| Literature DB >> 29755149 |
Marzena Smol1, Dariusz Włóka2, Maria Włodarczyk-Makuła3.
Abstract
In this paper, coke wastewater that had passed through biological and integrated membrane processes (filtration on sand bed-reverse osmosis) was chosen to assess the phytotoxicity of selected industrial wastewater with regard to the test plant-Vicia faba. An innovative research technique in vitro test was conducted in a large scale phytothrone chamber on two matrices: cotton and Murashige and Skoog Basal Medium (MSBM). The toxicity of wastewater was evaluated for samples: (1) treated in the treatment plant by biological processes, (2) filtrated through a sand bed and filtrated (3) reverse osmosis (RO) membrane. The results showed that there is a noticeable correlation between increasing concentrations of wastewater and seed germination of the test plant. Although the wastewater collected from the coke plant was treated biologically, it showed very high levels of germination inhibition (90-98% for cotton matrix and 92-100% for MSBM matrix) and strong toxic effects. The wastewater collected from the coke plant showed a significantly greater phytotoxic effect compared with those obtained from the effluent treated on a sand bed and in RO. However, wastewater, even after treatment on a sand bed (reduction of COD-39%, TN-46%, TOC-42%, TC-47%, SS-50%, 16PAHs-53%), was still toxic and germination inhibition was in the range of 24-48% for the cotton matrix and 14-54% for the MSBM matrix. The toxicity of wastewater treated in the membrane process was the lowest (reduction of COD-85%, TN-95%, TOC-85%, TC-86%, SS-98%, 16PAHs-67%). The germination inhibition was in the range of 4-10% for the cotton matrix and 2-12% for the MSBM matrix. These samples are classified as non-toxic or slightly toxic to the model plant. The present study highlights the necessity of monitoring not only the basic physical and chemical indicators (including the level of toxic substances as PAHs), but also their effect on the test organisms in wastewater samples.Entities:
Keywords: Coke wastewater; Gemination inhibition; Phytotoxicity; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Toxity test; Wastewater treatment
Year: 2018 PMID: 29755149 PMCID: PMC5928171 DOI: 10.1007/s11270-018-3794-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Water Air Soil Pollut ISSN: 0049-6979 Impact factor: 2.520
Composition of coke wastewater
| Parameter | Unit | Lai et al. | Vázquez et al. | Zhao et al. | Zhao et al. | Wei et al. | Mielczarek et al. ( | Madeła and Dębowski | Smol et al. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature | °C | 30 | – | 28–38 | – | – | – | 36 | 47 |
| pH | – | 7.2 | 8.1 | 6.53–8.04 | – | – | 9.1–9.4 | 7.5–9.1 | 7.56 |
| COD | mg/L | 750 | 1100 | 1182–3310 | 2236 | 1676 | 3489–4520 | – | 6080.4 |
| BOD5 | mg/L | 45 | 579 | – | – | – | 50 | – | – |
| TOC | mg/L | 195 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 386.1 |
| TC | mg/L | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 496.9 |
| Conductivity | μS·cm−1 | 2200 | 7100 | – | – | – | 1700–8410 | – | – |
| Phenols | mg/L | – | 207 | 331–1078 | 300 | 249 | 381–534 | 260–3000 | – |
| NH3-N | mg/L | – | – | 49–488 | – | 106 | – | – | – |
| NH4+-N | mg/L | – | 688 | 265.9 | 211 | – | 132–491 | 980–6500 | 168.0 |
| NO2-N | mg/L | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Total nitrogen | mg/L | – | – | 110–617 | 370 | – | 1820 | – | 609.1 |
| Turbidity | NTU | – | – | 1.8–528 | – | – | – | – | 375.1 |
| Alkalinity | mg/L | – | 250 | 224–916 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Colour | – | – | – | 1250–1900 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Cyanide | mg/L | – | – | – | 24 | 9.65 | 11–27 | 10–100 | – |
| Oil and tar | mg/L | – | – | – | – | – | – | 100–240 | – |
Fig. 1Stages of coke wastewater treatment
The limit values of selected indicators in wastewater (Smol et al. 2014a)
| Indicator | Unit | Indexes of sewage pollution which is to adischarged to a natural receiver* | Indexes of sewage pollution which is directed to sewers** |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH | – | 6.5–9.0 | 6.5–9.5 |
| temperature | 35 | 35 | |
