Standard content for Members only
To continue reading this article, please login to your Utility Week account, Start 14 day trial or Become a member.
If your organisation already has a corporate membership and you haven’t activated it simply follow the register link below. Check here.
The additional technology needed to remove antibiotics and pharmaceuticals from wastewater would cost the sector billions of pounds.
That is according to Thames Water in response to a recent study that suggested the amount of antibiotics entering the River Thames would need to be cut by as much as 80 per cent to avoid the development and spread of antibiotic-resistant “superbugs”.
The study from Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) modelled the effects of the pharmaceuticals and the development of resistant bacteria in a river. It found that across three-quarters of the River Thames catchment area the antibiotics were likely to be high enough for resistant bacteria to develop, because of effluent discharge.
Thames Water, and the wider sector, has been working with government and the Environment Agency to understand more about how certain chemicals pass through the wastewater process.
In line with practices of the wider water industry, Thames said it already removes most antibiotics from sewage and has identified additional processes that could be deployed.
A spokesperson told Utility Week: “Should the standards, which treated sewage has to meet, change so more pharmaceuticals have to be removed, then this will require additional technology at treatment sites at a potential national cost of billions of pounds.
“We fully recognise the possible threats from Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and wholeheartedly support investigations to identify if the presence of AMR in our effluents is a significant contribution. We are part of a national project, starting in March, to understand better how AMR changes through our treatment processes and to identify (and cost) possible treatment enhancements to reduce this further if it is considered necessary.”
Dr Andrew Singer who led the CEH study, described rivers as a “reservoir for antibiotic-resistant bacteria”, which can quickly spread to people through water, soil, air, food and animals.
Up to 90 per cent of prescribed antibiotics people take pass through the body and into the sewerage system, where about half end up in rivers when effluent is discharged.
The paper estimates 50 per cent of antibiotics are currently being removed from rivers.
Dr Singer said: “There are ways to remove antibiotics from sewage—it’s in the literature, but they aren’t being used anywhere for that purpose and won’t address all antibiotics and also won’t address antibiotic resistant bacteria.”
He said: “The release of drugs and bugs into our rivers increases the likelihood of antibiotic-resistant genes being shared, either through mutation or ‘bacterial sex’. This is the first step towards the development of superbugs as the drugs used to fight them will no longer work. Environmental pollution from drugs and bugs is a serious problem that we need to find solutions to.”
Last week England’s chief medical officer Professor Dame Sally Davies warned that bugs resistant to antibiotics could pose a more immediate risk to humanity than climate change as diseases become resistant to the drugs developed to fight them. She warned at least 10 million people a year across the world could die because of antibiotic resistance.
CEH suggested an increase in investment into research and development of new wastewater treatment processes that would remove the drugs and bugs from sewage.
It also suggested a reduction in the amount of antibiotics prescribed; greater uptake of vaccinations for preventable diseases; better hygiene controls in hospitals and more rapid diagnosis of diseases to reduce the amount of antibiotics entering rivers.
Please login or Register to leave a comment.