Cited by 518Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentEnvironmental Chemistry and Analysis

Ubiquitous occurrence of the artificial sweetener acesulfame in the aquatic environment: an ideal chemical marker of domestic wastewater in groundwater

Buerge, Ignaz J., Buser, Hans-Rudolf, Kahle, Maren, Müller, Markus D., Poiger, Thomas·2009·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Artificial low-calorie sweeteners are consumed in considerable quantities with food and beverages. After ingestion, some sweeteners pass through the human metabolism largely unaffected, are quantitatively excreted via urine and feces, and thus reach the environment associated with domestic wastewater. Here, we document the widespread occurrence of four sweeteners in the aquatic environment and show that one of these compounds, acesulfame, meets all of the criteria of an ideal marker for the detection of domestic wastewater in natural waters, particularly groundwater. Acesulfame was consistently detected in untreated and treated wastewater (12-46 microg/L), in most surface waters, in 65% of the investigated groundwater samples, and even in several tap water samples (up to 2.6 microg/L) from Switzerland. The sweetener was not eliminated in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and was quite persistent in surface waters, where concentrations increased with population in the catchment area and decreased with water throughflow. The highest concentrations in groundwater, up to 4.7 microg/L, were observed in areas with significant infiltration of river water, where the infiltrating water received considerable discharges from WWTPs. Given the currently achieved detection limit of approximately 0.01 microg/L, it is possible to trace the presence of > or = 0.05% wastewater in groundwater.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es900126x

Cites

19 of 19 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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The maximum acesulfame concentration in this study is higher than those reported in two other studies of raw drinking water from groundwater (2600 ng/L) and surface water (4200 ng/L) and in a study of treated tap water (1600 ng/L).

    “Our maximum concentration is higher than those reported in two other studies of raw drinking water from groundwater (2600 ng/L; Buerge et al., 2009) and surface water (4200 ng/L; Scheurer et al., 2010) sources (Table 2) and in a study of treated tap water (1600 ng/L; Spoelstra et al., 2013).”
  • Cyclamate and saccharin showed ≥90% removal in wastewater treatment plants, in a septic system plume, and during riverbank filtration and artificial groundwater recharge.

    “whereas two other artificial sweeteners, cyclamate and saccharin, showed ≥ 90% removal in wastewater treatment plants (Buerge et al., 2009), in a septic system plume (Robertson et al., 2013), and during riverbank filtration and artificial groundwater recharge (Scheurer et al., 2010).”
  • Acesulfame and sucralose underwent negligible removal during wastewater treatment and groundwater transport.

    “Acesulfame and another artificial sweetener, sucralose, underwent negligible removal during wastewater treatment and groundwater transport, whereas two other artificial sweeteners, cyclamate and saccharin, showed ≥ 90% removal in wastewater treatment plants (Buerge et al., 2009), in a septic system plume (Robertson et al., 2013), and during riverbank filtration and artificial groundwater recharge”
  • Acesulfame has been considered an ideal marker of wastewater due to its relatively high concentrations in domestic wastewater, lack of industrial or agricultural sources, and resistance to biodegradation and sorption.

    “Acesulfame has been considered an ideal marker of wastewater due to its relatively high concentrations in domestic wastewater, lack of industrial or agricultural sources, and resistance to biodegradation and sorption (Buerge et al., 2009).”
  • Among four artificial sweeteners, acesulfame was detected at the highest concentrations in Swiss groundwater and surface waters.

    “Among these four artificial sweeteners, acesulfame was detected at the highest concentrations in Swiss groundwater and surface waters (Buerge et al., 2009).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buerge, I. J., Buser, H.-R., Kahle, M., Müller, M. D., & Poiger, T.
Affiliations
Agroscope (CH)
Corresponding author
Buerge, Ignaz J.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2009-05-07
Volume
43
Issue
12
Pages
4381-4385
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2069631972
Cited by
518
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 19
FWCI
17.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Pollution Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Environmental Chemistry and Analysis
Keywords
acesulfame, artificial sweeteners, domestic wastewater, groundwater contamination, wastewater treatment plant effluent, surface water, river water infiltration, tap water, human excretion, population density
MeSH terms
Environmental Monitoring, Sewage, Sweetening Agents, Thiazines, Water, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Supply

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