Behaviour of pharmaceutical products and biodegradation intermediates in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland. A microcosm experiment

Adsorption Capacity of a Volcanic Rock—Used in ConstructedWetlands—For Carbamazepine Removal, and Its Modification with Biofilm Growth

“…By means of a grain-size distribution plot, d 10 and d 60 were estimated, while the uniformity coefficient was obtained as the ratio between d 60 and d 10 [2]. Additionally, the material porosity and bulk density was calculated according to Brix et al [19].…”

“…On the other hand, it has been reported that the main mechanisms for CBZ removal in constructed wetlands, include microbial degradation, plant uptake, and adsorption [10], which are not completely elucidated due to the fact that most studies have been focused only on the inlet and outlet loads [8]. In general, adsorption as a removal process for pharmaceuticals has been extensively assessed through the use of different adsorbents; among those adsorbents recently evaluated are commercial activated carbons [11], silica-based materials [12], chitosan-based magnetic composite [13], ion-exchange resins [14], clay minerals [15], etc.…”

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in the Environment and Their Removal from Wastewater through Constructed Wetlands

“…Results by Matamoros et al (2005) and Matamoros and Bayona (2006) show high removal efficiencies in HF wetlands (60 -80%), observing that the elimination rates are higher in shallower (0.27 m) than deeper beds (0.5 m). Matamoros et al (2008a) found a prevalence of OH-IB over Ca-IB metabolite in a HF wetland, which would be explained by its predominant aerobic biodegradation. A comparison between different seasons by Hijosa-Valsero et al (2011b) in HF beds shows a seasonal variability, with lower removal efficiencies in winter (<40%) than in summer (>90%).…”

“…Only in the last decade, the effect of these parameters on the removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) has been investigated. Those include very few studies evaluating the influence of water depth Matamoros and Bayona, 2006); primary treatment (Ávila et al, 2013a), operation under cycles of saturation/unsaturation (Ávila et al, 2013a); type of organic matter (Matamoros et al, 2008a); type of granular media (Dordio et al, 2009(Dordio et al, , 2010 and other different design parameters and modes of operation (Hijosa-Valsero et al, 2010b, 2011bZhang et al, 2012a,b;Ávila et al, 2014b). Therefore the optimization of the performance of CWs in terms of PPCP removal stands as a necessity that can be achieved through the identification of the optimal design and operational factors of these treatment systems.…”

“…and heavy metals, CWs have proven to have a great potential for the removal of EOCs. The existing literature includes mostly studies on the occurrence and behavior of pharmaceuticals at horizontal flow (HF) wetlands at micro and meso-scale (Matamoros et al, 2008a;Ávila et al, 2010;Hijosa et al, 2010b;Dordio et al, 2010;Hijosa et al, 2011b;Zhang et al, 2011;Reyes-Contreras et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2012b;Ávila et al, 2013a), as well as pilot-scale (Matamoros and Bayona, 2006;Matamoros et al, 2005). Moreover, several studies have been carried out in vertical flow (VF) systems (Matamoros et al, 2007;Matamoros et al, 2009a;Song et al, 2009) and others at full-scale tertiary treatment systems, which include the use of a free water surface (FWS) wetland (Matamoros et al, 2008b;Llorens et al, 2009;Hijosa et al, 2010a;Matamoros and Salvadó, 2012).…”