Occurrence of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds, Parabens, and their Main Metabolites in Soils Amended with Sludge and Compost

Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 DOI: 10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Water Emerging Contaminants & Nanoplastics © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. www.oaepublish.com/wecn Open AccessResearch Article Occurrence of pharmaceutically active compounds, parabens, and their main metabolites in soils amended with sludge and compost Juan Luis Santos , Julia Martín, Irene Aparicio, Esteban Alonso Departamento de Química Analítica, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville E 41011, Spain. Correspondence to: Prof. Juan Luis Santos, Departamento de Química Analítica, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Sevilla, C/ Virgen de África, 7. Seville E 41011, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] How to cite this article: Santos JL, Martín J, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Occurrence of pharmaceutically active compounds, parabens, and their main metabolites in soils amended with sludge and compost. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11. https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Received: 27 Feb 2023 First Decision: 4 May 2023 Revised: 16 May 2023 Accepted: 1 Jun 2023 Published: 7 Jun 2023 Academic Editors: Avelino Núñez Delgado, Sina Dobaradaran Copy Editor: Pei-Yun Wang Production Editor: Pei-Yun Wang Abstract The presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment has aroused considerable interest in the last few years. However, the occurrence and fate of parent compounds and their metabolites and/or transformation products in soils have been scarcely evaluated to date. In this work, the dissipation kinetics of PPCPs, which are most frequently detected in the environment, and their main metabolites, is evaluated in soil amended with digested and composted sludge. The studied compounds were monitored for 60 days after digested or compost application to the soil. Several kinetic models were used to evaluate the dissipation kinetics of the processes. Parabens and their metabolites were the compounds with the fastest dissipation rates, while the antiepileptic carbamazepine and its metabolites were the poorest degraded compounds studied. Most of the compounds showed a single first-order dissipation kinetics. The application of biphasic kinetic models can improve the knowledge about the dissipation behavior of some of them. For instance, whereas compounds such as carbamazepine showed a high persistence showing a lag phase in its dissipation, resulting in an approximately constant concentration for the first days of batch experiments, others, such as sulfamethoxazole and diclofenac, followed a dissipation kinetics in two phases: a fast dissipation attributed to the amount of compound associated to the soil-water solution and a slow dissipation that could be due to the amount of the compound adsorbed onto the soil particle. For most of the compounds, the dissipation was faster in sludge-amended soil than in soil without organic amendment. This fact could be due to the influence of microbial activity and organic matter on their dissipation. Page 2 of 19 Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Keywords: Emerging contaminants, sludge, compost, amended soil, dissipation, kinetic INTRODUCTION Currently, one of the main destinations of sewage sludge is its valorization as organic amendment in agricultural soils. Such practice allows the improvement of biological activity and physical properties of the soil[1]. More than 50% of the approximately 15 million tons of sludge generated in the European Union in 2021[2] were applied to soils[3]. This practice is the main sludge disposal option in countries such as Cyprus, Denmark, France, Ireland, and Spain, and, to a lesser extent, in countries such as Finland or Sweden[4]. However, sewage sludge tends to concentrate persistent organic pollutants present in wastewater, which could be accumulated into soils by sludge amendment. As a result, inorganic and organic contaminants such as metals[5,6], plasticizers[7], surfactants, and other industrial pollutants[8,9], and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)[10] have been reported in soils at concentrations in the range from a few nanograms to milligrams per kilogram. Among them, PPCPs have arisen considerable interest not only because they are continuously being discharged into the environment but also because they have been designed to cause effects in living organisms. Moreover, in the case of pharmaceutically active compounds, they have been designed to be nonbioaccumulative and easily removed after their administration[11]. As a result, these compounds can be accumulated in sewage sludge and on sludge-amended soils. They can be present not only as parent compounds but also as their metabolites that, in some cases, can be discharged into the environment at higher concentrations than their parent compounds[10]. However, although the presence of these compounds has been previously reported in soils[2,12,13], studies about their occurrence and distribution in the terrestrial environment are scarce[10,11,14,15]. The therapeutic groups of pharmaceutically active compounds most frequently detected, and the ones at the highest concentrations, are antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, and antiepileptics[2,14], whereas methylparaben (MeP) and propylparaben (PrP) are the most frequently detected personal care products. Only a few studies have evaluated the presence of metabolites of pharmaceutically active compounds and parabens in soils[14,16,17]. Among them, the most studied metabolites are N4-acetylsulfamethoxazole (Ac-SMZ), acetylsulfapiridine[16], carboxy-ibuprofen (CBX-IBU), 4-hydroxy- diclofenac (4-OH-DIC), and 10,11-dihydro-10-hydroxycarbamazepine (10-OH-CBZ). However, these studies were mainly focused on the evaluation of sorption-desorption processes[10,11,18-21]. The behavior and degradation of PPCPs and their metabolites in the soil depend not only on the physicochemical characteristics of the compound but also on the characteristics of the soil[10,22,23]. For example, Kodešová et al. reported that soil texture, organic matter content, and biological activity are key factors affecting the half-life of pharmaceutically active compounds[22]. Biel-Maeso et al. described a faster degradation of some pharmaceuticals such as ibuprofen, diclofenac, or gemfibrozil under aerobic conditions and pointed out the importance of microbial activity in their degradation process[18]. In 2021, Malvar et al. studied the distribution of PPCPs and their main metabolites, most frequently detected in the environment, in different types of Mediterranean soils. Their results revealed the influence of soil characteristics on the removal of the studied compounds and the high persistence of carbamazepine (CBZ) and its metabolites among the evaluated compounds[10]. However, although these studies have revealed the occurrence of some PPCPs in soil, only a few of them have addressed their dissipation kinetics in soil and, in most cases, a single first-order (SFO) kinetic model has been applied[10,11,15,18,22]. However, although SFO enables a first approximation to the kinetics of the process, the use of other kinetic models allows evaluation of other Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Page 3 of 19 issues related to the heterogeneous nature of the soil, such as biphasic kinetics, or lag period, in which the compounds follow slow degradation for the first period followed by a fast kinetics. To the best of our knowledge, until now, only two studies have assessed different dissipation kinetic models of pharmaceuticals in soil using different models, and in these studies, only the kinetics of sulfamethoxazole[24] and metformin[25] were evaluated. This work aimed to evaluate the influence of sludge or compost amendment on the dissipation of PPCPs in amended soils and to evaluate the kinetics of the process. The study was carried out using Mediterranean soil amended with anaerobically-digested and dehydrated sludge or with composted sludge. The studied compounds were selected considering their high consumption, frequency of detection and concentrations measured in environmental samples, their ecotoxicity effects and persistence. Moreover, the metabolites with the highest excretion rate were selected for each parent compound. According to these criteria, the selected compounds were the anti-inflammatories ibuprofen (IBU) and diclofenac (DIC) and their metabolites 1-hydroxyibuprofen (1-OH-IBU), 2-hydroxyibuprofen (2-OH-IBU), CBX-IBU and 4-OH-DIC; the antiepileptic carbamazepine (CBZ) and its metabolites 3-hydroxycarbamazepine (3-OH-CBZ), 10-OH- CBZ, and carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide (EP-CBZ); the antibiotic sulfamethoxazole (SMX) and its metabolite AcSMX; the parabens MeP and PrP and their metabolites methyl protocatechuate (OH-MeP), 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid (3,4-DHB), and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (4-HB). METHODS Soil, sludge, and compost collection The studies were carried out with Cambisol-type Mediterranean soil. It was selected from the results of a previous study in which the degradation rates of the target compounds in alluvial, terra rosa, and Cambisol soils were evaluated[10]. The poorest degradation rates were obtained in Cambisol soil, and because of that, it was selected for the present study. Cambisol type is a sandy loam soil (65.6%-18.4%-16.0%, sand-silt clay) widely extended in several European countries such as France, Germany, Greek, Italy, and Spain. Its physicochemical properties are shown in Supplementary Table 1. Five kilograms of soil were collected from the surface (approximately from 0 to 20 cm) of agricultural land sited in Seville (south of Spain). Anaerobically-digested and dehydrated sludge was collected from a wastewater treatment plant sited in Seville City. Two kilograms of sludge were collected in an amber glass bottle after the centrifugation process. Compost was collected from a composting plant sited in Seville, where anaerobically-digested and dehydrated sludge produced in Seville City is composted. The composting process consists of a natural process using dynamic batteries thermally controlled in which aeration is facilitated by turning. Two kilograms of compost were obtained by mixing several aliquots collected from different points of the compost pile, approximately 30 to 50 cm in depth. All samples were homogenized, sieved (particle size < 2 mm), and stored (-18 ºC) until batch experiments were carried out. Batch experiments Two batch experiments were carried out by amending the soil with (i) anaerobically digested and dehydrated sludge and (ii) composted sludge. Although target compounds have been measured in digested and in composted sludge[26], both types of sludge were spiked with the compounds to ensure their presence in the amended soil. Sludge (or compost) was mixed with soil in a 1:99 proportion, according to the reported agricultural application rate in Andalucía Region (south of Spain) from 2020 to 2022 (rate from Page 4 of 19 Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 0.01% to 0.61% (w/w) (Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca, Agua y Desarrollo Rural from the Andalucía government)[27]. Batch experiments were carried out according to OECD guideline 307[28] as described by Malvar et al.