Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct 14;18(20):10797.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010797.

Concentrations and Risk Assessments of Antibiotics in an Urban-Rural Complex Watershed with Intensive Livestock Farming

Hyun-Jeoung Lee  1 , Deok-Woo Kim  1 , Chansik Kim  2 , Hong-Duck Ryu  1 , Eu-Gene Chung  1 , Kyunghyun Kim  1
Affiliations

Concentrations and Risk Assessments of Antibiotics in an Urban-Rural Complex Watershed with Intensive Livestock Farming

Hyun-Jeoung Lee et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Antibiotics used for the treatment of humans and livestock are released into the environment, whereby they pose a grave threat to biota (including humans) as they can cause the emergence of various strains of resistant bacteria. An improved understanding of antibiotics in the environment is thus vital for appropriate management and mitigation. Herein, surface water and groundwater samples containing antibiotics were analyzed in an urban-rural complex watershed (Cheongmi Stream) comprising intensive livestock farms by collecting samples across different time points and locations. The spatiotemporal trends of the residual antibiotics were analyzed, and ecological and antibiotic resistance-based risk assessments were performed considering their concentrations. The results showed that the concentrations and detection frequencies of the residual antibiotics in the surface water were affected by various factors such as agricultural activities and point sources, and were higher than those found in groundwater; however, frequent detection of antibiotics in groundwater showed that residual antibiotics were influenced by factors such as usage pattern and sewage runoff. Furthermore, few antibiotics posed ecological risks. The risk assessment methods adopted in this study can be applied elsewhere, and the results can be considered in the environmental management of residual antibiotics in the Cheongmi Stream watershed.

Keywords: high-resolution mass spectrometry; livestock excreta; risk quotient; urban-rural complex pollution sources; veterinary antibiotics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure A1
Figure A1
Calibration curves using UHPLC-q-orbitrap HRMS, combined with an online SPE analysis for the nine antibiotics analyzed. (a) lincomycin, (b) sulfachloropyridazine, (c) sulfadiazine, (d) sulfadimethoxine, (e) sulfamethazine, (f) sulfamethoxazole, (g) sulfaquinoxaline, (h) sulfathiazole, and (i) trimethoprim.
Figure A2
Figure A2
Risk assessment of antibiotic resistance by sampling time for surface water samples: (a) target antibiotics, and (b) sampling points; assessment for groundwater samples: (c) target antibiotics, and (d) sampling points.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Map showing the sampling points. The alphabet symbols in the watershed map indicate the sampled subwatersheds.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Concentrations and detection frequencies of residual antibiotics in the Cheongmi Stream watershed. Dark blue bar: concentrations of antibiotics in the surface water, yellow bar: concentration of antibiotics in groundwater, square: detection frequency of antibiotics in the surface water, circle: detection frequency of antibiotics in the groundwater.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Residual concentrations and detection frequencies of antibiotics in surface water during the sampling campaigns; (a) Lincomycin, (b) Sulfachloropyridazine, (c) Sulfadimethoxine, (d) Sulfadiazine, (e) Sulfamethazine, (f) Sulfamethoxazole, (g) Sulfaquinoxaline, (h) Sulfathiazole, (i) Trimethoprim.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Residual concentrations and detection frequencies of antibiotics in surface water during the sampling campaigns: (a) Lincomycin, (b) Sulfachloropyridazine, (c) Sulfadimethoxine, (d) Sulfadiazine, (e) Sulfamethazine, (f) Sulfamethoxazole, (g) Sulfaquinoxaline, (h) Sulfathiazole, (i) Trimethoprim.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Residual cumulative concentrations of antibiotics at each sampling point during various months: (a) March, (b) June, (c) August, (d) December, (e) Average concentrations of samples from March to December; Yellow: lincomycin, Orange: SCP, Sky blue: SUL, Violet: SDX, Grey: SMZ, Green: SMX, Dark blue: SQX, Black: STZ, Pink: TMP, circle: frequency, and box: main stream.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Residual cumulative concentrations of antibiotics in samples collected at each sampling point in (a) March, (b) June, (c) August, (d) Average concentrations of samples collected from March to August; Yellow: lincomycin, Orange: Sulfachloropyridazine, Sky blue: Sulfadiazine, Purple: Sulfadimethoxine, Grey: Sulfamethazine, Green: Sulfamethoxazole, Dark blue: Sulfaquinoxaline, Black: Sulfathiazole, Pink: Trimethoprim, Circle: frequency.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Ecological risk assessment of target antibiotics: (a) Risk quotient (RQ) for each sampling campaign and antibiotic. (b) RQ of each sampling campaign at each sampling point for surface water; Dotted line boxes: tributaries, Blue circle: March, Orange circle: June, Yellow: August, Grey: December, Solid line: Criteria (RQ = 1).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Ecological risk assessment of target antibiotics: (a) Risk quotient for each sampling campaign for each antibiotic. (b) RQ of each sampling campaign at each sampling point for groundwater; Blue circle: March, Orange circle: June, Yellow: August, Grey: December, Solid line: Criteria (RQ = 1).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kim B.-N. Overview of antibiotic use in Korea. Infect. Chemother. 2012;44:250–262. doi: 10.3947/ic.2012.44.4.250. - DOI
    1. Kim C., Ryu H.-D., Chung E.G., Kim Y. Determination of 18 veterinary antibiotics in environmental water using high-performance liquid chromatography-q-orbitrap combined with on-line solid-phase extraction. J. Chromatogr. B. 2018;1084:158–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2018.03.038. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Im J.K., Kim S.H., Noh H.R., Yu S.J. Temporal-spatial variation and environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in tributaries of the Han River watershed, South Korea. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;741:140486. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140486. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee H.-J., Ryu H.-D., Chung E.G., Kim K., Lee J.K. Characteristics of veterinary antibiotics in intensive livestock farming watersheds with different liquid manure application programs using UHPLC-q-orbitrap HRMS combined with on-line SPE. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;749:142375. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142375. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee H.-J., Kim D.-W., Chung E.G. Strong links between load and manure and a comprehensive risk assessment of veterinary antibiotics with low KOW in intensive livestock farming watersheds. Chemosphere. 2021;279:130902. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130902. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources