representative of the

116

median historical number of applications for the experimental site. There were 20 nest boxes

117

located on the experimental site that were within 1-km of the plots amended with biosolids. Of

118

the 20 nest boxes, five were used by American kestrels and six were used by European starlings.

119

Biosolids. A composite biosolids sample, consisting of nine independent samples weighing 225-

120

g each, was collected in March 2012 from one of the two open-air concrete holding areas at the

121

experimental site prior to application of the biosolids to the agricultural fields (Fig. S1c).

122

Biosolids holding areas store large volumes of biosolids, and each holding area contained

123

biosolids from the same source. Biosolids sampling involved using a clean shovel to break the

124

thick outer-crust on the biosolids, and then using a hexane-rinsed stainless steel spoon to collect

125

each sample. Each collected sample was spaced two meters apart. Samples were pooled,

126

homogenized to be representative of that applied on the fields, and stored in glass jars sealed

127

with foil-lined plastic lids at -20°C until analysis. This protocol is in accordance with the 6



Page 8 of 41

128

regulated collection protocol used by the municipal-owned farm.20

129

Soil. Soil from the experimental site was also sampled in March 2012 prior to application of the

130

biosolids, and was resampled in May 2012 approximately two weeks after the biosolids had been

131

applied and incorporated into the soil. Soil from the reference site was sampled in March 2012,

132

and was resampled in June 2012 to correspond with the sample collections from the experimental

133

site. Areas where soil was sampled at each site were chosen primarily to maintain a consistent

134

soil type, (fine, silty, mixed-mesic, Xerollic Haplargids)21, and secondarily were within 1-km of

135

nest boxes used by breeding American kestrels and European starlings (Fig. S1b and c). Three

136

samples within the experimental site (N = 3) or reference site (N = 3) were collected at a depth of

137

20-cm and approximately 40-m apart (Fig. S1b and c).20 The three samples within each site were

138

subsequently pooled and mixed with a hexane-rinsed stainless steel spoon to create a single

139

sample that was representative of the soil throughout each site. A total of 225-g of each pooled

140

sample was retained and placed in a glass jar with a foil-lined plastic lid and was stored at -20°C

141

prior to analysis.

142

Earthworms. Earthworms (Lumbricus), a common food source for European starlings and deer

143

mice, were collected from the experimental and reference sites in June 2012 after biosolids

144

application had occurred and following a suitable exposure period (Fig. S1b and c). We used a

145

composite sample of earthworms as representative of that consumed by the starlings.

146

Approximately 30 g of earthworms were collected from the experimental and reference sites in

147

the same general areas that soil samples were collected. Earthworms were pooled within each

148

site, brought back to the lab, and rinsed with deionized water to remove soil residues from the

149

surface of the earthworms. The earthworms were not allowed to void their guts prior to storage

150

and analysis so as to be representative of earthworms consumed by higher trophic organisms. 7


Page 9 of 41


151

The pooled earthworms were then weighed, placed in glass jars with foil-lined plastic lids, and

152

stored at -20°C prior to analysis.

153

Deer Mice. Deer mice, a common food source for American kestrels, were collected in June of

154

2012 (Boise State University IACUC permit no. #006-AC11-005).19 Kill-traps, located

155

approximately 100 m from the nearest nest box, were used to collect 11 deer mice from the

156

reference site and 28 deer mice from the experimental site. Mice were collected and stored intact

157

in glass jars with foil-lined plastic lids at -20°C until dissection. Deer mice were thawed,

158

weighed, and sexed before dissection. The liver and skeletal muscles were excised from each

159

individual. Each tissue was individually weighed, wrapped in aluminum foil, placed in glass

160

vials, and stored at -20°C prior to analysis. Of the 39 mice samples collected, matched liver and

161

muscle tissues from the same 10 mice (N = 7 experimental site; N = 3 reference site) were

162

analyzed for TCC and TCS concentrations.

163

Eggs. As it is difficult to determine the order in which eggs have been laid, one egg was selected

164

at random from each complete clutch of ≥ 3 eggs from randomly selected nests of the starlings

165

and kestrels on the experimental and reference sites during the spring of 2011 and 2012 (Boise

166

State University IACUC permit no. #006-AC11-005). All egg collections occurred during the

167

same time period using the same protocol on both the experimental and reference sites. The eggs

168

were stored at 5°C until they were prepared for freezing. Of the eggs collected, only eggs

169

collected in 2012 were used for the measurement of TCC and TCS content to coincide with

170

collection of other samples. Ten kestrel eggs (5 per site) and 12 starling eggs (6 per site) were

171

analyzed for TCC and TCS concentrations.

172

Egg Measurements. Each egg was weighed to the nearest g, and the length and breadth

173

measured to the nearest mm using a Reid digital caliper (model # K309A.W-1230). Eggs were 8



Page 10 of 41

174

dissected along the equator and the mass of the egg contents was measured. Egg contents were

175

stored at -60°C in sterilized glass vials with aluminum foil lined lids. After these egg

176

measurements were collected, egg shells were boiled (7 mins for American kestrel eggs, 4-mins

177

for European starling eggs) in deionized water to remove the inner membrane. Egg shells were

178

allowed to dry and then egg shell mass was measured. Egg shell thickness was measured using a

179

dial indicator gage mounted on a bench comparator.22 Egg volume of the American kestrel was

180

calculated using length (L) and breadth (B) measurements in the equation:

181

(0.6057 − 0.0018B)* L(B²)

23

(1)

182

Egg volume of the European starling was calculated using length (L) and breadth (B)

183

measurements in the equation:

184

0.035+ 0.530* (L*(B²)) 24

(2)

185

Nest Success. All nests were monitored on a weekly basis and the number of eggs and nestlings

186

were recorded. Nest box occupancy rates by species were calculated and compared between the

187

two study sites. We used the standard nesting success assessment protocol to classify nest

188

success.25 A nest was considered to be successful when at least one nestling within the brood had

189

reached 80% of the average age of when nestlings fledge from their nest; for American kestrels,

190

this would be when at least one chick within the brood had reached 22 d of age, while for

191

European starlings, it would be 16-17 d of age.

