Removal of veterinary antibiotics, alkylphenolic compounds, and estrogens from the Wuluo constructed wetland in southern Taiwan

Abstract

This study investigated the treatment in the constructed Wuluo wetland, Taiwan, of 13 veterinary antibiotics, including five classes (tetracyclines, sulfonimides, chloramphenicol, fluoroquinolone, and dyes), five alkylphenolic compounds (nonylphenol di-ethoxylates [NP2EO], nonylphenol mono-ethoxylates [NP1EO], nonylphenol [NP], octylphenol [OP], and bisphenol A [BPA]), and three estrogens (17β-estradiol [E2], estriol [E3], and 17α-ethynylestradiol [EE2]). The veterinary antibiotics oxytetracycline (OTC), ciprofloxacin (CIP), chloramphenicol (CAP), oxolinic acid (OXO), sulfamonomethoxine (SMM), and sulfadimethoxine (SDM) were detected in 7.1-96.4% of samples with concentrations varying widely from not detected to 552 ng/L. Removal efficiencies within different units of the wetland system exceeded 87% for OTC, CAP, SMM, and SDM, excluding those for IP and OXO, which were 72.1% and 43%, respectively. The other seven antibiotics (tetracycline [TC], enrofloxacin [ENR], chlortetracycline [CTC], sulfamerazine [SMR], sulfamethazine [SMZ], malachite green [MG], and leucomalachite green [LMG]) were all below detection limits in all samples. Additionally, detection rates were as follows: NP1EO, 70.0%; NP2EO, 70.0%; 4-n-NP, 72.9%; 4-OP, 50.0%; BPA, 81.3%; E2, 52.1%; E3, 57.1%; and EE2, 31.3%. Concentrations of the alkylphenolic compounds were as follows: NP1EO, ND-1092.7; NP2EO, ND-643.7; 4-n-NP, ND-6812.3; 4-OP, ND-10400.1; and BPA, ND-1733 ng/L. Natural and synthetic estrogens E2, E3, and EE2 in samples were found in the ranges of ND-907.4, ND-749.5, and ND-226.0 ng/L, respectively. Analytical results show that with the exception of EE2 throughout the wetland system, target compounds were largely removed.

Removal of Organic Micropollutants from Riverine Waters using Constructed Wetlands: A Mesocosms Experiment

“…In the case of AFs results, it covers a wide range from 0 to 98%, however, a different type of wastewater and wetlands treatment are shown therein. Removal in river water treatment with CWs [19][20][21], higher than 52%, are similar to the results obtained in the present study. The ATZ is completely removed from aquaculture effluents in vertical flow constructed wetland [22], which is not the case for the horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland and free surface wetland, was removal range around 50 -70 % [23][24][25], which are in concordance with the removal obtained in the present work.…”

Performance of secondary wastewater treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern implicated in crop uptake and antibiotic resistance spread: A review

“…livestock wastewater show the potential of CWs for secondary treatment (Hsieh et al, 2015;Almeida et al, 2017).So far, removal of the majority of industrial chemicals (see Table 5), neonicotinoids, and selected pesticides in a CW has not been described. Of the neonicotinoids, 100% removal of imidacloprid in a CW has been reported, although spiked water was used instead of real wastewater.…”

Bioprocessing for elimination antibiotics and hormones from swine wastewater

“…In recent years, several studies have attempted to remove antibiotics and hormones from swine wastewater by CWs, and their treatment efficiencies differed depending on various configurations and compounds (Hsieh et al, 2015;Huang et al, 2017;Klomjek, 2016;Papaevangelou et al, 2016;Shappell et al, 2007), as shown in Table 5. Carvalho et al (2013) reported that removal rates of TC and enrofloxacin (ENR) were at least 94% and 98%, respectively, using microcosm VSSF-CWs to treat swine wastewater containing 100 μg/L of such antibiotics.…”