[10]. Sludge and compost were spiked at 50 mg·kg-1 of each compound to achieve an initial concentration of 500 µg·kg-1 in the sludge-amended soil. For this purpose, 50 mL of a standard solution containing the target compounds at 100 mg·L-1 was added to 100 g of sludge (or compost). The mixture was shaken for 2 h in a rotator shaker (LLG-uniLOOPMIX2) at 40 rpm. After that, they were stored at 4 ºC for 24 h. Then, the spiked soils were frozen, lyophilized (Cryodos-50 lyophilizer, Telstar, Terrasa, Spain), and sieved with a 2 mm mesh side. Fifteen grams of the sludge or compost were added to 1,485 g of the soil. The mixture was homogenized and distributed into five glass reactors (300 g of the mixture in each reactor). Then, deionized water was added to achieve a 20% v/w of soil humidity. Two reactors containing non-spiked sludge or compost were used as blanks. Batch experiments were done in a climatic chamber (Selecta, Barcelona, Spain) under the following climatic conditions: 33% of relative humidity, 20% of soil humidity, and an irradiation level of 1,091 W·m-2. The loss of humidity was corrected by adding the proper amount of deionized water. Target compounds in each reactor were monitored for 60 days with the following sampling frequency: four weekly samples were collected during the first four weeks, three weekly samples were collected during the 5th and 6th weeks, and two weekly samples were collected during the 7th and 8th weeks. The last sample was collected on the 60th day. On each sampling day, 2 g of sample was collected from each reactor. Collected samples were frozen, lyophilized, and stored at -18 ºC until analysis. Target compound analysis Analysis of the target compounds was carried out according to a previously developed and validated analytical method[29]. The analytical method was based on selective pressurized liquid extraction and determination by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. A brief description of the method can be found in the supplementary material. More details about the analytical method can be found in Malvar et al. and Supplementary Table 2[29]. Data analysis Dissipation kinetic models The evaluation of the dissipation kinetics was carried out following the FOCUS guidance document on estimating persistence and degradation kinetics from environmental fate studies on pesticides[30], and previously reported studies[24,31]. Several kinetic models were used to evaluate the kinetics of the dissipation processes and to estimate the endpoints for the studied compounds (DT50 and DT90, corresponding to the dissipation of the 50% and 90%, respectively, of the initial concentrations). Six kinetic models were used: a single first-order (SFO) kinetic model; three biphasic kinetic models: a bi-exponential model (BEM), a firstorder two-compartment (FOTC) model, and a first-order double-exponential decay (FODED) model; and two models suitable to describe the dissipation pattern with a lag phase: a modified hockey-stick model (MHSM), and a logistic model (LM). Single first-order kinetic model This model assumes that the number of molecules in the soil is small in relation to the number of active sites in the soil. In this case, the dissipation of a compound is proportional to the remaining concentration. The equation for this model is: Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Page 5 of 19 where t corresponds to time (days), k1 is the first-order rate constant (day-1), C0 corresponds to the initial concentration (µg·kg-1), and C corresponds to the concentration at time t (day) (µg·kg-1). Bi-exponential model Bi-exponential model (BEM) considers that the degradation occurs in two compartments[24]. The first compartment corresponds to the soil-water phase, where the contaminants are available for microorganisms. In this compartment, a fast dissipation is expected. The second compartment corresponds to a phase where the contaminants are adsorbed to soil particles and the dissipation is controlled by sorption-desorption processes. In this model, the dissipation rate can be represented by the sum of first- and second-order differential equations (2): This equation can be integrated as follow: As a result: where k1 is the first-order rate constant (day-1), k2 is the second-order rate constant (kg·µg-1·day-1), t is time, and C0 and C are the concentrations (µg·kg-1) at the beginning of the experiment and at time t, respectively. The equation is reduced to a single first-order equation when k2 = 0. First-order double-exponential decay model As in BEM model, First-order double-exponential decay (FODED) model considers the dissipation of the compound into two compartments, a solution phase, and a sorbed phase, where the compounds are adsorbed onto soil particles. However, FODED model considers first-order kinetics for both processes. For this model, the equation is (5): Page 6 of 19 Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 where t is time (day); Csol and Csorb are the concentrations of the compounds initially distributed into the solution phase and adsorbed onto soil particles, respectively; k1 (day-1) and k2 (day-1) are the dissipation rate constants for each compartment. Usually, k1 is higher than k2, indicating a higher degradation rate of the compound in the solution compartment than adsorbed onto soil. Moreover, when k1 is equal to k2, or one of the concentrations (Csol or Csorb) is zero, the model is mathematically transformed into SFO model. First-order two-compartment model This model considers the dissipation of the compounds in a complex system as a heterogeneous soil. This dissipation takes place in a two-compartment system[32]. In one compartment, fast degradation occurs because of physical, photochemical and other processes. In the other compartment, the degradation is slow and mainly due to microbial, chemical or enzymatic processes[24,25,31]. First-order two-compartment (FOTC) model includes a component of transference between the two compartments not considered in BEM and FODED models. The equations can be written as follows: where t is the time, kr (day-1) is the transfer rate constant of the compound between both compartments; k1 (day-1) and k2 (day-1) are the rate constants for the fast and slow degradation compartments, respectively; and C1 and C2, are the concentrations in each compartment. The total concentration at time t is the sum of C1 and C2. Therefore: Modified hockey-stick model The concentrations of organic compounds could be virtually constant (or with a very poor dissipation rate) for a period of time, followed by a dissipation process governed by SFO or biphasic kinetics[30]. The initial phase is referred to as the lag phase and could be caused by several facts such as a slow adaptation of degrading microorganisms, the inhibition of the degrading microflora at high concentrations of contaminants, or a high persistence of the compound, among others. Modified hockey-stick model (MHSM) considers a constant concentration of the compound (or a very slow decrease) up to the breakpoint (time = tb) followed by a SFO kinetic model. This model can be described by the equation (9): where k (day-1) is the rate constant, tb is the time of lag phase, and C and C0 are the concentrations at time t and the initial concentration (µg·kg-1), respectively. Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Page 7 of 19 Logistic model Logistic model (LM) considers that the degradation rate constant increases after the application of sludge or compost to a maximum value. Once the kinetic constant has reached its maximum value, the kinetic approach is first order[30]. The equation is as follows: where a0 is the kinetic constant at the beginning of the batch experiment, amax is the maximum value of the kinetic constant, r is the microbial growth rate, t is time, and C and C0 are the concentrations at time t and at t = 0. For this model, the higher the r or a0 value, the lower the lag phase of the compound. Evaluation of data fitting to the kinetic models For each compound, the parameters implied in each of the studied models (C0, k1 in the case of SFO; C0, k1, and k2 for BEM; k1, k2, Csorb, and Csol for FODED; C0, k1, k2, and kr for FOTC; C0, k, and tb for MHSM, and C0, amax, a0, and r for the case of LM) were optimized using Microsoft Excel-Solver tool. The values of the model parameters providing the best fit to the experimental data were optimized by minimizing the mean of the square error, that is, the sum of the square of the residuals (SSR) divided by the number of experimental data. Following the FOCUS guidance document[30], the fit of each model to the experimental data was first evaluated through visual assessment. For this evaluation, the experimental mean concentrations and the calculated curves were represented vs. time. In addition, experimental concentrations were plotted vs. the concentrations obtained by the models. The goodness fit of the model was evaluated considering the coefficient of determination (R2) and the slope (close to 1) of the linear curve. DT50 and DT90 determination For each applied model, DT50 and DT90 values were determined. In the case of the SFO model, DT50 and DT90 were determined by applying the following equations[30]: There is no analytical equation for the estimation of DT50 and DT90 values in biphasic models. Consequently, these values should be determined using an interactive procedure that was carried out using the Goal Seek function from Excel. Page 8 of 19 Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 RESULTS Concentration of target compounds in spiked sludge and compost applied to the soil Batch experiments were carried out using spiked anaerobically-digested and dehydrated sludge and compost. Previously to the spiking procedure, soil, sludge, and compost samples were analyzed [Supplementary Table 3]. None of the studied compounds was detected in soil. The parent compounds MeP, CBZ, and DIC were measured at concentrations up to 29.0, 0.83, and 1.09 µg·kg-1, respectively, in digested sludge. In the case of compost, DIC was not detected, while MeP and CBZ were measured at concentrations up to 13.9 and 1.95 µg·kg-1. Considering the studied metabolites, six of them were measured in digested sludge at mean concentrations from 1.86 to 114 µg·kg-1, while in the case of compost, only the metabolites of parabens were measured (mean concentrations up to 52.2 µg·kg-1). These concentrations were similar to those reported by other authors in sludge from the same stabilization technologies[26,33-35]. Considering these initial concentrations, sludge and compost were accordingly spiked previously to their application to the soil to obtain a final concentration of 500 µg·kg-1 in amended soils. The mixtures were analyzed in quintuplicate. Results are shown in Table 1. Mean concentrations were in the ranges 123-764 µg·kg-1 and 44.5-575 µg·kg-1 in sludge-amended soil (SAS) and compost-amended soil (CAS), respectively. These concentrations correspond to a percentage of the spiked concentration from 24.6% to 153% in the case of SAS, and from 8.4% to 115% for CAS. For most of the target compounds, these percentages were in the range between 41% and 153% in the case of SAS, and from 56% to 115% for CAS. The concentrations of the metabolites of parabens and 4-OH-DIC in amended soils were even lower, from 9% to 39% of the spike concentration. This fact could be explained not only by their low adsorption on the solid, as was reported previously[20], but also by their high degradation in the soil[2,10]. However, the concentrations measured for all target compounds at the beginning of batch experiments were high enough to evaluate their degradation in sludge-amended soils. Degradation of PPCPs and their metabolites in sludge-amended soil Dissipation of SMZ and AcSMZ The concentrations of SMZ and AcSMZ obtained in batch experiments are shown in Supplementary Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Optimized parameters of the kinetic models applied to the degradation of the studied compounds in SAS and CAS are shown in Supplementary Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The concentrations of both compounds decreased quickly during the first 7 days of the batch experiment to concentrations lower than 50% of the initial concentrations. Considering the dissipation kinetics of these compounds [Figure 1], all models applied were transformed to a SFO model. In the case of BEM model, because of the low k2 values; in the case of FODED model, because k1 = k2 or low value of k2; in the case of FOTC model, k1 = k2; in the case of MHSM model because of low tb value and; in the case of LM model amax = a0. This kinetic behavior, previously described for SMZ[36], could be due to the high mobility of SMZ and AcSMZ in sludge, compost, and soil[20]. Determination coefficients were calculated to evaluate the fit of the experimental concentrations to SFO model. They were in the range from 0.941 to 0.966 (slope from 0.88 to 1.0) for SMZ and from 0.964 to 0.996 for AcSMZ (slopes from 0.95 to 1.0). The SFO constants determined in SAS were in the range of 0.169 to 0.174 d-1 for SMZ and 0199 to 0.290 d-1 for AcSMZ. The SFO constants determined in CAS were slightly lower in the case of SMZ (from 0.121 to 0.159 d-1) and higher in the case of AcSMZ (0.305 d-1). These values were similar to those previously reported for SMZ. For example, Kodešová et al. evaluated the dissipation of SMZ and other pharmaceutical compounds in thirteen different soil conditions, obtaining kinetic constants for this compound in the range between 0.0045 and 0.149 d-1[22]. Furthermore, the application of FODED model to the dissipation of SMZ in CAS revealed that the compound could follow a biphasic kinetics with two compartments: in the first one, it follows a fast dissipation kinetics with a kinetic constant of 0.159 d-1, Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Page 9 of 19 Figure 1. Mean concentrations of SMZ and AcSMZ as a function of time in (A) sludge-amended soil and (B) compost-amended soil with curves from kinetic models. AcSMZ: Acetylsulfamethoxazole; BEM: bi-exponential model; FODED: first-order double-exponential decay; FOTC: first-order two-compartment; SFO: a single first-order; SMZ: sulfamethoxazole. Table 1. Concentrations and relative standard deviations (RSD) of the target compounds in spiked sludge-amended soil and compost-amended soil (n = 5) Spiked sludge-amended soil Spiked compost-amended soil Range (µg·kg-1) Mean (µg·kg-1) RSD (%) Range (µg·kg-1) Mean (µg·kg-1) RSD (%) MeP 190-233 204 9.0 297-376 297 25 OH-MeP 264-305 282 6.3 133-386 281 34 PrP 278-337 304 7.9 266-515 352 27 3,4-DHB[1] 114-135 123 6.6 89.1-123 107 44 4-HB[1] 513-533 524 1.6 24.7-55.5 44.6 16 CBZ 379-449 422 6.8 342-728 575 25 3-OH-CBZ 423-495 464 6.3 358-732 565 24 10-OH-CBZ 381-484 438 8.9 315-647 516 24 EP-CBZ 291-347 325 9.2 274-473 374 26 DIC 250-275 260 3.9 221-419 311 24 4-OH-DIC 209-296 244 13 122-356 194 14 IBU 250-292 270 5.6 199-356 308 21 1-OH-IBU 373-453 424 7.6 294-640 537 26 2-OH-IBU 303-364 341 6.8 248-523 443 25 CBX-IBU 318-376 356 6.6 267-540 462 24 SMZ 523-876 764 21 436-584 529 15 AcSMZ 373-452 416 7.3 310-637 496 24 AcSMZ: acetylsulfamethoxazole; CBX-IBU: carboxy-ibuprofen; CBZ: carbamazepine; DIC: diclofenac; EP-CBZ: carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide; IBU: ibuprofen; MeP: methylparaben; OH-MeP: methyl protocatechuate; PrP: propylparaben; SMZ: sulfamethoxazole; 1-OH-IBU: 1-hydroxyibuprofen; 2-OH-IBU: 2-hydroxyibuprofen; 3,4-DHB: 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid; 3-OH-CBZ: 3-hydroxycarbamazepine; 4-HB: 4-hydroxybenzoic acid; 4-OH- DIC: 4-hydroxy-diclofenac; 10-OH-CBZ: 10-hydroxycarbamazepine. Page 16 of 19 Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 concentrations measured in these samples. For OH-MeP in CAS, the best fit