| Literature DB >> 23768786 |
A Justo1, O González, J Aceña, S Pérez, D Barceló, C Sans, S Esplugas.
Abstract
One significant disadvantage of using reverse osmosis (RO) for reclamation purposes is the need to dispose of the RO retentates. These retentates contain a high concentration of micropollutants, effluent organic matter (EfOM) and other inorganic constituents, which are recalcitrant to biological treatment and may impact the environment. The occurrence of 11 pharmaceuticals (concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 1.6 μg L(-1)) and their mitigation in RO retentates by a UV/H2O2 process and ozonation was studied using a wide range of oxidant dosages. Eleven pharmaceuticals were identified at. Initial observed kinetic constants (kobs) were calculated for the different pharmaceuticals. Other typical wastewater parameters were also monitored during the UV/H2O2 and ozonation reactions. The range for kobs was found to be 0.8-12.8L mmol O3(-1) and 9.7-29.9 L mmol H2O2(-1) for the ozonation and UV/H2O2 process, respectively. For ozonation, Atenolol, Carbamazepine, Codeine, Trimethoprim and Diclofenac showed the lowest initial kobs (in the order mentioned). Atenolol and Carbamazepine appeared as the most ozone resistant pharmaceuticals, exhibiting the lowest percentage of elimination at low ozone doses. On the other hand, despite the non-selectivity of HO, differences in the initial kobs were also observed during the UV/H2O2 process. Trimethoprim, Paroxetine and Sulfamethoxazole exhibited the lowest initial kobs values (in the order mentioned). Trimethoprim and Paroxetine also exhibited the lowest percentage removal when low H2O2 doses were assayed. The compounds that were identified as problematic during ozonation were more efficiently removed by the UV/H2O2 process. UV/H2O2 generally appeared to be a more efficient technology for removing pharmaceuticals from RO brines compared to ozonation.Entities:
Keywords: AOP; Micropollutants; RO concentrate; Retentates
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23768786 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.05.030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hazard Mater ISSN: 0304-3894 Impact factor: 10.588