Comparative toxicity assessment of ozone and activated carbon treated sewage effluents using an in vivo test battery

Stalter, Daniel; Magdeburg, Axel; Oehlmann, Jörg

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.01.023

Cited by 168 publications

(138 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other studies, increases in toxicity after ozonation compared to the feed water were observed, leading to mortality and delays in development of juvenile rainbow trout (Stalter et al, 2010b), reproduction inhibition of lumbriculus worms (Stalter et al, 2010a), mortality of zebra mussels (Stalter et al, 2010a) and growth inhibition of duckweed (Magdeburg et al, 2012). Increases of genotoxic and mutagenic potential after ozonation were also reported (Petala et al, 2008;Stalter et al, 2010a). These effects were attributed to the formation of toxic oxidation by-products during ozonation, such as aldehydes, which could then be removed after sand filtration.…”

Section: Micropollutant Removalmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…For example, undesirable toxic oxidation by-products such as nitrosamines N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), bromate or formaldehyde can be formed Richardson, 2003;Wert et al, 2007), potentially increasing the toxicity compared to non-ozonated wastewater (Petala et al, 2006;Petala et al, 2008;Stalter et al, 2010a;Stalter et al, 2010b). These oxidation products are usually more easily biodegradable and can be partially removed during biological post-filtration Richardson et al, 1999;Stalter et al, 2010a;Stalter et al, 2010b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Margot

Kienle

Magnet³

et al. 2013

Science of The Total Environment

674

404

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• Micropollutants are efficiently removed by both ozone and powdered activated carbon• Specific substances were removed more efficiently by ozone• Powdered activated carbon effectively removed a wider range of pollutants• Both treatments significantly reduced the toxicity of WWTP effluent AbstractMany organic micropollutants present in wastewater, such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides, are poorly removed in conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). To reduce the release of these substances into the aquatic environment, advanced wastewater treatments are necessary. In this context, two large-scale pilot advanced treatments were tested in parallel over more than one year at the municipal WWTP of Lausanne, Switzerland. The treatments were: i) oxidation by ozone followed by sand filtration (SF) and ii) powdered activated carbon (PAC) adsorption followed by either ultrafiltration (UF) or sand filtration. More than 70 potentially problematic substances (pharmaceuticals, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, drugs metabolites and other common chemicals) were regularly measured at different stages of treatment. Additionally, several ecotoxicological tests such as the yeast estrogen screen, a combined algae bioassay and a fish early life stage test were performed to evaluate effluent toxicity. Both treatments significantly improved the effluent quality. Micropollutants were removed on average over 80% compared with raw wastewater, with an average ozone dose of 5.7 mg O 3 l -1 or a PAC dose between 10 and 20 mg l -1 . Depending on the chemical properties of the substances (presence of electron-rich moieties, charge and hydrophobicity), either ozone or PAC performed better. Both advanced treatments led to a clear reduction in toxicity of the effluents, with PAC-UF performing slightly better overall. As both treatments had, on average, relatively similar efficiency, further criteria relevant to their implementation were considered, including local constraints (e.g., safety, sludge disposal, disinfection), operational feasibility and cost. For sensitive receiving waters (drinking water resources or recreational waters), the PAC-UF treatment, despite its current higher cost, was considered to be the most suitable option, enabling good removal of most micropollutants and macropollutants without forming problematic by-products, the strongest decrease in toxicity and a total disinfection of the effluent.

show abstract

Section: Micropollutant Removalmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Margot

Kienle

Magnet³

et al. 2013

Science of The Total Environment

674

404

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3d). These experiments implied that the ozonation process could effectively oxidize unsaturated organic compounds into saturated compounds and eliminate the UV 254 index (Andreozzi et al, 1999), while its mineralization was limited evidenced by a lower decrease of the DOC index, although some unsaturated compounds had changed into saturated ones (Rahman et al, 2010;Can and Ç akir, 2010), which might cause an increase in genotoxicity due to the formation of toxic oxidation by-products (Stalter et al, 2010). Reungoat et al (2010) investigated the relationship between the removal of micropollutants and biological effects during ozone-activated carbon processes, and found that the mixture of oxidation by-products had less toxic potential than the mixture of parent compounds.…”

Section: Proposal Of Toxicity Assessment Indexmentioning

confidence: 96%

Toxicity-based assessment of the treatment performance of wastewater treatment and reclamation processes

