Removal of pesticides from aqueous solutions by combined physicochemical processes—the behaviour of lindane

Κούρας, Αθανάσιος; Zouboulis, Anastasios; Samara, Constantini; Kouimtzis, Th.

doi:10.1016/s0269-7491(98)00124-9

Cited by 95 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Bakre et al (1990) observed elevated levels of b-HCH followed by a-HCH. Considering the persistence order of HCH isomers (a < c < b), these results indicate historical input of HCH and a relatively recent use of lindane (c-HCH) in the catchments (Kauras et al 1998). Among the DDT metabolites, pp-DDE was the most detected metabolite of DDT (DF = 66.67%) and with relatively higher concentrations ranging from BDL-7.61 ng g -1 with a mean value of 1.04 ± 2.18 ng g -1 (Figs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Residues of Organochlorine Pesticides in Fish from the Gomti River, India

Malik

Singh

Ojha

2007

Bull Environ Contam Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reports the levels and distribution patterns of some organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in fish samples of the Gomti river, India, collected from three sites. In the fish muscles Sigma OCPs ranged between 2.58-22.56 ng g(-1) (mean value: 9.66 +/- 5.60 ng g(-1)). Neither spatial nor temporal trends could be observed in distribution of the OCPs. Aldrin was the predominant OCP, whereas, HCB and methoxychlor could not be detected. alpha-HCH and beta-HCH among the isomers of HCH and pp-DDE among the metabolites of DDT were the most frequently detected OCPs. The results revealed that the fish of the Gomti river are contaminated with various OCPs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Residues of Organochlorine Pesticides in Fish from the Gomti River, India

Malik

Singh

Ojha

2007

Bull Environ Contam Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under the conditions encountered in drinking water treatment plants, removal of micropollutants by PAC tends to be independent of initial contaminant concentrations (Knappe et al, 1998;Leung and Segar, 1999). In a laboratory, 20 mg/L of PAC with 1-h contact time reduced the concentration of the moderately hydrophobic pesticide lindane (Log K OW 5 3.72) from 10 to 0.1 mg/L (Kouras et al, 1998). Laboratory studies conducted with EDCs suggest that PAC will be effective at removing between approximately 60 and 80% of nonylphenol and NPEs (Carlile, et al, 1996;Fielding et al, 1998).…”

Section: Implications For the Water Industry 457mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care Products, and Endocrine Disruptors in Water: Implications for the Water Industry

Snyder¹,

Westerhoff²,

Yoon³

et al. 2003

Environmental Engineering Science

803

371

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over 70 years, scientists have reported that certain synthetic and natural compounds could mimic natural hormones in the endocrine systems of animals. These substances are now collectively known as endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), and have been linked to a variety of adverse effects in both humans and wildlife. More recently, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) have been discovered in various surface and ground waters, some of which have been linked to ecological impacts at trace concentrations. The majority of EDCs and PPCPs are more polar than traditional contaminants and several have acidic or basic functional groups. These properties, coupled with occurrence at trace levels (i.e., ,1 mg/L), create unique challenges for both removal processes and analytical detection. Reports of EDCs and PPCPs in water have raised substantial concern among the public and regulatory agencies; however, very little is known about the fate of these compounds during drinking and wastewater treatment. Numerous studies have shown that conventional drinking and wastewater treatment plants can not completely remove many EDCs and PPCPs. Oxidation with chlorine and ozone can result in transformation of some compounds with reactive functional groups under the conditions employed in water and wastewater treatment plants. Advanced treatment technologies, such as activated carbon and reverse osmosis, appear viable for the removal of many trace contaminants including EDCs and PPCPs. Future research needs include more detailed fate and transport data, standardized analytical methodology, predictive models, removal kinetics, and determination of the toxicological relevance of trace levels of EDCs and PPCPs in water.Key words: endocrine disruptor; pharmaceutical; drinking water; wastewater; treatment; review 449 ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING COMPOUNDS P ERHAPS THE MOST DIFFICULT PART of understanding the subject of endocrine disruption involves a definition of the term. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined environmental endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) as exogenous agents that interfere with the "synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimi- nation of natural hormones in the body that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis, reproduction, development, and/or behavior" (EPA, 1997). However, definitions and opinions on what defines an EDC vary greatly. It is generally accepted that the three major classes of endocrine disruption endpoints are estrogenic (compounds that mimic or block natural estrogen), androgenic (compounds that mimic or block natural testosterone), and thyroidal (compounds with direct or indirect impacts to the thyroid). As we will illustrate, the majority of research thus far has focused only on estrogenic compounds; however, disruption of androgen and thyroid function may be of greater or equal importance biologically.Although the topic of endocrine disruption is considered an "emerging issue" in the water industry, scientists have known about the ability o...

show abstract

“…2a). This might be explained by the fact that a-HCH can be isomerized to b-HCH which has the lowest volatility and also is more persistent with respect to microbial degradation (Howard, 1992;Kouras et al, 1998;Andersen et al, 2001;Rajendran et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%