| Ammonium nitrogen | mg N-NH4+/L | 10 | 1001) 2002) |
| Nitrate nitrogen | mg NO3−/L | 30 | 10 |
| COD | mg O2/L | 125 | 3) |
| TOC | mg C/L | 30 | 3) |
| TC | mg C/L | ns. | ns. |
| SS | mg /L | 35 | 3) |
| 16PAHs | μg/L | ns. | 200*** |
ns, not standardised
*Journal of law 2014 item.1800
**Journal of law 2006 no. 136, item. 964
***calculated on the basis of carbon content
1)For wastewater discharged to the treatment plant for an area with a population > 5000
2)For wastewater discharged to the treatment plant for an area with a population ≤ 5000
3)The values of indicators should be based on the permissible load of these pollutants for individual treatment plants
Changes in the physical and chemical indicators of coke wastewater after the treatment processes
| Indicator [unit] | Biological treatment | Filtration on sand bed | Reverse osmosis (RO) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value | Value | Retention ratio [%] | Value | Retention coeeficient*, | |
| pH | 7.2 | 7.9 | – | 7.4 | – |
| COD [mg O2/L] | 6067.4 | 3692.1 | 39.1 | 567.3 | 84.6 |
| TN [mg NH4+/L] | 334.5 | 180.2 | 46.1 | 9.1 | 94.9 |
| TOC [mg C/L] | 411.1 | 238.3 | 42.0 | 35.2 | 85.2 |
| TC [mg C/L] | 717.5 | 382.9 | 46.6 | 54.1 | 85.9 |
| SS [mg/L] | 132.6 | 67.0 | 49.5 | 1.1 | 98.4 |
| 16PAHs [μg/L] | 94.73 | 45.2 | 53.3 | 15.04 | 67.0 |
*Retention coefficient was calculated for wastewater taken after filtration on sand bed, and treated in RO process
The degree of toxicity (Adamcová et al. 2016)
| Inhibition [%] | The degree of toxicity | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| I* < 10 | 1 | Non-toxic or slightly toxic |
| 10 < | 2 | Toxic |
| 50 < U | 3 | Highly toxic |
Concentration and percentage share of PAHs in coke wastewater treated in biological process, filtration on sand bed and reverse osmosis
| PAHs | Biological treatment | Filtration on sand bed | Reverse osmosis (RO) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ng/L] | [%] | [ng/L] | [%] | [ng/L] | [%] | |
| Naf | 23,905.59 | 25.2 ± 4.2 | 9769.9 | 21.6 ± 7.1 | 2911.48 | 52.3 ± 5.8 |
| Acyl | 115.93 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 78.77 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 16.71 | 0.3 ± 0.1 |
| Ac | 7500.43 | 7.9 ± 2.1 | 3498.7 | 7.7 ± 1.0 | 490.99 | 8.8 ± 0.9 |
| Fl | 302.53 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 245,09 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 76.17 | 1.4 ± 0.4 |
| Fen | 107.99 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 67.22 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 28.21 | 0.5 ± 0.3 |
| Ant | 220.83 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 81 | 0.2 ± 0.2 | 9.99 | 0.2 ± 0.2 |
| Flu | 564.34 | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 333.91 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 63.45 | 1.1 ± 0.9 |
| Pir | 899.42 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 521.01 | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 92.1 | 1.7 ± 0.1 |
| BaA | 13,897.67 | 14.7 3.2 | 9032.1 | 20.0 ± 1.3 | 762.09 | 13.7 ± 1.9 |
| Chr | 9090.99 | 9.6 ± 0.8 | 6721.06 | 14.9 ± 2.1 | 859.3 | 15.4 ± 2.2 |
| BaP | 5891.4 | 6.2 ± 0.5 | 2981.2 | 6.6 ± 0.5 | 67.31 | 1.2 ± 0.1 |
| BbF | 1453.94 | 1.5 ± 1.0 | 672.11 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 90.32 | 1.6 ± 0.9 |
| BkF | 24,098.55 | 25.4 ± 2.4 | 9091.35 | 20.1 ± 2.2 | 96.02 | 1.7 ± 0.4 |
| DahA | 3536.98 | 3.7 ± 0.4 | 1018.21 | 2.3 ± 0.9 | 2.21 | 0.0 |
| IP | 2190.01 | 2.3 ± 1.1 | 645.91 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| BghiP | 953.47 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 453.07 | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 5.32 | 0.1 ± 0.1 |
|
| 94,730.07 | – | 45,210.61 | – | 5571.77 | – |
Fig. 2PAHs removal efficiency in treatment processes
Fig. 3Germination inhibition of Vicia faba (cotton matrix)
Fig. 4Germination inhibition of Vicia faba (Murashige and Skoog Basal Medium matrix)
Results of one-way ANOVA test
| One-way ANOVA | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biological treatment | Filtration on sand bed | Reverse osmosis | |
| Cotton matrix | 3.22 10−4 | 0.56 | 0.12 |
| MSBM matrix | 3.38 10−3 | 0.19 | 0.20 |