Risk Assessment of Micropollutants for Human and Environmental Health: Alignment with the Urban Wastewater Treatment...

The reuse of reclaimed water is essential for sustainable water management in arid regions. However, despite advancements in Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs), certain micropollutants may persist. To address these challenges, the recently enacted European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) has established strict standards focused on monitoring twelve specific indicator compounds. In line with this, the present study aims to evaluate the concentrations and potential risks of these twelve UWWTD-designated compounds across various water sources, including surface water, groundwater, and effluents from a WWTP in the southeast of Spain. Although none of the evaluated water sources are, as expected, intended for human consumption, risks were assessed based on worst-case scenarios that could amplify their impact. The study assessed potential risks to human health across different age groups and ecosystems, focusing on key organisms such as fish, daphnia, and algae, using empirical assessment approaches. The risk assessment identified a low risk for most compounds regarding human health, except for citalopram (HRQ = 19.116) and irbesartan (HRQ = 1.104), which showed high human risk quotients (HQR > 1) in babies, particularly in reclaimed water. In terms of ecotoxicological risk, irbesartan presented the highest ecological risk quotient (ERQ = 3.500) in fish, followed by clarithromycin, with algae (ERQ = 1.500) being the most vulnerable organism. Furthermore, compounds like citalopram, venlafaxine, and benzotriazole exhibited moderate ecological risks (ERQ between 0.1 and 1) in the reclaimed water, and their risk was reduced in surface water and groundwater. Finally, this study discussed the potential impacts of elevated concentrations of these emerging compounds, emphasizing the need for rigorous wastewater monitoring to protect human health and ecosystem integrity. It also revealed notable differences in risk assessment outcomes when comparing two distinct evaluation approaches, further highlighting the complexities of accurately assessing these risks.