192

Biosolids, Soil, and Earthworm Extraction of TCC and TCS. Following Kinney et al. 12,26,

193

biosolids, soil, and earthworm samples were prepared in triplicate for TCC and TCS

194

quantification using pressurized liquid extraction (PLE; Dionex-ASE100, Dionex Corp.,

195

Sunnyvale, CA) followed by quantitative analysis by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry 9


Page 11 of 41


196

(LC/MS, Shimadzu LCMS 2010A). Method performance data are available in Table S1. TCC

197

and TCS concentrations reported for earthworms, mice liver and muscle, and bird eggs are

198

reported on a wet weight basis.

199

Deer Mouse Tissue Extraction for TCC and TCS. The method for extracting TCC and TCS

200

from liver and muscle tissue was developed to incorporate sample extraction and clean up into a

201

single pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) step27 and analyzed using isotope dilution LC/MS

202

analysis. For the extraction of liver and muscle tissue, the high pressure extraction cell (66-mL)

203

was loaded with silica (7 g, 7:1 silica:tissue ratio by mass). Tissue samples were first

204

homogenized with Na2SO4. The homogenate tissue sample was then placed on top of the sorbent

205

and the isotope-labeled internal standards (50-µL each of 2-µg/mL 13C13-TCC and 13C12-TCS

206

solutions) were added. Any remaining void volume was filled with ashed Ottawa sand (400 °C, 4

207

hr). TCC and TCS were extracted from the liver homogenate using a 1:1 dichloromethane:ethyl

208

acetate solution. TCC and TCS was extracted from the muscle homogenate using a 3:1:1

209

dichloromethane:acetonitrile:methanol solution. All tissue homogenates were extracted by PLE

210

at 100°C and 10,300 kPa for 1 static cycle at 5 min. The resulting extracts were evaporated to

211

dryness under nitrogen at 70°C (Labconco RapidVap N2), and then reconstituted with 1 mL of

212

acetonitrile:water (75:25). The samples were stored at 5°C until analysis by LC/MS. As a

213

measure of quality control, spiked (TCC and TCS fortified ashed sand) and blank (ashed sand

214

only) samples were extracted and included with each set of 10 tissue samples.

215

Egg Extraction for TCC and TCS. Egg samples were extracted using a modified liquid-liquid

216

extraction method prior to quantification using isotope-dilution LC/MS analysis. Approximately

217

3-g of egg was homogenized by blender and transferred to an ashed glass centrifuge tube.

218

Isotope-labeled internal standards (50-mL each of 13C13 TCC, 2 µg/mL-1; 13C12TCS, 2 µg mL-1) 10



Page 12 of 41

219

were added to the homogenized egg sample. TCC and TCS were extracted from the egg

220

homogenate using, 6 mL of a 75:25 dichloromethane:methanol solution. The sample-solvent

221

mixture was vigorously mixed by hand. After mixing, the sample was centrifuged (5000 rpm for

222

5-min) to facilitate separation of the solvent and egg. The solvent layer was removed and

223

transferred to ashed evaporation glassware and evaporated to dryness at 70°C under a gentle

224

stream of nitrogen (Labconco RapidVap N2). The extract was reconstituted with 6 mL of

225

acetonitrile. To limit the presence of lipids in the final extract, the sample was washed with 3.5

226

mL of n-hexane. Following addition of the n-hexane, the sample was placed on a vortex mixer

227

for 30 s. The hexane layer was removed and discarded. The extract was again evaporated to

228

dryness at 70°C under nitrogen and reconstituted with 1 mL of 75:25 acetonitrile:water. As a

229

measure of quality control, spiked (“organic” chicken egg fortified with TCC and TCS) and

230

blank (“organic” chicken egg) samples were prepared and analyzed with every set of 10 egg

231

samples.

232

Analytical QA/QC. At least one method spike and method blank sample were evaluated for

233

each set of extractions and quantifications.12,26 No detectable quantitites of TCC and TCS were

234

observed in any of the method blanks analyzed in this study. Isotope-labeled internal standards

235

were added to all samples, spikes, and blanks to correct for any differences in sample volume, as

236

a marker of retention time for TCC and TCS, and to correct for deviations in method recoveries.

237

In addition, the ratio of multiple characteristic ions for each compound and chromatographic

238

retention times were compared to authentic standards for compound verification. The method

239

performance for soil, biosolids, and earthworms samples had been previously assessed, including

240

recovery of spiked sample (method and matrix spikes) as well as statistically determined method

11


Page 13 of 41


241

detection limits for each method.5,12,26 Method recovery and method detection limits for existing

242

methods and those developed as part of this project are included in Table S1.

243

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Instrumental Analysis. TCC and TCS were

244

quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray

245

ionization/quadrupole mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESI/MS, Shimadzu 2010A LCMS, Shimadzu

246

Scientific, Columbia, MD 21046) operated in the negative ion mode using selected-ion

247

monitoring to improve sensitivity and minimize chemical interferences. Sample components

248

were separated using a Synergi 4-um hydro-RP 80A 50-mm x 4.6-mm column (Phenomenex).

249

Biota-to-Soil Accumulation Factors. Biota-to-soil accumulation factors (BSAFs) for TCC and

250

TCS in the organisms included in this study were calculated as the ratio of the lipid normalized

251

concentration of TCC or TCS in the organism to the carbon normalized concentration of TCC or

252

TCS in the soil at the experimental site. The total lipid content in the earthworms and deer mice

253

liver and muscle tissues were determined using a method described previously.28 Briefly,

254

homogenized samples were extracted using 2:1(v:v) chloroform:methanol. The extract mixture

255

was centrifuged to promote solvent separation. The chloroform layer was removed and filtered

256

through a 0.45 µm syringe filter. The total lipid content was determined gravimetrically. The

257

total lipid content of the starling and kestrel eggs was determined using a method described

258

previously29, which is similar to that used for the earthworms and deer mice tissues. Briefly,

259

about 1 g of homogenized egg sample was extracted using 2:1 (v:v) chloroform:methanol

260

overnight at 4°C. The extract was filtered through a 0.45 µm syringe filter, and 4 mL of a 0.88%

261

NaCl solution was added. Following phase separation the chloroform layer was collected and the

262

total lipid content was determined gravimetrically.