Wei

Tan

2012

Journal of Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reclamation and reuse of wastewater is one of the possible ways to relieve the serious fresh water resource crisis in China. Efficient reclamation treatment technologies ensure the safe reuse of reclaimed water. In order to screen out and evaluate technologies appropriate for reclamation treatment, a great deal of efforts have been brought to bear. In the present study, a toxicity-based method including a Photobacterium phosphoreum test for acute toxicity and SOS/umu test for genotoxicity, accompanied by the traditional physicochemical parameters DOC (dissolved organic carbon) and UV 254 (absorbance at 254 nm), was used to measure the treatment performance of different reclamation processes, including the anaerobic-anoxic-oxic biological process (A 2 O) and subsequent physical/chemical reclamation processes (ultrafiltration, ozonation, chlorination). It was found that for the secondary effluent after the A 2 O process, both the toxicity and physicochemical indices had greatly decreased compared with those of the influent. However, chemical reclamation processes such as ozonation and chlorination could possibly raise toxicity levels again. Fortunately, the toxicity elevation could be avoided by optimizing the ozone dosage and using activated carbon after ozonation. It was noted that by increasing the ozone dosage to 10 mg/L and employing activated carbon with more than 10 min hydraulic retention time, toxicity elevation was controlled. Furthermore, it was shown that pre-ozonation before activated carbon and chlorination played an important role in removing organic compounds and reducing the toxicity formation potential. The toxicity test could serve as a valuable tool to evaluate the performance of reclamation processes.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have been conducted to characterize the endocrine potential of municipal effluents [24,25], surface water [26][27][28] and sediments [26,27,29,30], and there has been increasing awareness of the need for testing approaches targeting EDCs to be included into current environmental assessments and monitoring [31][32][33][34][35][36] …”

Section: Environmental Sources and Exposure To Edcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under conditions such as occur in some U.K. rivers that have very great sewage loads (often greater 25% up to greater 80%), remaining concentrations of estrogenic compounds have been show to lead to adverse effects including reproductive disturbances in wild fish populations [47]. Recently, in Europe, there is increasing pressure to further develop advanced wastewater treatment methods, such as ozonation and activated carbon treatment for a broad application in municipal wastewater treatment [34,48]. As a consequence, there are a number of projects that have been initiated during recent years to implement and evaluate the efficiency of these additional treatment steps regarding their potential to remove endocrine active substances.…”

Section: Wastewater Treatment Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endocrine disruptor screening: regulatory perspectives and needs

Hecker

Hollert

2011

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National and international governments are in the process of establishing testing programs and strategies to assess the safety of currently used chemicals with regard to their potential to interact with the endocrine system of man and wildlife, resulting in potential impacts on reproduction, growth, and/or development. Specifically, the USA, Japan, EU, and OECD have established testing approaches and regulatory frameworks with aim to assess the risks associated with chemicals that have endocrine disrupting properties (EDCs). While there has been a large amount of efforts over the past two decades in context with the assessment of chemical safety, no comparable attempts to harmonize and mutually accept testing strategies and decision-making criteria for environmental monitoring and assessment exist to date for EDCs. In fact, many of the current environmental programs such as the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) or the US Clean Water Act do not explicitly test for EDCs, and considering the unique requirements and endpoints required to assess the endocrine potential of a sample, these programs are unlikely to appropriately address exposure to these chemicals. This is of great concern since EDCs are ubiquitous in the environment, especially in aquatic ecosystems. One of most important sources for EDCs in the environment is the effluent from sewage treatment plants. Many EDCs such as the natural and synthetic estrogens 17β-estradiol and 17α-ethinylestradiol, respectively, are not completely removed with conventional wastewater treatment systems. In recognition of these concerns, in Europe, there is increasing pressure to further develop advanced wastewater treatment methods, such as ozonation and activated carbon treatment for a broad application in municipal wastewater treatment. Another issue is the continuing lack of understanding of the environmental relevance of the phenomenon of ED. A great number of studies have been conducted to describe potential ED in wild and laboratory animals. Most of these studies relied on biomarkers of estrogenicity such as vitellogenin induction in males and mild histological alterations (e.g. occurrence of testicular oocytes), and to date -with few exceptions -no convincing evidence of population relevant impacts of exposure to EDC in the wild exist. In conclusion, while there has been a great deal of research and efforts in context with the hazard assessment and regulation of EDCs, there is still a large number of remaining uncertainties and issues. These range from animal rights concerns due to significant increases in the use of animals to fulfill testing requirements, associated needs for alternative testing concepts such as in vitro, in silico, and modeling approaches, lack of understanding of the relevance of the exposure of man and wildlife to EDCs, and the need for inclusion of EDCs in current environmental programs such as the WFD. In this article we attempted to summarize the current state-of-the-art of regulatory and scientific approaches in context with E...

show abstract

Comparative toxicity assessment of ozone and activated carbon treated sewage effluents using an in vivo test battery

Cited by 168 publications

References 56 publications

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Toxicity-based assessment of the treatment performance of wastewater treatment and reclamation processes

Endocrine disruptor screening: regulatory perspectives and needs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About