Cited by 329Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyEnvironmental Chemistry and Analysis

Screening Method for Ecotoxicological Hazard Assessment of 42 Pharmaceuticals Considering Human Metabolism and Excretory Routes

Lienert, Judit, Güdel, Karin, Escher, Beate I.·2007·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

We assessed the ecotoxicological hazard potential of 42 pharmaceuticals from 22 therapeutic groups, including metabolites formed in humans. We treated each parent drug and its metabolites as a mixture of similarly acting compounds. If physicochemical or effect literature data were missing, we estimated these with quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). Additionally, we estimated micropollutant removal efficiency of urine source separation using pharmaceutical information. On average, 50% of a parent drug was metabolized, and 70% was excreted with urine, albeit with large variations among drugs. Metabolism reduced the toxic potential of all but eight drugs. The subsequently modeled risk quotient was mostly below the threshold of one. However, ibuprofen and its metabolites in a mixture could pose an ecotoxicologal risk; and possibly also acetylsalicylic acid, bezafibrate, carbamazepine, diclofenac, fenofibrate, and paracetamol. Lipophilicity and sale quantities of parent drugs alone were insufficient to estimate their ecotoxicological risk. Urine separation could decrease the ecotoxicological risk of some, but not all drugs. The estimated risk quotients were equal in urine and feces, again with large variations among compounds. Because of scientific limitations of the model and inconsistent literature data the results are somewhat uncertain. However, this new approach allows first tier screening of single drugs, thus supporting decision-making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es0627693

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lienert, J., Güdel, K., & Escher, B. I.
Affiliations
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (CH)
Corresponding author
Lienert, Judit
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2007-05-16
Volume
41
Issue
12
Pages
4471-4478
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1983491855
Cited by
329
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
FWCI
22.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Bundesamt für Umwelt
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Environmental Chemistry and Analysis
Keywords
pharmaceuticals, ecotoxicological risk assessment, urinary excretion, micropollutant removal, source separation, risk quotient, ibuprofen, paracetamol, diclofenac, carbamazepine, aspirin, fenofibrate, bezafibrate, QSAR, lipophilicity, micropollutants
MeSH terms
Pharmaceutical Preparations, Environmental Exposure, Feces, Humans, Pharmacokinetics, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Purification, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review