was obtained from FODED and FOCT models [Supplementary Table 5], which could show a degradation kinetics in two compartments for this compound in this experiment. In general, after sludge or compost application onto soil, the parent compounds MeP and PrP showed the fastest dissipation (DT50 and DT90 values up to 0.37 and 1.24 days, respectively, in SAS, and up to 0.56 and 2.10 days, respectively, in CAS), while the metabolite OH-MeP showed the lowest dissipation rate (DT90 up to 18.0 days in SAS and 7.60 days in CAS). The dissipation of the parent compounds was considerably faster in amended soil than in SS [Supplementary Tables 4 to 6]. No relevant difference was obtained between the endpoint values of the metabolites. These results could be explained by the potential transformation of parent compounds into their metabolites under aerobic conditions. The degradation of MeP and PrP in amended soil could result in the formation of their metabolites, compensating for the decrease of the concentration of metabolites by dissipation. This compensation is most significant in amended soils than in soils where the dissipation of parent compounds is slower. CONCLUSIONS The occurrence and dissipation kinetics of most recurrent PPCPs and their metabolites in the environment have been evaluated in soil amended with anaerobically-digested and dehydrated sludge or with compost. Obtained results were compared with those reported for the same compounds in soil without organic amendment. Batch experiments were carried out using spiked sludge and compost. The adsorption of the studied compounds in sludge and compost (from 8.4% to 153%) was enough to evaluate their occurrence in soil after organic amendment. In general, parabens and their metabolites were the compounds with the fastest dissipation in all studied matrices, followed by the antibiotic SMZ and its metabolite, DIC and its metabolite 4-OH-DIC, IBU and its metabolites, and CBZ and its metabolites, in that order. Most of them were well fitting to a SFO dissipation kinetic model. The application of FODED model showed that some of the studied compounds, such as DIC or SMZ, could follow a dissipation kinetics in two phases: a fast dissipation that could be attributed to the amount of the compound associated with the aqueous compartment and a slow dissipation that could be due related to the amount of the compound strongly adsorbed onto soil particles. This fact could result in a high persistence of the compound, similar to the case of DIC which remains in the soil 60 days after batch experiments. The compounds CBZ and EP-CBZ showed a high persistence, with a lag phase on their dissipation, resulting in a concentration approximately constant during the first days of batch experiments. For most of the compounds, the dissipation kinetics was faster in SAS and CAS than in SS, which could show the influence of microbial activity and organic matter content in their dissipation. The use of several kinetic models, including SFO and biphasic models, to evaluate the dissipation of PPCPs and their metabolites can clarify the dissipation behavior of some of the studied compounds. For example, while compounds such as parabens and their metabolites followed a SFO model associated with a high degradation 60 days after batch experiments, compounds such as SMZ or DIC were still present in CAS and SAS after that period of time. This fact could be due to their higher adsorption onto the organic matter of sludge and compost. Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Page 17 of 19 DECLARATIONS Authors’ contributions Involved in conceptualization: Santos JL, Alonso E Involved in methodology and verification of results/experiments, application of statistical models to analyze or synthesize study data: Santos JL, Martín J Involved in presentation and visualization of data: Martín J Involved in writing - Original Draft: Santos JL Involved in writing - Review & Editing: Aparicio I Involved in project administration and funding acquisition: Alonso E Availability of data and materials Data are available in the Supplementary Material. Financial support and sponsorship This work was financially supported by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación from the Spanish Government (Project No. PID2020-117641RB-I00 and CTM2017- 82778-R) and by Junta de Andalucía (Consejería de Economía y Conocimiento, Project I+D+i PAIDI Andalucía No. P20_00556). Conflicts of interest All authors declared that there is no conflict of interest. Ethical approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. REFERENCES Cherfouh R, Lucas Y, Derridj A, Merdy P. Metal speciation in sludges: a tool to evaluate risks of land application and to track heavy metal contamination in sewage network. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2022;29:70396-407. DOI PubMed 1. Mejías C, Martín J, Santos JL, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals and their metabolites in sewage sludge and soil: a review on their distribution and environmental risk assessment. Trends Environ Anal Chem 2021;30:e00125. DOI 2. EurEau. Europe’s water in figures. An overview of the European drinking water and waste water sectors. 2021 edition. Available from: https://www.eureau.org/resources/publications/eureau-publications/5824-europe-s-water-in-figures-2021/file. [Last accessed on 5 Jun 2023]. 3. EurEau. Waste water treatment-sludge management. 