## 4 Conclusions  
Based upon our results, the presence of analgesic drugs (acetaminophen), NSAIDs (naroxen, ibuprofen, and diclofenac), antibiotics (sulfapyridine and sulfamethoxazole), beta-blockers (atenol), psychostimulant drugs (caffeine), and anti-epileptic drugs (carbazepine) in the influents of WWTPs of the Evora district was evident.  
Acetaminophen was the prevalent PhAC measured in WWTPs, ranging from 27 to 414 \(\mu\)g/L, followed by caffeine with concentrations between 4.1 and 159 \(\mu\)g/L. NSAIDs, ibuprofen, diclofenac, and naproxen also showed higher concentrations, but in lower amounts than those obtained for APAP and caffeine on any WWTP, with median concentrations varying from 1.7 to 12\(\mu\)g/L.  
The antibiotics sulfamethoxazole and sulfapyridine showed lower concentration levels, with median concentrations of 0.31 and 0.17 \(\mu\)g/L, respectively.  
Figure 5: Risk quotient (RQ) values of target PhACs in effluents of each WWTP (**a**) and their receiving waters (**b**).  
For treated effluents, diclofenac and carbamazepine showed results similar to those obtained in the influents, reflecting its recalcitrant characteristics being resistant to conventional WWTP removal processes.  
Acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and naproxen were consistently measured at lower concentrations, or lower than the method quantification limit, reflecting removal efficiencies above 95% for these PhACs.  
While the majority of PhACs showed RQs lower than one, suggesting negligible risks to the environment, RQs for diclofenac and sulfamethoxazole were derived at 7.7 and 68 in the downstream environments Agua Ruca stream and Monreal stream, respectively. Although an RQ greater than the unit should not be directly interpreted as actual risks, this observation signifies the need for further investigations on the ecological consequences of these two pharmaceutical residues in an aquatic environment.  
The following are available online at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11167388/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11167388/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11167388/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app11167388/s1)), Figure S1. Wastewater treatment steps of Evora WWTP. Figure S2. Wastewater treatment steps of Redondo and Reguengos WWTPs. Figure S3. Wastewater treatment steps of Borba WWTP. Figure S4. Wastewater treatment steps of Portel WWTP. Table S1. Parameters for calculation of risk quotient (RQ) of effluent and downstream environments of PhACs from Evora WWTPs. Table S2. PhACs in influents and effluents of Evora WWTP. Table S3. PhACs in influents and effluents of Reguengos de Monsaraz WWTP. Table S4. PhACs in influents and effluents of Borba WWTP. Table S5. PhACs in influents and effluents of Redondo WWTP. Table S6. PhACs in influents and effluents of Portel WWTP. Table S7. PhACs in downstream and upstream environment of Evora WWTP. Table S8. PhACs in downstream and upstream environment of Repuengos de Monsaraz WWTP. Table S9. PhACs in downstream and upstream environment of Borba WWTP. Table S10. PhACs in downstream environment of Redondo WWTP. Table S11. PhACs in downstream and upstream environment of Portel WWTP.  
Conceptualization, V.V.C. and R.N.C.; methodology, V.V.C., L.D., and C.M.M.A.; validation, S.S., V.V.C., and C.M.M.A.; formal analysis, S.S.; resources, R.N.C.; V.V.C., and C.M.M.A.; writing--original draft preparation, S.S. and C.M.M.A.; writing--review and editing, S.S., C.M.M.A., and V.V.C.; supervision, V.V.C. and R.N.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Aguas do Vale do Tejo for providing the wastewater samples (sampling). This may include administrative and technical support.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.