12



Page 14 of 41

263

Statistical Analysis. Positive detection of TCC and TCS measured in starling eggs, and kestrel

264

eggs at concentrations that were less than the method detection limit (< MDL) were assigned a

265

value of ½ the MDL (TCC: 1.35 ng/g ww for eggs; TCS: 1.8 ng/g ww for mice liver and 1.65

266

ng/g ww for eggs) for statistical purposes only.30 Residuals were analyzed using a Shapiro-Wilks

267

Normality test and were not normally distributed, nor could be log-transformed. Therefore,

268

Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA tests were performed comparing TCC and TCS

269

concentrations between the reference and experimental sites within each bird species (intra-

270

species comparisons) to identify differences relating to the applications of the biosolids (e.g.,

271

comparing TCC concentrations in starling eggs from the reference site to starling eggs from the

272

experimental site). Kruskal-Wallis ANOVAs were also used to compare TCC or TCS

273

concentrations among species on the same site (e.g., kestrel eggs vs. starling eggs on the

274

experimental site), to identify possible inter-species differences in exposure to these chemicals.

275

When significant differences were found (p < 0.05) among the three species (mice, starlings,

276

kestrels), Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons were performed. A contingency table was used to test

277

for site differences in occupancy rates and nesting success of each species in 2011 (both avian

278

species), and repeated for kestrels breeding in 2012. Spearman’s rank correlations were used to

279

identify significant correlations between TCC or TCS egg concentrations and egg size

280

parameters collected in 2012. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4® except for

281

the contingency tables that were analyzed using RStudio® (version 2013, R Core Development

282

Team). We report median, mean, range, and standard error of mean (SEM), when appropriate,

283

and statistical significance was considered to be p ≤ 0.05.

284 285 13


Page 15 of 41


286

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

287

TCC and TCS Concentrations.

288

In general, the application of biosolids to agricultural fields on the experimental site

289

yielded higher concentrations of TCC and/or TCS in soil, earthworms, the liver of deer mice, and

290

starling eggs than the reference site (Table 1); this pattern, however, was not evident with the

291

kestrel eggs. In the current study, the concentrations of TCC (1026 – 1472 ng/g ww) and TCS

292

(1114 – 1350 ng/g ww) in the biosolids collected prior to application were generally lower than

293

concentrations reported in most comparable studies where biosolids were applied to agricultural

294

soil.12,31,32 Although it is unknown if these concentrations are representative of TCC and TCS in

295

the biosolids applied at the experimental site in previous years, Pycke et al.33 demonstrated little

296

variation in TCC and TCS concentrations in biosolids from by a single WWTF over more than

297

one year of sample collection. Correspondingly, the concentrations of TCC (14.8-27.3 ng/g ww)

298

and TCS (2.7-4.4 ng/g ww) in the soil collected from the experimental site for this study were at

299

the lower range of concentrations reported for biosolids-amended soils. 12,31,32 The lower

300

concentrations of TCC and TCS in the biosolids and soils in this study compared to other similar

301

studies may result from differing inputs of antimicrobials and treatment methodologies among

302

WWTFs, differential field application rates of biosolids, conditions of uptake or degradation, and

303

different environmental conditions among studies.

304

Concentrations of TCS detected in earthworms from the experimental site in this study

305

(5.9 – 42.8 ng/g ww) were 34-fold lower than concentrations detected in earthworms in a

306

previous study,12 which likely reflects the lower concentrations of TCS in the biosolids and soils

307

in this study compared to previous research. TCC concentrations in earthworms at the

308

experimental site in this study (5.1 ng/g ww) was 5 to 26 times lower than TCC previously 14



Page 16 of 41

309

reported in Eisenia foetida in a laboratory exposure study likely reflects lower TCC in the

310

biosolids applied at the experimental site in this study compared to the laboratory exposure

311

study.4 In this study, the earthworms were not depurated as to represent the potential exposure to

312

TCC and TCS available to predators that consume earthworms (e.g., starlings). Here, the

313

concentrations of TCS in the earthworms exceeded what was measured in the soil at the

314

experimental site, while the opposite pattern occurred with TCC.

315

Both TCC (20.0 ± 4.6 ng/g) and TCS (5.0 ± 1.2 ng/g) were detected in the deer mice

316

livers but not their muscle, and only in mice from the experimental site (Table 1). Since TCC

317

and TCS are lipophilic, it is probable that very low, undetectable concentrations of both

318

antimicrobials occurred in the muscle of these mice, but at concentrations below the limits of

319

detection. The lipid content of deer mice liver was greater than deer mice muscle tissue (Table

320

S2). There is limited, if any, information available for TCC or TCS concentrations measured in

321

the tissues of free-ranging small mammals, including mice exposed to biosolids. Assuming

322

toxicity thresholds would be similar between free-ranging mice and laboratory rodents, the TCS

323

hepatic concentrations measured in the deer mice during this study (6.6-10.7 ng/g) are likely

324

below the threshold for disrupting thyroid function that occurred in laboratory rats dosed with

325

TCS concentrations of 35.6 to 300 mg/kg.15,34 To our knowledge, this is the first study to detect

326

TCC and TCS in wild rodents and suggests that accumulation of these antimicrobials by small

327

mammals is a potential route of exposure to predators foraging on them (e.g., American kestrels).

328

Overall, it is likely that total exposure to TCC and TCS accumulation of these compounds is

329

underestimated in this work because common metabolites/degradation products of TCC and TCS

330

known to be present in biosolids were not included as analytes in this project.33

331 15


Page 17 of 41

332


Bioaccumulation of TCC and TCS.

333

In an effort to assess the bioaccumulation of TCC and TCS in the biological samples

334

included in this study, biota-to-soil accumulation factors (BSAFs) were calculated (Table 2).

