Fate of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in different wastewater treatment technologies

Göbel, Anke; McArdell, Christa S.; Joss, Adriano; Siegrist, Hansruedi; Giger, Walter

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.07.039

Cited by 704 publications

(331 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

280

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some compounds such as the antibiotic clindamycin, the beta blocker metoprolol and most of the pharmaceutical metabolites were found at higher concentrations (in the dissolved phase) in the effluent of the biological treatment than in the influent. Similar observations in other studies were attributed to (i) release during the treatment of compounds trapped in faeces particles (Göbel et al, 2007), (ii) biological cleavage in the treatment of pharmaceutical conjugates (human metabolites) producing again the parent compound (Onesios et al, 2009), (iii) formation of bacterial metabolites during the biological treatment or (iv) analytical uncertainties.…”

Section: Biological Treatmentsupporting

confidence: 83%

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Margot

Kienle

Magnet³

et al. 2013

Science of The Total Environment

684

404

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• Micropollutants are efficiently removed by both ozone and powdered activated carbon• Specific substances were removed more efficiently by ozone• Powdered activated carbon effectively removed a wider range of pollutants• Both treatments significantly reduced the toxicity of WWTP effluent AbstractMany organic micropollutants present in wastewater, such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides, are poorly removed in conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). To reduce the release of these substances into the aquatic environment, advanced wastewater treatments are necessary. In this context, two large-scale pilot advanced treatments were tested in parallel over more than one year at the municipal WWTP of Lausanne, Switzerland. The treatments were: i) oxidation by ozone followed by sand filtration (SF) and ii) powdered activated carbon (PAC) adsorption followed by either ultrafiltration (UF) or sand filtration. More than 70 potentially problematic substances (pharmaceuticals, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, drugs metabolites and other common chemicals) were regularly measured at different stages of treatment. Additionally, several ecotoxicological tests such as the yeast estrogen screen, a combined algae bioassay and a fish early life stage test were performed to evaluate effluent toxicity. Both treatments significantly improved the effluent quality. Micropollutants were removed on average over 80% compared with raw wastewater, with an average ozone dose of 5.7 mg O 3 l -1 or a PAC dose between 10 and 20 mg l -1 . Depending on the chemical properties of the substances (presence of electron-rich moieties, charge and hydrophobicity), either ozone or PAC performed better. Both advanced treatments led to a clear reduction in toxicity of the effluents, with PAC-UF performing slightly better overall. As both treatments had, on average, relatively similar efficiency, further criteria relevant to their implementation were considered, including local constraints (e.g., safety, sludge disposal, disinfection), operational feasibility and cost. For sensitive receiving waters (drinking water resources or recreational waters), the PAC-UF treatment, despite its current higher cost, was considered to be the most suitable option, enabling good removal of most micropollutants and macropollutants without forming problematic by-products, the strongest decrease in toxicity and a total disinfection of the effluent.

show abstract

Section: Biological Treatmentsupporting

confidence: 83%

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Margot

Kienle

Magnet³

et al. 2013

Science of The Total Environment

684

404

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the macrolides, anhydro erythromycin was detected at higher concentrations in the wastewater than clarithromycin and roxithromycin, which is consistent with those in other regions of China (Peng et al, 2011;Xu et al, 2007) and Canada (Miao et al, 2004) but different to those in Switzerland (Gobel et al, 2007). This regional difference in their concentrations in wastewater is a reflection of variable prescription and consumption patterns (Miao et al, 2004).…”

Section: Occurrence Of Antibiotics In Wwtpssupporting

confidence: 82%

Occurrence and fate of eleven classes of antibiotics in two typical wastewater treatment plants in South China

Zhou

Ying

Liu

et al. 2013

Science of The Total Environment

411

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…58,70,80 Lange et al 70 surveyed the influent and effluent of 17 municipal wastewater treatments plants for artificial sweeteners concentration; results from this survey revealed that acesulfame was not removed through any of the traditional treatment systems. Similarly, low removal of DEET and trimethoprim through CAS plants was reported by Bernhard et al 58 and Gobel et al, 80 respectively. However, in MBR systems operated at long SRTs, removal of DEET and trimethoprim increased substantially with increasing SRT.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of Trace Organic Chemicals and Performance of a Novel Hybrid Ultrafiltration-Osmotic Membrane Bioreactor

Holloway

Regnery

Nghiem

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactor (UFO-MBR) was investigated for over 35 days for nutrient and trace organic chemical (TOrC) removal from municipal wastewater. The UFO-MBR system uses both ultrafiltration (UF) and forward osmosis (FO) membranes in parallel to simultaneously extract clean water from an activated sludge reactor for nonpotable (or environmental discharge) and potable reuse, respectively. In the FO stream, water is drawn by osmosis from activated sludge through an FO membrane into a draw solution (DS), which becomes diluted during the process. A reverse osmosis (RO) system is then used to reconcentrate the diluted DS and produce clean water suitable for direct potable reuse. The UF membrane extracts water, dissolved salts, and some nutrients from the system to prevent their accumulation in the activated sludge of the osmotic MBR. The UF permeate can be used for nonpotable reuse purposes (e.g., irrigation and toilet flushing). Results from UFO-MBR investigation illustrated that the chemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus removals were greater than 99%, 82%, and 99%, respectively. Twenty TOrCs were detected in the municipal wastewater that was used as feed to the UFO-MBR system. Among these 20 TOrCs, 15 were removed by the hybrid UFO-MBR system to below the detection limit. High FO membrane rejection was observed for all ionic and nonionic hydrophilic TOrCs and lower rejection was observed for nonionic hydrophobic TOrCs. With the exceptions of bisphenol A and DEET, all TOrCs that were detected in the DS were well rejected by the RO membrane. Overall, the UFO-MBR can operate sustainably and has the potential to be utilized for direct potable reuse applications.

show abstract

Fate of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in different wastewater treatment technologies

Cited by 704 publications

References 36 publications

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Occurrence and fate of eleven classes of antibiotics in two typical wastewater treatment plants in South China

Removal of Trace Organic Chemicals and Performance of a Novel Hybrid Ultrafiltration-Osmotic Membrane Bioreactor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About