<p>Supplementary content</p><p>Behaviour of sartans (hypertension drugs) in wastewater treatment plants and their risk for the aquatic environment</p><p>Anne Bayer, Robert Asner, Walter Schüssler, Willi Kopf, Klaus Weiß, Manfred Sengl,</p><p>Marion Letzel </p><p>Analytical methods</p><p>MS-conditions for target analysis (result of automatic optimization by software Analyst 1.5,</p><p>Applied Biosystems) are given in Table S1 in detail. Results for direct injection and standard addition method are compared in Table S2.</p><p>Table S 1 MS-conditions for target analysis (1 = quantifier, 2 = qualifier)</p><p> cell exit collision declustering retention dwell time Precursor product potential energy potential time 20 msec m/z (M+H) ion CXP [V] CE [eV] DP [V] [min] candesartan 1 441.2 263 6 21 66 20.9 candesartan 2 441.2 207 10 41 66 20.9 eprosartan 1 425.2 207 16 37 81 15.2 eprosartan 2 425.2 107 6 77 81 15.2 eprosartan-d4 1 429.3 139 8 45 106 15.2 eprosartan-d4 2 429.3 111 6 79 106 15.2 irbesartan 1 429.3 207 16 35 101 18.8 irbesartan 2 429.3 180 12 59 101 18.8 irbesartan-d4 1 433.3 211 16 37 76 18.8 irbesartan-d4 2 433.3 195 14 31 76 18.8 losartan 1 423.2 207 4 35 81 19.1</p><p>1 losartan 2 423.2 180 12 57 81 19.1 olmesartan 1 447.3 207 12 39 81 15.2 olmesartan 2 447.3 180 16 57 81 15.2 olmesartan-d4 1 451.3 211 16 41 71 15.2 olmesartan-d4 2 451.3 180 14 85 71 15.2 telmisartan 1 515.3 497 28 51 126 18,5 telmisartan 2 515.3 276 2 67 126 18,5 telmisartan-d3 1 518.3 500 14 49 126 18,5 telmisartan-d3 2 518.3 279 8 73 126 18,5 valsartan 1 436.3 291 16 21 76 20.1 valsartan 2 436.3 306 8 21 76 20.1</p><p>Table S 2 Comparison of results for direct injection and standard addition methods</p><p> river water [ng L-1] wastewater [ng L-1]</p><p> direct standard addition direct standard addition injection method injection method</p><p> candesartan 85 73 600 600</p><p> eprosartan 42 56 2500 overflow</p><p> irbesartan 130 83 1200 1200</p><p> losartan <50 <50 400 400</p><p> olmesartan 370 350 1700 overflow</p><p> telmisartan <50 <50 650 750</p><p> valsartan <50 <50 60 <50</p><p>2 Monitoring</p><p>The different sampling sites of wastewater effluents and rivers in Bavaria, Germany, are described in detail in Table S3 and S4, respectively.</p><p>Table S 3 Sampling sites with population equivalents (PE) and a short description of the sewage treatment plants (STP), all with C and N elimination</p><p>STP PE Description of the STP</p><p>STP A 1,400,000 biological treatment</p><p> two-staged biological treatment, downstream sand filter, wastewater STP B 1,000,000 disinfection via UV-radiation between 15th April - 30th September</p><p>STP C 430,000 biological treatment, downstream filter</p><p>STP D 250,000 biological treatment, downstream sand filter</p><p>STP E 125,000 biological treatment</p><p>STP F 50,000 biological treatment</p><p>Table S 4 Sampling sites with a short characterisation of rivers including the proportion of treated municipal wastewater at average discharge assumed with a greater model </p><p> proportion of geographic catchment area average length treated municipal Cartesian River in Germany discharge [km] wastewater at coordinates (UTM) [km²] [m3 s-1] average discharge northing/easting</p><p>Ebrach 23 48 <1 7% 5326683/4499475</p><p>Regnitz 58 7,500 33 5% 5506049/4431254 site A</p><p>Regnitz 51.8 5% 5522519/4423938 site B</p><p>Wuerm 35 386 4.7 5% 5349781/4461098</p><p>Franconian Rezat site 64 376 0.7 3% 5451777/4419061 A 3 Franconian Rezat site 3% 5450540/4428127 B</p><p>Main 524 27,300 225 3% 5526196/4327351</p><p>Danube 2857 65,000 1,490 2% 5421027/4501128</p><p>Isar site A 259 7,965 22.7 5% 5363390/4483663</p><p>Isar site B 175 2% 5404149/4565117</p><p> not influenced by Wern 64 602 0.31 5546385/4369505 wastewater</p><p>4</p>