335

With the exception of the BSAF for TCS in earthworms and starling eggs, all of the BSAFs are

336

below a value of 1. This may suggest that direct exposure to soil is not a major source of TCC

337

and TCS to organisms in this study other than earthworms and possibly starlings. The BSAFs for

338

TCC (0.79) and TCS (67) in earthworms are estimates because the earthworms in this study were

339

not depurated prior to TCC and TCS analysis. However, the concentration reported for TCS in

340

the earthworms is substantially greater than that reported for the soil, which suggests any TCS in

341

the gut contents are a minor component of TCS reported for earthworms. These estimated

342

BSAFs for TCC and TCS in earthworms suggests greater bioavailability of TCS in soils

343

compared to TCC. A comparison of BSAFs for TCC and TCS for the organisms analyzed in this

344

study to other studies is limited. BSAFs for TCC in earthworm Eisenia foetida exposed to

345

biosolids amended soils was previously reported to rage from 0.22 to 0.71.4 The BSAF for TCC

346

in earthworms of 0.79 in this study is in similar to those previous reported. In addition, a

347

comparison of the bioaccumulation factor (BAF; ratio of concentration in the organism to the

348

concentration in the soil) for TCS in earthworms can be made with previously reported values. In

349

this study, the BAF for TCS in earthworms can only be estimated because the earthworms by

350

design of this study were not depurated. The estimated BAF for TCS (15.9) is within the range

351

previously reported (BAF = 10.9 – 40.1) for earthworms in biosolids amended soils and

352

demonstrates a similar relative uptake of TCS by earthworms at this field site.35

353 354

Assessing Intra-Species Differences in TCC and TCS concentrations: Avian eggs. 16



Page 18 of 41

355

Generally, concentrations of TCC and TCS were detected in the eggs of both avian

356

species collected from the experimental and reference sites; notably, TCS occurred at measurable

357

concentrations in only one starling egg from the reference site, and TCC concentrations were

358

below measureable concentrations in most of the kestrel eggs from both sites (Table 1). The

359

detection of TCC and TCS in the starling and kestrel eggs from the reference site may reflect the

360

mobility of the birds when foraging and/or the general ubiquitous occurrence of these

361

antimicrobials in the environment.

362

Intra-specific site comparisons indicated that the starling eggs from the experimental site

363

had significantly higher concentrations of TCC than those on the reference site (X2 = 3.7 df = 1 p

364

= 0.054, Fig. 1). Although the concentration of TCS in starling eggs at the experimental site

365

exceeds the concentration of TCS detected in a single egg from the reference site by a factor of

366

1.6 to 6.5 times, the difference in concentrations is not statistically significant (p = 0.32) (Table

367

1). The eggs of American kestrels collected from the experimental site had similar concentrations

368

of TCS (p = 0.71), and very low levels of TCC (p = 1.0), as the kestrel eggs from the reference

369

site (Fig. 1). The fact that starling eggs, but not kestrel eggs, had measurable and higher TCC and

370

TCS concentrations on the experimental site may be related to differences in feeding strategies

371

and prey choice between the two species. Starlings tend to forage in the same general area for

372

most of the year, including directly in agricultural fields.34 In contrast, kestrels forage more

373

frequently in fallow land adjacent to agricultural fields, and their territory size is more variable.19

374

Consequently starlings may more consistently feed in agricultural areas amended with biosolids

375

throughout the year compared to kestrels.

376 377

Assessing Inter-Species Differences in TCC and TCS concentrations 17


Page 19 of 41

378


TCC and TCS concentrations were also compared between the two avian species on the

379

experimental site, and then similarly on the reference site. The concentrations of TCS were

380

similar in the kestrel and starling eggs on both study sites (p ≥ 0.12). The concentrations of TCC

381

in the kestrel eggs were significantly lower than the starling eggs collected on the experimental

382

site (X2 = 7.54 df = 1 p = 0.02) (Fig. 1), and marginally lower on the reference site (X2 = 3.68 df

383

= 1 p = 0.06). Starlings insert their beak into the ground to retrieve various invertebrates and

384

other prey36, and in so doing, they may simultaneously ingest soil particles containing TCC. In

385

contrast, when feeding or capturing prey, kestrels do not come into direct contact or ingest soil.

386

That a similar, clear pattern was not observed with TCS may reflect the lower TCS

387

concentrations in the soil at the experimental site compared to TCC. Alternatively, because

388

species can vary in rates of metabolism,37 it is also possible that kestrels metabolize or eliminate

389

antimicrobials more efficiently than European starlings.

390

The inter-species comparisons were expanded to include mice as well as the starling and

391

kestrel eggs, but this was only possible on the experimental site since TCC and TCS were not

392

detected in mice on the reference site (Fig. 1; Table 1). On the experimental study site, TCS

393

concentrations remained similar among the mice, starling eggs, and kestrel eggs (p = 0.13), while

394

concentrations of TCC differed significantly among the three species overall (X2 = 7.54 df = 2 P

395

= 0.023). The TCC concentrations were similar between the mice and starling eggs (p = 0.669),

396

but significantly higher in both species (mice: X2 = 6.55 df = 1 p = 0.010; starling eggs: X2 =

397

6.55 df = 1 p = 0.010) when compared to the kestrel eggs (Fig. 1; Table 1). In contrast to

398

kestrels, starlings and mice come into direct contact with biosolids-amended soil: starlings

399

through inserting their beaks to capture soil invertebrates, and mice by digging and burrowing in

400

soil. This inter-species difference in direct contact with the soil may explain the greater 18



Page 20 of 41

401

concentrations of TCC in the mice and starling eggs compared to the kestrel eggs. More research

402

is required to characterize and determine the relative importance of soil contact and diet as routes

403

of exposure to TCC by vertebrates.

404

Concentrations of antimicrobials in relation to egg and reproductive measures.

405

The results of this study indicate that both bird species were exposed to and accumulated

406

TCC and TCS since both antimicrobials were found in detectable concentrations in their eggs.

407

However, there was no evidence to suggest that the concentrations of TCC or TCS were

408

correlated with the egg size or egg shell thickness variables of either species (all p-values ≥ 0.21,

409

Table S3), which were similar to measurements previously reported for these species.18,19 Nor

410

was there a significant difference in nest success between experimental and reference sites for

411

European starlings (p = 0.30) (Fig. 1; Table 3). However, in 2012, nesting success of American

412

kestrels was significantly lower on the experimental site (10% and 17% success rate in 2011 and

413

2012, respectively) compared to the kestrels on the reference site (50% success rate, p = 0.015,

414

Table 3). The sample size in our study was small so caution should be used when interpreting

415

these results. Nevertheless, nesting success rates of 10% and 17% at the experimental site are

416

substantially lower than the average rate of 51% determined in a concurrent study of 102

417

American kestrel pairs conducted in the same county as our study.38

418

A combination of multiple stressors may have contributed to the reduced nesting success

419

of the kestrels observed at the experimental site in our study.39 The kestrels’ exposure to the low

420

concentrations of TCC and TCS observed is unlikely to be a contributing factor, since they were

421

far below known toxic levels for aquatic invertebrates and fish.40-42 The possible toxicity of TCC

422

and TCS to terrestrial wildlife species remains unknown and warrants further investigation. The

423

reduced rate of nesting success by kestrels on the experimental site was principally due to nest 19


Page 21 of 41


424

abandonment. The underlying causes of nest abandonment are unclear but could be influenced

425

by exposure to other contaminants that are known to be commonly present in biosolids but not

426

analyzed in this study, disturbance caused by different farming practices, or other experimental

427

site-specific conditions that determine nesting success, e.g., the availability and quality of prey,

428

thus determining foraging behavior.

429

With reports of antimicrobial concentrations of 30,000 ± 11,000 ng/g dw in biosolids

430

from the mid-Atlantic United States8, together with the potential for toxicity of these

431

antimicrobials to invertebrates and vertebrates, it is important to continue to monitor TCC and

432

TCS in biosolids and food webs receiving biosolids.12-14 This study demonstrates that following

433

extended application of municipal biosolids containing TCC and TCS to an agricultural field (at

434

concentrations lower than reported in other studies12,31.32), concentrations of these two

435

antimicrobials were measured in each trophic level of the terrestrial food web examined.

436

Antimicrobials were detected in soil as well as in primary (earthworms), secondary (deer mice,

437

starlings), and tertiary (kestrels) consumers. Furthermore, the TCC and TCS concentrations in

438

these trophic levels reflect extended application of biosolids to agricultural soils for seven years:

439

concentrations were higher in biosolids, soil, deer mice livers, and European starling eggs at the

440

experimental site than at the reference site. Trophic level differences in concentrations of these

441

two antimicrobials may reflect differences in feeding behavior and strategies between species.

442

The concentrations of TCC and TCS measured in the current study were not correlated with egg

443

parameters of either avian species, although the kestrels demonstrated lower reproductive

444

success on the experimental site. Understanding the toxicokinetics of these and other

445

antimicrobials, and identifying possible effects of TCC and TCS, in wild animals (e.g., mice,

446

birds) requires further investigation. 20



Page 22 of 41

447 448

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

449

It is with great sadness that we note that our colleague and coauthor, Dr. Alfred M. Dufty, Jr.,

450

passed away before the publication of this article. This work was supported by funding from a

451

Colorado State University–Pueblo Seed Grant and funding from the College of Science and

452

Mathematics; support from the U.S. Geological Survey Toxics Substances Hydrology Program,

453

Sigma Xi Grant-In-Aid of Research, Raptor Research Center and the Department of Biological

454

Sciences at Boise State University, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. The use of

455

trade, firm, or brand names in this paper is for identification purposes only and does not

456

constitute endorsement by the authors or the U.S. Geological Survey.

457 458

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

459

Supporting information, Tables S1-S3 and Fig. S1a-c, is available free of charge via the Internet

460

at http://pubs.acs.org/.

21


Page 23 of 41


461

LITERATURE CITED

462

(1) Halden, R. & Paull, D. Co-occurrence of triclocarban and triclosan in U.S. water resources.

463 464 465 466

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39: 1420–1426. DOI: 10.1021/es049071e (2) Kemper, N., Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: Ecol. Indic, 2008, v. 8, no. 1, p. 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.06.002 (3)Wu, C., Spongberg, A. L., Witter, J. D., Fang, M., & Czajkowski, K. P. Uptake of

467

pharmaceutical and personal care products by soybean plants from soils applied with

468

biosolids and irrigated with contaminated water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44: 6157-

469

6161. DOI: 10.1021/es1011115

470

(4) Higgins, C. P., Paesani, Z. J., Abbott Chalew, T. E., Halden, R. U., & Hundal, L. S.

471

Persistence of triclocarban and triclosan in soils after land application of biosolids and

472

bioaccumulation in Eisenia foetida. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2011, 30: 556-563.

473

DOI: 10.1002/etc.416

474

(5) Kinney, C. A., Furlong, E. T., Werner, S.L., & Cahill, J.D. Presence and distribution of

475

wastewater-derived pharmaceuticals in soil irrigated with reclaimed water. Environ. Toxicol.

476

Chem. 2006, 25: 317-326. DOI: 10.1897/05-187R.1

477

(6) Chalew, Talia E. & Halden, R. Environmental exposure of aquatic and terrestrial biota to

478

triclosan and triclocarban. J. Am. Water Resour. As. 2009, 45: 4-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-

479

1688.2008.00284.x

480

(7) Heidler, J., Sapkota, A. & Halden, R. Partitioning, persistence, and accumulation in digested

481

sludge of the topical antiseptic triclocarban during wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci.

482

Technol. 2006, 40: 3634–3649. DOI: 10.1021/es052245n 22



483

(8) Heidler, J., & Halden, R. U. Mass balance assessment of triclosan removal during

484

conventional sewage treatment. Chemosphere. 2007, 66: 362-369. DOI:

485

10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.04.066

486

(9) Emerging Technologies for Biosolid Management; EPA-832/R-06-005. U.S. Environmental

487

Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2006.

488

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1006DGM.txt

489

(10) Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA-832/R-04-001. U.S.

490

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC, 2004.

491

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/primer.pdf

492

Page 24 of 41

(11) Macherius, A., Eggen, T., Lorenz, W. G., Reemtsma, T., Winkler, U. & Moeder, M.

493

Uptake of galaxolide, tonalide, and triclosan by carrot, barley, and meadow fescue plants. J.

494

Agric. Food. Chem. 2012, 60: 7785-7791. DOI: 10.1021/jf301917q

495

(12) Kinney, C. A., Furlong, E.T., Kolpin, D.W., Burkhardt, M.R., Zaugg, S.D.,

496

Werner, S.L., Bossio, J.P. & Benotti, M.J. Bioaccumulation of pharmaceuticals and other

497

anthropogenic waste indicators in earthworms from agricultural soil amended with biosolids

498

or swine manure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42: 1863-1870. DOI: 10.1021/es702304c

499

(13) Fair P.A., Hing-Biu L., Adams J., Darling, C., Pacepavicius, G., Alaee M., Bossart, G.D.,

500

Henry, N. & Muir, D. Occurrence of triclosan in plasma of wild Atlantic bottlenose dolphins

501

(Tursiops truncates) and in their environment. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157: 2248-2254. DOI:

502

10.1016/j.envpol.2009.04.002

503

(14) Adolfsson-Erici, M., Pettersson, M., Parkkonen, J., & Sturve, J. Triclosan, a commonly used

504

bactericide found in human milk and in the aquatic environment in Sweden. Chemosphere.

505

2002, 46: 1485-1489. DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00255-7 23


Page 25 of 41


506

(15) Crofton, K. M., Paul, K. B., DeVito, M. J., & Hedge, J. M. Short-term in vivo exposure to

507

the water contaminant triclosan: Evidence for disruption of thyroxine. Environ. Toxicol.

508

Pharmacol. 2007, 24:194-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.etap.2007.04.008

509

(16) Fritsch, E. B., Connon, R. E., Werner, I., Davies, R. E., Beggel, S., Feng, W., & Pessah, I.

510

N. Triclosan impairs swimming behavior and alters expression of excitation-contraction

511

coupling proteins in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Environ. Sci. Technol.

512

2013, 47: 2008-2017. DOI: 10.1021/es303790b

513

(17) Ishibashi, H., Matsumura, N., Hirano, M., M. Matsuoka, M., Shiratsucki, H., Ishibashi, Y.,

514

Takao, Y., & Arisono, K. Eﬀects of triclosan on the early life stages and reproduction of

515

medake (Oryzias latipes) and induction of hepatic vitellogenin. Aquat. Toxicol. 2004, 67:

516

167-179. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2003.12.005

517

(18) Cabe, Paul R. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), The Birds of North America Online (A.

518

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 1993; Retrieved from the Birds of North

519

America http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/048. DOI:10.2173/bna.48

520

(19) Smallwood, J. A. & Bird, D. M. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), The Birds of North

521

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the

522

Birds of North America Online:

523

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/602. DOI:10.2173/bna.602

524 525

(20) Field Soil Sampling Plan - Twenty Mile South Biosolids Application Site Boise City Public Works. August, 2010.

526

24



527

(21) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)

528

database for Ada County (ID001) and Canyon County (ID665). Available [ONLINE]

529

@ http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 11, 2016].

530

(22) Kiff, L.F. & Sumida, S. Private communication. 2012.

531

(23) Narushin, V. G. Egg geometry calculation using the measurements of length and

532 533 534

Page 26 of 41

breadth. Poultry Sci. 2005, 84: 482-484. DOI: 10.1093/ps/84.3.482 (24) Ricklefs, R. E. Variation in the size and composition of eggs of the European Starling. 1984. Condor, 1-6. DOI: 10.2307/1367333

535

(25) Steenhof, K., & Newton, I. Assessing nesting success and productivity. In Raptor Research

536

and Management Techniques. Bird, D.M., Bildstein, K.L., Barber, D.R., & Zimmerman, A.

537

2007. Hancock House Pub Ltd.

538

(26) Kinney, C. A., Furlong, E. T., Zaugg, S. D., Burkhardt, & M., Werner, S. L. Survey of

539

organic wastewater contaminants in biosolids destined for land application. Environ. Sci.

540

Technol. 2006, 40: 7207–7215. DOI: 10.1021/es0603406

541

(27) Subedi, B., & Usenko, S. Enhanced pressurized liquid extraction technique capable of

542

analyzing polychlorobenzo-p-diozins, polychlorodibenzofurans, and polychlorobiphenyls in

543

fish tissue. J. Chromatogr. A. 2012, 1238: 30-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.03.037

544

(28) Randall, R.C., Lee II, H., Ozretich, R.J., Lake, J.L., Pruell, R.J. Evaluation of selected

545

lipid methods for normalizing pollutant bioaccumulation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.

546

Chemistry. 1991, 10:1431-1436. DOI: 10.1002/etc.5620101108

547 25


Page 27 of 41

548


(29) Cherian, G., Traber, M.G., Goeger, M.P., Leonard, S.W. Conjugated linoleic acid and

549

fish oil in laying hen diets: Effects on egg fatty acids, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances,

550

and tocopherols during storage. Poultry Sci. 2007. 86:953-958.

551

DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.5.953

552 553 554

(30) Helsel, D. R. Summing nondetects: Incorporating low-level contaminants in risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2010. 6: 361–366. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.31 (31) Cha, J. & Cupples, A. M. Detection of the antimicrobials triclocarban and triclosan in

555

agricultural soils following land application of municipal biosolids. Water Res. 2009, 43:

556

2522-2530. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.03.004

557

(32) Xia, K., Hundal, L. S., Kumar, K., Armbrust, K., Cox, A. E., & Granato, T. C.

558

Triclocarban, triclosan, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and 4‐nonylphenol in biosolids and

559

in soil receiving 33‐year biosolids application. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29: 597-605.

560

DOI: 10.1002/etc.66

561

(33) Pycke, B. F., Roll, I. B., Brownawell, B. J., Kinney, C. A., Furlong, E. T., Kolpin, D. W., &

562

Halden, R. U. (2014). Transformation products and human metabolites of triclocarban and

563

triclosan in sewage sludge across the United States. Environ Sci & Tech, 48: 7881-7890.