2021, pp. 1-32. Available from: https://www.eureau.org/resources/briefing-notes/ 5629-briefing-note-on-sludge-management/file. [Last accessed on 5 Jun 2023]. 4. Elango D, Devi KD, Jeyabalakrishnan HK, et al. Agronomic, breeding, and biotechnological interventions to mitigate heavy metal toxicity problems in agriculture. J Agric Food Res 2022;10:100374. DOI 5. Zhu Q, Liang Y, Zhang Q, et al. Biochar derived from hydrolysis of sewage sludge influences soil properties and heavy metals distributed in the soil. J Hazard Mater 2023;442:130053. DOI 6. Xing H, Yu X, Huang J, et al. Characteristics and health risks of phthalate ester contamination in soil and plants in coastal areas of south China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:9516. DOI PubMed PMC 7. Abril C, Santos JL, Martín J, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Uptake and translocation of multiresidue industrial and household contaminants in radish grown under controlled conditions. Chemosphere 2021;268:128823. DOI PubMed 8. Jha G, Kankarla V, McLennon E, et al. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in integrated crop-livestock systems: environmental exposure and human health risks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:12550. DOI PubMed PMC 9. Malvar JL, Santos JL, Martín J, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Occurrence of the main metabolites of the most recurrent pharmaceuticals and 10. Page 18 of 19 Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 personal care products in mediterranean soils. J Environ Manage 2021;278:111584. DOI PubMed Carsella JS, Mutz J, Zuniga T, Kinney CA. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products as contaminants of emerging concern in sewage sludge and soils and the role of transformation products in their fate and environmental impact. In: Núñez-delgado A, Arias-est évez M, editors. Emerging Pollutants in Sewage Sludge and Soils. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 243-65. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/698_2022_858. [Last accessed on 6 Jun 2023]. 11. Song L, Li L, Yang S, et al. Sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline and oxytetracycline and related antibiotic resistance genes in a large-scale landfill, China. Sci Total Environ 2016;551-552:9-15. DOI 12. Marti R, Scott A, Tien YC, et al. Impact of manure fertilization on the abundance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and frequency of detection of antibiotic resistance genes in soil and on vegetables at harvest. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013;79:5701-9. DOI PubMed PMC 13. Santos JL, Martín J, Mejías C, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Pharmaceuticals and their metabolites in sewage sludge and soils: distribution and environmental risk assessment. In: Núñez-delgado A, Arias-estévez M, editors. Emerging Pollutants in Sewage Sludge and Soils. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2023. pp. 19-36. DOI 14. Menacherry SPM, Kočárek M, Kacerova T, Kotíková Z, Kačer P, Kodešová R. The impact of initial concentration of selected pharmaceuticals on their early stage of dissipation in soils. J Soils Sediments 2022;22:522-35. DOI 15. García-Galán MJ, Díaz-Cruz S, Barceló D. Multiresidue trace analysis of sulfonamide antibiotics and their metabolites in soils and sewage sludge by pressurized liquid extraction followed by liquid chromatography-electrospray-quadrupole linear ion trap mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2013;1275:32-40. DOI PubMed 16. Rossini D, Ciofi L, Ancillotti C, et al. Innovative combination of QuEChERS extraction with on-line solid-phase extract purification and pre-concentration, followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs and their metabolites in sewage sludge. Anal Chim Acta 2016;935:269-81. DOI 17. Biel-Maeso M, González-González C, Lara-Martín PA, Corada-Fernández C. Sorption and degradation of contaminants of emerging concern in soils under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Sci Total Environ 2019;666:662-71. DOI PubMed 18. Wojsławski J, Białk-Bielińska A, Stepnowski P, Dołżonek J. Leaching behavior of pharmaceuticals and their metabolites in the soil environment. Chemosphere 2019;231:269-75. DOI PubMed 19. Martín J, Mejías C, Santos JL, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Pharmaceuticals and their main metabolites in treated sewage sludge and sludgeamended soil: availability and sorption behaviour. Molecules 2021;26:5910. DOI PubMed PMC 20. Paz A, Tadmor G, Malchi T, et al. Fate of carbamazepine, its metabolites, and lamotrigine in soils irrigated with reclaimed wastewater: sorption, leaching and plant uptake. Chemosphere 2016;160:22-9. DOI 21. Kodešová R, Kočárek M, Klement A, et al. An analysis of the dissipation of pharmaceuticals under thirteen different soil conditions. Sci Total Environ 2016;544:369-81. DOI 22. Koba O, Golovko O, Kodešová R, Fér M, Grabic R. Antibiotics degradation in soil: a case of clindamycin, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole and their transformation products. Environ Pollut 2017;220:1251-63. DOI 23. Srinivasan P, Sarmah AK, Rohan M. Deriving sulfamethoxazole dissipation endpoints in pasture soils using first order and biphasic kinetic models. Sci Total Environ 2014;488-489:146-56. DOI PubMed 24. Briones RM, Sarmah AK. Modelling degradation kinetics of metformin and guanylurea in soil microcosms to derive degradation endpoints. Environ Pollut 2019;245:735-45. DOI PubMed 25. Malvar J, Luis Santos J, Martín J, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Occurrence of the main metabolites of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in sludge stabilization treatments. Waste Manag 2020;116:22-30. DOI PubMed 26. Aplicación de lodos tratados de depuradora. Información sobre las aplicaciones realizadas de lodos tratados de depuradora en suelos agrarios hasta el 30/09/2022. Available from: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/sites/default/files/inline-files/2022/10/ Recintos_Confirmados_hasta_2022_09_30.ods. [Last accessed on 5 Jun 2023]. 27. OECD. Test No. 307: Aerobic and Anaerobic Transformation in Soil. OECD Guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section, vol. 3, OECD Publishing, Paris (2002). Available from: https://archive.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/web/pdf/ 307_aerobic_anaerobic_transformation.pdf. [Last accessed on 6 Jun 2023]. 28. Malvar JL, Santos JL, Martín J, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Simultaneous pressurized liquid extraction and clean-up for the determination of metabolites in complex environmental solid matrices. Microchem J 2020;152:104370. DOI 29. FOCUS (2006). “Guidance document on estimating persistence and degradation kinetics from environmental fate studies on pesticides in EU registration.” Report of the FOCUS Work Group on Degradation Kinetics, EC Documents Reference Sanco/10058/2005 Version 2.0, 434 pp. Available from: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public_path/projects_data/focus/dk/docs/ finalreportFOCDegKinetics.pdf. [Last accessed on 5 Jun 2023]. 30. Sarmah AK, Close ME. Modelling the dissipation kinetics of six commonly used pesticides in two contrasting soils of New Zealand. J Environ Sci Health B 2009;44:507-17. DOI 31. Hill BD, Schaalje GB. A two-compartment model for the dissipation of deltamethrin on soil. J Agric Food Chem 1985;33:1001-6. DOI 32. Martín J, Santos JL, Aparicio I, Alonso E. Pharmaceutically active compounds in sludge stabilization treatments: anaerobic and aerobic digestion, wastewater stabilization ponds and composting. Sci Total Environ 2015;503-504:97-104. DOI PubMed 33. Verlicchi P, Zambello E. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in untreated and treated sewage sludge: occurrence and environmental risk in the case of application on soil - a critical review. Sci Total Environ 2015;538:750-67. DOI PubMed 34. Santos et al. Water Emerg Contam Nanoplastics 2023;2:11 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/wecn.2023.14 Page 19 of 19 Ivanová L, Mackuľak T, Grabic R, et al. Pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs - A new threat to the application of sewage sludge in agriculture. Sci Total Environ 2018;634:606-15. DOI PubMed 35. Zhang Y, Hu S, Zhang H, Shen G, Yuan Z, Zhang W. Degradation kinetics and mechanism of sulfadiazine and sulfamethoxazole in an agricultural soil system with manure application. Sci Total Environ 2017;607-608:1348-56. DOI 36. Geng C, Bergheaud V, Garnier P, Zhu YG, Haudin CS. Impact of sludge treatments on the extractability and fate of acetyl sulfamethoxazole residues in amended soils. Chemosphere 2018;194:828-36. DOI PubMed 37. Andriamalala A, Vieublé-Gonod L, Dumeny V, Cambier P. Fate of sulfamethoxazole, its main metabolite N-ac-sulfamethoxazole and ciprofloxacin in agricultural soils amended or not by organic waste products. Chemosphere 2018;191:607-15. DOI PubMed 38. Yan J, Zhang X, Lin W, Yang C, Ren Y. Adsorption behavior of diclofenac-containing wastewater on three kinds of sewage sludge. Water Sci Technol 2019;80:717-26. DOI 39. Silva S, Rodrigues JA, Coelho MR, et al. Occurrence of pharmaceutical active compounds in sewage sludge from two urban wastewater treatment plants and their potential behaviour in agricultural soils. Environ Sci : Water Res Technol 2021;7:969-82. DOI 40. Al-Rajab AJ, Sabourin L, Lapen DR, Topp E. Dissipation of triclosan, triclocarban, carbamazepine and naproxen in agricultural soil following surface or sub-surface application of dewatered municipal biosolids. Sci Total Environ 2015;512-513:480-8. DOI PubMed 41. Kodešová R, Chroňáková A, Grabicová K, et al. How microbial community composition, sorption and simultaneous application of six pharmaceuticals affect their dissipation in soils. Sci Total Environ 2020;746:141134. DOI 42. Dolu T, Nas B. Full-scale anaerobic digestion of sewage sludges: fate evaluation of pharmaceuticals and main metabolites. J Water Process Eng 2023;51:103366. DOI 43. Tiwari B, Sellamuthu B, Ouarda Y, Drogui P, Tyagi RD, Buelna G. Review on fate and mechanism of removal of pharmaceutical pollutants from wastewater using biological approach. Bioresour Technol 2017;224:1-12. DOI PubMed 44. Weigel S, Berger U, Jensen E, Kallenborn R, Thoresen H, Hühnerfuss H. Determination of selected pharmaceuticals and caffeine in sewage and seawater from Tromsø/Norway with emphasis on ibuprofen and its metabolites. Chemosphere 2004;56:583-92. DOI PubMed 45. Chamila Samarasinghe SV, Krishnan K, Aitken RJ, Naidu R, Megharaj M. Persistence of the parabens in soil and their potential toxicity to earthworms. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2021;83:103574. DOI PubMed 46. Emmanouil C, Bekyrou M, Psomopoulos C, Kungolos A. An insight into ingredients of toxicological interest in personal care products and a small–scale sampling survey of the greek market: delineating a potential contamination source for water resources. Water 2019;11:2501. DOI 47.