Enhanced removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products from real municipal wastewater using an electrochemical membrane bioreactor

Chen, Mei; Ren, Lehui; Qi, Kangquan; Li, Qiang; Lai, Miaoju; Li, Yang; Li, Xuesong; Wang, Zhiwei

doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123579

Cited by 63 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An assessment of the microbial activity verified that the applied electric field had no significant adverse impact on microbial viability and diversity. These findings verified that this combination of contaminant elimination and membrane fouling mitigation has a strong potential to be used for the elimination of PPCPs from wastewater (Chen et al 2020 ).…”

Section: Cosmetic Treatment Technologiessupporting

confidence: 79%

Cosmetic wastewater treatment technologies: a review

Gkika

Mitropoulos

Lambropoulou

et al. 2022

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past three decades, environmental concerns about the water pollution have been raised on societal and industrial levels. The presence of pollutants stemming from cosmetic products has been documented in wastewater streams outflowing from industrial as well as wastewater treatment plants. To this end, a series of consistent measures should be taken to prevent emerging contaminants of water resources. This need has driven the development of technologies, in an attempt to mitigate their impact on the environment. This work offers a thorough review of existing knowledge on cosmetic wastewater treatment approaches, including, coagulation, dissolved air flotation, adsorption, activated sludge, biodegradation, constructed wetlands, and advanced oxidation processes. Various studies have already documented the appearance of cosmetics in samples retrieved from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), which have definitely promoted our comprehension of the path of cosmetics within the treatment cycle; however, there are still multiple blanks to our knowledge. All treatments have, without exception, their own limitations, not only cost-wise, but also in terms of being feasible, effective, practical, reliable, and environmentally friendly. Graphical abstract

show abstract

Section: Cosmetic Treatment Technologiessupporting

confidence: 79%

Cosmetic wastewater treatment technologies: a review

Gkika

Mitropoulos

Lambropoulou

et al. 2022

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, in our study, CD did not affect the removal of CMZ. Other authors report different behaviors: Borea et al (2019), using conditions similar to those of the present work, found removal improvements for CBZ when increasing the CD, while Chen et al (2020), in a study with real waters, found that there is no statistically significant influence of EC on the removal of CMZ.…”

Section: Phases 2 3 and 4: Effect Of CD On Micro-pollutant Removalsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…The Wilcoxon statistical analysis showed significant differences (p-value ,0.05) between the results of 0-10 and 5-10 A/m 2 , confirming the consistency of these data. Borea et al (2019) and Chen et al (2020) also obtained better DCF removals with eMBR compared to MBR. At high CD, in our investigation, the removal decreased appreciably between 10 and 15 A/m 2 , with statistically significant average values, possibly due to the prevalence of the electroflotation mechanism for this DC.…”

Section: Phases 2 3 and 4: Effect Of CD On Micro-pollutant Removalmentioning

confidence: 87%

Use of combined UASB + eMBR treatment for removal of emerging micropollutants and reduction of fouling

Mora-Cabrera

Peña-Guzmán

Trapote

et al. 2021

Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study employs a novel combined pilot plant consisting of an anaerobic reactor followed by a membrane electro-bioreactor (eMBR) to treat domestic water containing selected micro-pollutants of emerging concern (CECs) [ibuprofen (IB), carbamazepine, diclofenac (DCF) and 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2)]. The first phase operated as a conventional membrane bioreactor to achieve the removal of organic matter [chemical oxygen demand (COD)], the CECs and phosphorus. A removal rate of 96.3% for COD, 94.5% for IB, 37.1% for CMZ, 87.1% for DCF and 96% for EE2 was obtained. In the three subsequent phases, current density (CD) of 5, 10 and 15 A/m2 was applied successively in the eMBR with the aim of investigating the effects on the removal of the former components and the fouling of the membrane. After the application of 5 and 10 A/m2 CD, the removal rate of COD decreased. Regarding phosphorus, a CD of 5 A/m2 was enough to achieve the rate of 97% and the membrane fouling suffered a substantial reduction too. Finally, the experimental results were subject to statistical analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon tests to validate the influence of each DC.

show abstract

“…The FESSM cathode could produce H 2 O 2 through oxygen reduction. 41 Subsequently, the FESSM cathode increased the convective mass transfer of the PTSA, iron species and H 2 O 2 toward the cathode, ensuring the electron transfer rate of iron species to the FESSM cathode surface and accelerating the heterogeneous Fenton reaction to produce more ˙OH. Consequently, the oxidation of PTSA was enhanced in the FEEF system.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%