564

DOI: 10.1021/es5006362

565

(34) Zorrilla, L. M., Gibson, E. K., Jeffay, S. C., Crofton, K. M., Setzer, W. R., Cooper, R. L., &

566

Stoker, T. E. The effects of triclosan on puberty and thyroid hormones in male Wistar

567

rats. Toxicol. Sci. 2009,107: 56-64. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfn225

568

26



569

Page 28 of 41

(35 Kinney, C.A., Furlong, E.T., Kolpin, D.W., Zaugg, S.D., Burkhardt, M.R., Bossio, J.P. &

570

Werner, S.L. Earthworms: Diagnostic indicators of wastewater derived anthropogenic

571

organic contaminants in terrestrial environments. In: Halden, R.U., Contaminants of

572

Emerging Concern: Ecotoxicological and Human Health Considerations. American

573

(36) Caccamise, D. F. European starling fidelity to diurnal activity centers: role of foraging

574

substrate quality. Wilson Bull. 1991, 103: 13-24.

575

https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/wilson/v103n01/p0013-p0024.pdf

576

(37) Boĭko, S. S., Zherdev, V. P., Kisliak, N. A., Piatin, B. M., Klimova, N. V., Glan, P. V., &

577

Dvorianinov, A. A. Interspecific differences in kemantan pharmacokinetics. Eksp Klin

578

Farmakol. 1993, 57: 48-50. PMID: 7756963

579

(38) Heath, J.A. Private communication. 2014

580

(39) Sih, A., Bell, A. M. & Kerby, J. L. Two stressors are far deadlier than one. Trends. Ecol.

581 582

Evol. 2004, 19: 274–276. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.02.010 (40) Lawrence, J.R., Zhu, B., Swerhone G.W., Roy, J., Wassenaar, L.I., Topp, E., & Korber,

583

D.R. Comparative microscale analysis of the effects of triclosan and triclocarban on the

584

structure and function of river biofilm communities. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407: 3307-

585

3316. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.01.060

586

(41) Harada, A., Komori, K., Nakada, N., Kitamura, K., Suzuki, Y. Biological effects of PPCPs

587

on aquatic lives and evaluation of river waters affected by different wastewater treatment

588

levels. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 58: 1541-1546. DOI: 10.2166/wst.2008.742

589

(42) Ciba. Brochure no. 2521: IRGASAN DP 300/IRGACARE MP: Toxicological and

590

ecological data/Oﬃcial registration. 1998. Cited from M. Adolfsson-Erici et al. 2002.

591

DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00255-7 27


Page 29 of 41


592

28



593 594 595 596

Page 30 of 41

Figure 1: Arithmetic mean concentrations ± standard errors about the means (SEM) of triclocarban (TCC) in American kestrel (AMKE) and European Starling (EUST) eggs, and mice tissue (liver) collected in 2012. Different letters depict significant differences between means using Wilcoxon non-parametric test.

597

598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607

29


Page 31 of 41

608 609 610 611 612


Table 1: Concentrations (ng/g) of triclocarban (TCC) and triclosan (TCC) in abiotic and biotic samples collected at different trophic levels from the experimental site amended with muncipal biosolids for seven years and the reference site, in 2012. Medians (bolded), (min-max), and [mean ± SEM] are presented. When appropriate, means and standard errors about the mean (SEM) are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Sample

TCC (ng/g ww) †

TCS (ng/g ww)

Biosolids (n=1) 1250 1230† Soil – Reference site* pre-application (n=1)* ND† ND† post-application (n=1)* ND† ND† Soil – Experimental site pre-application (n=1) 14.8† 4.4† post-application (n=1) 27.3† 2.7† Earthworms‡ Reference (n=1) ND† 5.9† Experimental (n=1) 5.1† 42.8† Deer mice - liver‡ Reference (n = 3) ND ND Experimental (n = 7) 17.0 (12.6 - 33.3) [20.0 ± 4.6] 3.3 (6.6-10.7) [5.0 ± 1.2]§ Deer mice - muscle‡ Reference (n = 3) ND ND Experimental (n = 7) ND ND ‡ European starling eggs Reference (n = 6) 4.6 (3.6-5.0) [3.9 ± 0.7]§ 5.8 § Experimental (n = 6) 23.2 (15.4 - 31.4) [20.4 ± 4.4] 13.7 (9.4-37.9) [16.3 ± 5.1]§ American kestrel eggs‡ Reference (n=5) 4.6 (4.1-5.4) [4.0 ± 0.8]§ 3.3º Experimental (n=5) 4.2 (4.2-13.4) [5.4 ± 2.2]§ 3.6º 613 ND = Not Detected 614 *Biosolids were not applied to the reference site. † 615 Values represent the average of triplicate measurements of a composite sample from three 616 independent locations. ‡ 617 Reported values are on a wet weight basis. 618 § For the purposes of statistical analysis, values that were positively detected (correct retention 619 time, ions, and ion ratios) but below the method detection limit (MDL) were assigned ½ MDL 620 (TCC: 1.35 ng/g ww for eggs; TCS: 1.8 ng/g ww for mice liver and 1.65 ng/g ww). 621 One out of 6 eggs had a detectable level of TCS, the others had nondetectable concentrations. 622 º Reference site eggs had 4 out of 5 detections of TCC. Only one was above the MDL. 623 Experimental site eggs had 5 out of 5 detections of TCC. Only one was above the MDL. 30



624

Table 2: Biota-to-soil accumulation factors (BSAFs) for organisms from the experimental site

625 626

Sample TCC TCS Earthworms 0.79* 67* Deer Mouse (liver) 0.20 0.50 Starling eggs 0.25 2.0 Kestrel eggs 0.05 0.77 * BSAF estimated for earthworms because earthworms were not depurated as part of the experimental design.

