Evaluation of pharmaceuticals in surface water: Reliability of PECs compared to MECs

- MECs variations of sixteen target PhACs have been evaluated.
- Comparison of MECs and PECs have been achieved at local scale.
- Non-detected PhACs should be present but at concentrations below their LQ.
- PECs of six pharmaceuticals highlight the reliability of the calculation method.

Due to the current analytical processes that are not able to measure all the pharmaceutical molecules and to the high costs and the consumption of time to sample and analyze PhACs, models to calculate Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) have been developed. However a comparison between MECs and PECs, taking into account the methods of calculations and peculiarly the parameters included in the calculation (consumption data, pharmacokinetic parameters, elimination rate in STPs and in the environment), is necessary to assess the validity of PECs. MEC variations of sixteen target PhACs [acetaminophen (ACE), amlodipine (AML), atenolol (ATE), caffeine (CAF), carbamazepine (CAR), doxycycline (DOX), epoxycarbamazepine (EPO), fluvoxamine (FLU), furosemide (FUR), hydrochlorothiazide (HYD), ifosfamide (IFO), losartan (LOS), pravastatin (PRA), progesterone (PROG), ramipril (RAM), trimetazidine (TRI)] have been evaluated during one hydrological cycle, from October 2011 to October 2012 and compared to PECs calculated by using an adaptation of the models proposed by Heberer and Feldmann (2005) and EMEA (2006). Comparison of PECs and MECS has been achieved for six molecules: ATE, CAR, DOX, FUR, HYD and PRA. DOX, FUR and HYD present differences between PECs and MECs on an annual basis but their temporal evolutions follow the same trends. PEC evaluation for these PhACs could then be possible but need some adjustments of consumption patterns, pharmacokinetic parameters and/or mechanisms of (bio)degradation. ATE, CAR and PRA are well modeled; PECs can then be used as reliable estimation of concentrations without any reserve.