Literature DB >> 21123929

On-site evaluation of the efficiency of conventional and advanced secondary processes for the removal of 60 organic micropollutants.

S Martin Ruel1, M Esperanza, J-M Choubert, I Valor, H Budzinski, M Coquery.   

Abstract

The next challenge of wastewater treatment is to reliably remove micropollutants at the microgram per litre range in order to reduce the discharge for priority substances and to meet the environmental quality standards set by the European Water Framework Directive. The present work assessed the occurrence of 60 organic substances (priority substances and other relevant pollutants) in municipal wastewater and sludge. Their fate in the treatment processes and their removal efficiencies were quantified. Thorough on-site mass balances were carried out at 8 municipal wastewater treatment plants chosen among conventional and advanced secondary processes. It was found that 70% of the substances were quantified in raw wastewater and 50% in effluent, with a transfer without a limited degradation for most of them. Low loaded activated sludge (AS) process reduced the emission of more than half of micropollutants. At low sludge retention time (AS under high load), lower removal efficiencies were measured compared to low loaded AS. No influence of temperature of the biological reactor was shown. The membrane bioreactor process increased the removal efficiencies for one third of the substances that were partially removed with AS. Still, five substances were measured at concentrations exceeding the environmental quality standards at the outlet of the studied plants. In addition to efforts for source-reduction, complementary treatments need to be set-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21123929     DOI: 10.2166/wst.2010.989

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Water Sci Technol        ISSN: 0273-1223            Impact factor:   1.915


  7 in total

1.  Removal of xenobiotics from effluent discharge by adsorption on zeolite and expanded clay: an alternative to activated carbon?

Authors:  A Tahar; J M Choubert; C Miège; M Esperanza; K Le Menach; H Budzinski; C Wisniewski; M Coquery
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 2.  Xenobiotics removal by adsorption in the context of tertiary treatment: a mini review.

Authors:  Alexandre Tahar; Jean-Marc Choubert; Marina Coquery
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Biofiltration vs conventional activated sludge plants: what about priority and emerging pollutants removal?

Authors:  R Mailler; J Gasperi; V Rocher; S Gilbert-Pawlik; D Geara-Matta; R Moilleron; G Chebbo
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 4.  Meta-analysis of environmental contamination by phthalates.

Authors:  Alexandre Bergé; Mathieu Cladière; Johnny Gasperi; Annie Coursimault; Bruno Tassin; Régis Moilleron
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 5.  Meta-analysis of environmental contamination by alkylphenols.

Authors:  Alexandre Bergé; Mathieu Cladière; Johnny Gasperi; Annie Coursimault; Bruno Tassin; Régis Moilleron
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2012-08-05       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Kinetics of Biological Removal of the Selected Micropollutants and Their Effect on Activated Sludge Biomass.

Authors:  Ewa Liwarska-Bizukojc; Małgorzata Galamon; Przemysław Bernat
Journal:  Water Air Soil Pollut       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 2.520

7.  Rate-Limiting Mass Transfer in Micropollutant Degradation Revealed by Isotope Fractionation in Chemostat.

Authors:  Benno N Ehrl; Kankana Kundu; Mehdi Gharasoo; Sviatlana Marozava; Martin Elsner
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 9.028

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.