Changes in toxicity and genotoxicity of industrial sewage sludge samples containing nitro- and amino-aromatic compounds following treatment in bioreactors with different oxygen regimes.
OBJECTIVE
From 2005, deposition of organic waste will be banned in Sweden. Likewise, in Germany and Austria, similar bans are being planned, and further countries will probably follow. Thus, there is a need to develop new methods and to refine established techniques for sludge management in the whole of the European Union. For this end, there is also an urgent need for appropriate ecotoxicological approaches to elucidate and assess the hazard potential of sewage sludge. Therefore, the present study was designed to assess the capacity of various established sludge treatment methods using different oxygen regimes to degrade recalcitrant nitro-substituted organic compounds and reduce their toxicity. Sewage sludge samples from a wastewater treatment plant in Sweden (Cambrex Karlskoga AB, industrial area Björkborn) receiving wastewater from industries manufacturing pharmaceutical substances, chemical intermediates and explosives were processed with different sludge treatment methods. Among other treatment methods, bioreactors (for anaerobic and aerobic sludge treatment) were used. In the present investigation, a battery of in vitro bioassays was employed to compare the cytotoxic and genotoxic potentials of different fractions of sludge samples in order to elucidate whether the treatments were suitable to reduce the toxicity of the sludge.


METHODS
In order to investigate the cytotoxicity of the extracts of treated and untreated sludge samples, the acute cytotoxicity test with the permanent cell line RTL-W1 was used. Genotoxicity was tested by means of the comet assay (single cell gel electrophoresis) with RTL-W1 cells, and mutagenicity was assessed with the Ames test using the Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA98NR and TA100. Sludge toxicity was tested in different fractions of organic extracts produced by acetone and hexane extractions. The subsequent clean-up procedure (silica gel chromatography and elution with hexane and dichloromethane) resulted in two fractions, a lipophilic hexane-fraction and a semi-lipophilic dichloromethane-fraction. For the genotoxicity and mutagenicity tests, these fractions were reunited at equal ratios.


CONCLUSIONS
The acute cytotoxicity test with RTL-W1 cells revealed a high cytotoxic potential for the semi-lipophilic DM-fractions of all sludge samples with NR50 values (= effective concentration for 50% cell death in the neutral red test) from 8.9 up to 20 mg sludge d.w./ml medium. A low cytotoxic potential for the hexane fractions of the untreated sludge samples (NR50 400 to > 400 mg sludge d.w./ml medium) was observed, whereas the hexane fractions of the treated sludge samples showed elevated cytotoxicity increasing further with treatment in the bioreactors. The comet assay indicated that three out of eight of the reunited fractions had a significant genotoxic potential. Whereas the genotoxic potential of one sample treated anaerobically was very high with an induction factor of 11.6, a similar sample (taken from the same anaerobic reactor four months later) and one untreated sample showed lower potentials. The samples treated in another anaerobic bioreactor as well as the samples treated aerobically showed no genotoxic potential. Results indicate that aerobic treatment was basically adequate for reducing the genotoxicity of the sludge, whereas anaerobic treatment was only partly useful for reduction of genotoxicity. The Ames test revealed a very high mutagenic potential for the reunited fractions of the untreated sludge samples with strain TA98 (maximum induction factors (IFmax) up to 45) and a relatively high potential for one of the samples treated aerobically (S2, IFmax = 18 (TA98, S9-)), thus documenting the suitability of both anaerobic and aerobic treatments to reduce the mutagenicity of the samples, however, with the aerobic treatment being less effective.


CONCLUSIONS
Overall, none of the microbiological treatments for wastewater sludge in bioreactors was found to be ideal for general toxicity reduction of the sludge samples. Whereas cytotoxicity of the sludge increased or levelled off in most cases following either treatment, genotoxicity both increased or decreased after anaerobic treatment, depending on the specific sample. However, mutagenicity could generally be reduced by anaerobic treatment and, to a lesser degree, by aerobic treatment.


CONCLUSIONS
The complex modification of the diverse damage potentials of sludge sample extracts by use of an in vitro biotest battery following treatment for toxicity reduction in bioreactors showed that considerations of different toxicological endpoints is essential for an adequate hazard assessment. Whereas in the case of cytotoxicity reduction, the reactors proved ineffective, mutagenicity could be reduced significantly at least in some cases in this case study.
Klee
Nina
N
Department of Zoology, Aquatic Ecology and Toxicology Group, Morphology and Ecology Section, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 230, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Gustavsson
Lillemor
L
Kosmehl
Thomas
T
Engwall
Magnus
M
Erdinger
Lothar
L
Braunbeck
Thomas
T
Hollert
Henner
H
D001681:Biological Assay; D019149:Bioreactors; D004249:DNA Damage; D007220:Industrial Waste; D007928:Lethal Dose 50; D009152:Mutagenicity Tests; D010100:Oxygen; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012486:Salmonella typhimurium / Q000235:genetics; D012722:Sewage / Q000737:chemistry*; D014865:Waste Disposal, Fluid; D014874:Water Pollutants, Chemical / Q000633:toxicity*; D018508:Water Purification / Q000379:methods*
D007220:Industrial Waste; D012722:Sewage; D014874:Water Pollutants, Chemical; D010100:Oxygen