Tracking and identifying wastewater toxicants and assessing their biodegradation products

Screening of wastewater effluents from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants with biotests showed that the treated wastewater effluents possess only minor acute toxic properties towards whole organisms (e.g. bacteria, algae, daphnia), if any. In vitro tests (sub-mitochondrial membranes and fish hepatocytes) were generally more susceptible to the effluents. Most of the effluents indicated the presence of hormonally active compounds, as the production of vitellogenin, an egg yolk precursor protein, was induced in fish hepatocytes exposed to wastewater. In addition, indications of slight genotoxic potential was found in one effluent concentrate with a recombinant bacteria test. Reverse electron transport (RET) of mitochondrial membranes was used as a model test to conduct effluent assessment followed by toxicant characterisations and identifications. Using a modified U.S. EPA Toxicity Identification Evaluation Phase I scheme and additional case-specific methods, the main compound in a pulp and paper mill effluent causing RET inhibition was characterised to be an organic, relatively hydrophilic high molecular weight (HMW) compound. The toxicant could be verified as HMW lignin by structural analyses using nuclear magnetic resonance. In the confirmation step commercial and in-house extracted lignin products were used. The possible toxicity related structures were characterised by statistical analysis of the chemical breakdown structures of laboratory-scale pulping and bleaching effluents and the toxicities of these effluents. Finally, the biological degradation of the identified toxicant and other wastewater constituents was evaluated using bioassays in combination with chemical analyses. Biological methods have not been used routinely in establishing effluent discharge limits in Finland. However, the biological effects observed in this study could not have been predicted using only routine physical and chemical effluent monitoring parameters. Therefore chemical parameters cannot be considered to be sufficient in controlling effluent discharges especially in case of unknown, possibly bioaccumulative, compounds that may be present in small concentrations and may cause chronic effects.

Randomised Evaluation of New Technologies within the Population‐Based Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Finland: Cross‐Sectional Performance and Validity

A randomised and population-based screening design with new technologies has been applied to the organised cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. In this experiment the women invited to routine five-yearly screening are individually randomised to be screened with automation-assisted cytology, human papillomavirus (HPV) test or conventional cytology. By using the randomised design, the ultimate aim is to assess and compare the long-term outcomes of the different screening regimens. The primary aim of the current study was to evaluate, based on the material collected during the implementation phase of the Finnish randomised screening experiment, the cross-sectional performance and validity of automation-assisted cytology (Papnet system) and primary HPV DNA testing (Hybrid Capture II assay for 13 oncogenic HPV types) within service screening, in comparison to conventional cytology. The parameters of interest were test positivity rate, histological detection rate, relative sensitivity, relative specificity and positive predictive value. Also, the effect of variation in performance by screening laboratory on age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence was assessed. Based on the cross-sectional results, almost no differences were observed in the performance of conventional and automation-assisted screening. Instead, primary HPV screening found 58% (95% confidence interval 19-109%) more cervical lesions than conventional screening. However, this was mainly due to overrepresentation of mild- and moderate-grade lesions and, thus, is likely to result in overtreatment since a great deal of these lesions would never progress to invasive cancer. Primary screening with an HPV DNA test alone caused substantial loss in specificity in comparison to cytological screening. With the use of cytology triage test, the specificity of HPV screening improved close to the level of conventional cytology. The specificity of primary HPV screening was also increased by increasing the test positivity cutoff from the level recommended for clinical use, but the increase was more modest than the one gained with the use of cytology triage. The performance of the cervical cancer screening programme varied widely between the screening laboratories, but the variation in overall programme effectiveness between respective populations was more marginal from the very beginning of the organised screening activity. Thus, conclusive interpretations on the quality or success of screening should not be based on performance parameters only. In the evaluation of cervical cancer screening the outcome should be selected as closely as possible to the true measure of programme effectiveness, which is the number of invasive cervical cancers and subsequent deaths prevented in the target population. The evaluation of benefits and adverse effects of each new suggested screening technology should be performed before the technology becomes an accepted routine in the existing screening programme. At best, the evaluation is performed randomised, within the population and screening programme in question, which makes the results directly applicable to routine use.