New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Common Drugs Pollute Rivers on Every Continent

A global look reveals contamination by antibiotics, antidepressants and other medications

An aerial view of a train crossing a river in India.

Yamuna River in New Delhi, seen in 2019, was one of the rivers sampled to determine what pharmaceuticals might be polluting them.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For more than 20 years scientists have known that the drugs we take, for maladies ranging from headaches to diabetes, eventually make their way into our waterways—where they can harm the ecosystem and potentially promote antibiotic resistance.

But most research on pharmaceutical contaminants has been done in North America, Europe and China and has examined just a small subset of compounds. The studies also use a variety of sampling and analysis methods, making it hard to compare results. Such limitations mean scientists may be missing a big piece of the pollution puzzle.

A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA provides a more comprehensive look. A network of 127 scientists sampled 258 rivers in 104 countries for 61 different chemicals, producing “a sort of ‘pharmaceutical fingerprint’ of nearly half a billion people across all the world's continents,” says study lead author John L. Wilkinson, an environmental chemist at the University of York in England.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Many of the most drug-polluted rivers were in Africa and Asia, “in areas and countries that have been largely forgotten by the scientific community” on this issue, Wilkinson says. Waterways with the biggest pharmaceutical concentrations also tended to be in lower-middle-income countries; the authors say this could stem from improved medication access in places that still lack sufficient wastewater infrastructure.

Four compounds—caffeine, nicotine, acetaminophen and cotinine (a chemical produced by the body after exposure to nicotine)—showed up on every continent, including Antarctica. Another 14, including antihistamines, antidepressants and an antibiotic, were traced on all continents except Antarctica. Some drugs were detected only in specific places, such as an antimalarial found in African samples.

Overall, the study shows that “more of this kind of global assessment of aquatic pollution” is needed, particularly for other chemicals that pose more of a human health risk, says Elsie Sunderland, a Harvard University environmental scientist who was not involved with the new research. It also suggests, she adds, that “we need wastewater treatment.”

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Source: “Pharmaceutical Pollution of the World’s Rivers,” by John L. Wilkinson et al., in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 119; February 22, 2022.

Andrea Thompson is senior editor for Earth and environment at Scientific American, covering the environment, energy and Earth sciences. She has been covering these topics for nearly two decades. Prior to joining Scientific American, she was a senior writer covering climate science at Climate Central and a reporter and editor at Live Science, where she primarily covered earth science and the environment. She has moderated panels, including as part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Media Zone, and appeared in radio and television interviews on major networks. She holds a graduate degree in science, health and environmental reporting from New York University, as well as a B.S. and an M.S. in atmospheric chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Follow Thompson on Bluesky @andreatweather.bsky.social

More by Andrea Thompson
Scientific American Magazine Vol 326 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Mainstream Drugs” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 326 No. 6 (), p. 21
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0622-21

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe