| Literature DB >> 31968619 |
Shaobin Sun1,2, Hong Yao1, Xinyang Li1, Shihai Deng1,3, Shenlong Zhao1,4, Wen Zhang1,2,5.
Abstract
Pharmaceutical residuals are increasingly detected in natural waters, which made great threat to the health of the public. This study evaluated the utility of the photo-Fenton ceramic membrane filtration toward the removal and degradation of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) as a model recalcitrant micropollutant. The photo-Fenton catalyst Goethite (α-FeOOH) was coated on planar ceramic membranes as we reported previously. The removal of SMX in both simulated and real toilet wastewater were assessed by filtering the feed solutions with/without H2O2 and UV irradiation. The SMX degradation rate reached 87% and 92% respectively in the presence of UV/H2O2 for the original toilet wastewater (0.8 ± 0.05 ppb) and toilet wastewater with a spiked SMX concentration of 100 ppb. The mineralization and degradation by-products were both assessed under different degradation conditions to achieve deeper insight into the degradation mechanisms during this photo-Fenton reactive membrane filtration. Results showed that a negligible removal rate (e.g., 3%) of SMX was obtained when only filtering the feed solution through uncoated or catalyst-coated membranes. However, the removal rates of SMX were significantly increased to 67% (no H2O2) and 90% (with H2O2) under UV irradiation, respectively, confirming that photo-Fenton reactions played the key role in the degradation/mineralization process. The highest apparent quantum yield (AQY) reached up to approximately 27% when the H2O2 was 10 mmol·L-1 and UV254 intensity was 100 μW·cm-2. This study lays the groundwork for reactive membrane filtration to tackle the issues from micropollution.Entities:
Keywords: SMX; ceramic membrane; photo-fenton; toilet wastewater; α-FeOOH
Year: 2020 PMID: 31968619 PMCID: PMC7023487 DOI: 10.3390/nano10010180
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Major water quality parameters of the toilet wastewater before/after prefiltration.
| Parameters | pH | TOC (mg·L−1) | SS (mg·L−1) | NH4+-N (mg·L−1) | TP (mg·L−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | 6.94 ± 0.01 | 1712 ± 18 | 983 ± 9 | 1218 ± 16 | 66 ± 3 |
| Pre-filtered | 6.94 ± 0.01 | 1524 ± 21 | N.A. | 1168 ± 13 | 62 ± 2 |
TOC: total organic carbon; SS: Suspended solid; NH4+-N: ammonia nitrogen; TP: total phosphors.
Figure 1SEM images of α-FeOOH coated ceramic membranes. (a–c) Top views for ceramic membranes with low coating, medium coating and heavy coating. (d–f) Cross-sectional views for ceramic membranes with low coating, medium coating, and heavy coating corresponding to coating densities of 0.5, 2 and 6 µg-catalyst·g-membrane−1.
Figure 2(a) The ratio of the remaining concentration (C) of SMX over the initial concentration (C0) under different degradation processes on catalyst-coated ceramic membrane. (b) The TOC removal in the batch photo-Fenton reactions with or without the presence of the catalyst-coated ceramic membrane. Initial SMX concentration: 20 mg·L−1 corresponding to an initial TOC concentration of 5.8 mg·L−1, UV wavelength was 254 nm and intensity was 401 µw·cm−2; H2O2 concentration was 10 mmol·L−1, and the catalyst on the ceramic membrane was 2 μg·g−1. The doses of UV irradiation and H2O2 on SMX photodegradation were optimized with details discussed in Section S4.
Figure 3The removal of SMX under different filtration conditions: SMX concentration: 20 mg·L−1; Influent flux: 10 LMH; UV intensity: 401 μW·cm−2; H2O2 dosage: 10 mmol·L−1 at 5 ± 0.2 μL∙s−1 and CM denotes for coated membrane.
Figure 4The SMX removal in initial and spiked toilet water under different degradation processes on catalyst-coated ceramic membrane. The background SMX concentration: 0.8 ± 0.05 ppb, spiked SMX concentration: 100 ppb. The UV254 intensity was 401 µW·cm−2; H2O2 concentration was 10 mmol·L−1; and the catalyst on the ceramic membrane was 2 µg·g−1. “Fil.” stands for filtration with a permeate flux of 10 LMH.
Figure 5The RRLC-MS analysis of SMX and its degradation byproducts in the liquid samples that underwent different reaction times (0, 5, 30, and 60 min).
Figure 6Reaction pathways of SMX and the major intermediates observed in this study.
First-order degradation kinetics rate constants of SMX under different experimental conditions in Figure 2a with the uncoated and coated ceramic membranes.
| Membrane Type | Reaction Type | First-Order Kinetic Rate Constant (min−1) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| No membrane | UV only | 0.0126 | 0.9654 |
| H2O2 only | 0.0005 | 0.9346 | |
| UV + H2O2 | 0.0411 | 0.9436 | |
| Uncoated membrane | No UV or H2O2 | 0.0001 | 0.9855 |
| UV only | 0.0213 | 0.9781 | |
| H2O2 only | 0.0005 | 0.9345 | |
| UV + H2O2 | 0.0928 | 0.9776 | |
| Coated membrane | No UV or H2O2 | 0.0001 | 0.9674 |
| UV only | 0.1435 | 0.9532 | |
| H2O2 only | 0.0005 | 0.9762 | |
| UV + H2O2 | 1.0031 | 0.9683 |