Page 32 of 41

31


Page 33 of 41


627 628 629 630 631 632

Table 3. Number of nests for American kestrels and European starlings breeding on the experimental site and reference site, 2011 and 2012. A nesting attempt was classified as unsuccessful if a full clutch was observed but no nestlings grew to be 20 days old (the equivalent of 80% of the average age at first flight). A nesting attempt was deemed successful only if at least one nestling reached 20 days or 80% of the average age at first flight. Nesting success information was not collected for European starling nests in 2012. Species Site Year Unsuccessful Successful Nesting Mean # nesting nesting attempt Success fledglings per attempt (%) successful nesting attempt American kestrel Reference 2011 12 6 50 3.2 American kestrel

Experimental 2011

10

1

10

2.0

American kestrel

Reference

2012

12

6

50

3.3

American kestrel

Experimental 2012

6

1

17

2.0

European starling

Reference

2011

6

6

100

2.5

European starling

Experimental 2011

6

5

83

2.5

633 634

32



635

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

636

Occurrence of triclocarban and triclosan in an agro-ecosystem following

637

application of biosolids

638

Jessica J. Sherburne §, Amanda M. Anaya ҂, Kim J. Fernie ∞,§, Jennifer S. Forbey §, Edward T.

639

Furlong †, Dana W. Kolpin ≡, Alfred M. Dufty §, Chad A. Kinney* , ҂.

640

§

641

83725

642

҂

643

∞

644

and Climate Change Canada, 867 Lakeshore Rd., Burlington, ON CANADA L7S 1A1

645

†

646

95, Denver, CO 80225

647

≡

648

Number of Pages: 6

649

Number of Figures: 3

650

Number of Tables: 2

651

* Correspondance:

Page 34 of 41

Department of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, 1900 University Dr., Boise, ID

Department of Chemistry, Colorado State University, 2200 Bonforte Blvd., Pueblo, CO 81001 Ecotoxicology and Wildlife Health Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment

U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Laboratory, Denver Federal Center, Building

U.S. Geological Survey, 400 S. Clinton St., Iowa City, IA 52240

Email :

652

Tel : (719) 549-2600

653

Mail : Colorado State University-Pueblo

654

Chemistry Department

655

2200 Bonforte Blvd

656 33


Page 35 of 41


657 658

Introduction

659

In the Supplemental Information section, the analytical performance parameters and detection

660

limits are presented. In addition, data are presented that describe the egg morphometric

661

measurements of American kestrel eggs and European starling eggs that were collected in 2012

662

from the experimental site that had been amended with municipal biosolids for seven years, and

663

the reference site. Finally, maps of the study sites are provided.

664

34



Page 36 of 41

Table S1: Analytical Method Performance Parameters for triclocarban (TCC) and triclosan (TCS). A. Absolute method recovery (%)* for triclocarban (TCC) and triclosan (TCS) TCC

TCS

Biosolids

83.9 ± 2.5

87.6 ± 4.5

Soil

84.4 ± 5.4

86.3 ± 4.6

Earthworms

72.5 ± 4.2

61.0 ± 6.7†

Deer mice - Liver

54.9 ± 13

99.2 ± 4.2

Deer mice - Muscle

51.2 ± 4.2

55.1 ± 5.2

Eggs

41.0 ± 7.1

53.0 ± 5.0

* Low absolute method recovery are overcome by the use of isotope dilution (isotope-labeled internal standards added at the beginning of extraction process). † Method performance parameters previously reported 12 B. Method detection limits* for triclocarban (TCC) and triclosan (TCS) concentration (ng/g) TCC

TCS

5.5

2.8

3.4

2.6

3.1

3.3

Deer mice - Liver‡

3.2

3.6

Deer mice - Muscle‡

4.2

14.6

Eggs‡

2.7

3.3

Biosolids† Soil† Earthworms

‡

*Concentrations detected above the Method Detection Limit (MDL) were used in analysis. Any positive detection below the MDL was assigned a value of half of the MDL for statistical analysis.26 † Dry weight basis ‡ Fresh weight basis

35


Page 37 of 41

665


Table S2: Total lipids in biological samples and organic matter in soils

Sample Earthworms (control) Earthworms (experimental) Deer Mouse (liver) Deer Mouse (muscle) Starling egg Kestrel egg

Soil (control) soil (experimental)

Total Lipids (% wet wt) 0.73 ± 0.07

Total Lipids (% dry wt) 3.6 ± 0.4

0.71 ± 0.05 11.1 ± 1.2 8.8 ± 1.0 9.0 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.4

3.7 ± 0.3 23.5 ± 3.4 15.7 ± 2.0 NA NA

SOM (%) 2.8 ± 0.6 3.0 ± 0.2

666

36



Page 38 of 41

667

Table S3: Egg size measurements for American kestrel eggs and European starling eggs

668

collected in 2012 from the experimental site amended with municipal biosolids for seven years

669

and the reference site. Arithmetic means ± standard errors about the means (SEM) are presented.

670 American kestrels

European starlings

Reference

Experimental Reference

Experimental

Egg length (mm)

35.7 ± 0.4

35.4 ± 0.3

30.7 ± 0.5

30.4 ± 0.9

Egg breadth (mm)

29.1 ± 0.4

28.8 ± 0.3

21.7 ± 0.1

21.4 ± 0.2

Egg volume (mL3)

16.7 ± 0.6

16.2 ± 0.4

7.7 ± 0.1

7.4 ± 0.3

Egg mass (g)

13.7 ± 0.7

13.5 ± 0.4

6.5 ± 0.1

6.1 ± 0.3

Shell mass (g)

1.1 ± 0.06

1.1 ± 0.03

0.5 ± 0.01

0.5 ± 0.02

Shell thickness (mm)

0.2 ± 0.006

0.2 ± 0.005

0.1 ± 0.004

0.1 ± 0.003

671 672 673 674 675 676 677

37


Page 39 of 41

678


Figure S1a: Overall map of Reference and Experimental field sites

679 680 38



Page 40 of 41

681 682

Figure S1b: Reference Site

683 684 685 686 39


Page 41 of 41


687 688 689

Figure S1c: Experimental Site

690 691 692

40


Occurrence of Triclocarban and Triclosan in an ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents