Required ozone doses for removing pharmaceuticals from wastewater effluents

Antoniou, Maria G.; Hey, Gerly; Rodríguez, Sergio; Spiliotopoulou, Aikaterini; Fick, Jerker; Tysklind, Mats; Jansen, Jes la Cour; Andersen, Henrik Rasmus

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.072

Cited by 130 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the removal of each compound from different effluent samples of the same source treated with the same ozone dose differed considerably. This is in accordance with previous findings [6,7,10,26]. In order to determine the ozone dose that is required to achieve 90 % removal of each pharmaceutical, the data in Figure 2 were fitted with Equation 5.…”

Section: Effect Of Doc On Required Ozone Dosage For Pharmaceuticals Rsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…This variation is due to the different molecular structures of the investigated compounds. Some react fast with ozone, while others react slower and then the reaction with hydroxyl radicals will be important for the degradation of a compound [10,26,28]. …”

Section: Effect Of Doc On Required Ozone Dosage For Pharmaceuticals Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The integration of ozone as an additional treatment step in the existing WWTP has become a widely accepted polishing technology for removing pharmaceuticals and other micro-pollutants in wastewater effluents [5][6][7][8][9][10]. Furthermore, treatment with ozone was found to be more cost effective than UV or UV/H 2 O 2 in the removal of estrogens in effluent from biologically treated wastewater [7,11] and it is more easily applied than activated carbon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Equation 5 has previously been used to characterize the efficiency of ozone treatment for removal of estrogenic compounds [7] and active pharmaceutical ingredients [10]. The DDO 3 figures as a constant in Equation 5, which allows for the determination of the standard error of DDO 3 directly through curve fitting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ozonation for source treatment of pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater – Ozone lifetime and required ozone dose

Hansen

Spiliotopoulou²,

Chhetri

et al. 2016

Chemical Engineering Journal

Self Cite

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights:  Ozone dosage was determined for pharmaceuticals removal in hospital wastewater  The ozone dosage required varied 2-fold with both DOC and pH experienced over time  DOC normalized ozone dosage for 90% removal of 32 pharmaceuticals was determined  At low pH, pharmaceuticals need less ozone while ozone lifetime increased to 20 min  H 2 O 2 dosing shorten the ozone lifetime at low pH to 5 min similar to neutral pH 2 Abstract: Ozonation aimed at removing pharmaceuticals was studied in an effluent from an experimental pilot system using staged Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) tanks for the optimal biological treatment of wastewater from a medical care unit of Aarhus University Hospital. Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and pH in samples varied considerably, and the effect of these two parameters on ozone lifetime and the efficiency of ozone in removing pharmaceuticals were determined. The pH in the effluent varied from 5.0 to 9.0 resulting in approximately a doubling of the required ozone dose at the highest pH for each pharmaceutical. DOC varied from 6 to 20 mg-DOC/L. The ozone required for removing each pharmaceutical, varied linearly with DOC and thus, ozone doses normalized to DOC (specific ozone dosis) agreed between water samples (typically within 15%). At neutral pH the specific ozone dose required to remove the easiest degradable pharmaceutical, sulfadiazine, was 0.50±0.04 mg-O 3 /mg-DOC and the most recalcitrant, diatrizoic acid, required 4.7±0.6 mg-O 3 /mg-DOC. The lifetime of ozone increased drastically in the higher end of the indicated dosage. At the lowest observed pH of 5.0, its lifetime was quadrupled to 20 min which influences the design of the reaction tank. The addition of 0.1 mg-H 2 O 2 per 1 mg-O 3 mitigated the prolonged lifetime without a corresponding influence in the pharmaceutical removal efficiency of ozone.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Doc On Required Ozone Dosage For Pharmaceuticals Rsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Effect Of Doc On Required Ozone Dosage For Pharmaceuticals Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ozonation for source treatment of pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater – Ozone lifetime and required ozone dose

Hansen

Spiliotopoulou²,

Chhetri

et al. 2016

Chemical Engineering Journal

Self Cite

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modern living requires the usage of myriads of xenobiotics including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and solvents that find their way into the natural environment (Antoniou et al, 2013;de la Cruz et al, 2011;Esperanza et al, 2007;Hansen et al, 2010;Hansen et al, 2012;Marfil-Vega et al, 2011). Though found at small concentrations (thus are commonly known as micropollutants) they can still have adverse effects in the ecosystem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of UVC/S2O82− with UVC/H2O2 in terms of efficiency and cost for the removal of micropollutants from groundwater

Antoniou

Andersen

2015

Chemosphere

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Cost comparison of UVC/HP and UVC/PS for groundwater treatment.  UVC/PS performed better for atrazine removal in Milli-Q water.  UVC/HP had a better overall performance for the removal of the mixture of contaminants.  Results from the collimated beam apparatus were comparable to the flow-through system.  UVC/PS is economically feasible for special matrices where selective oxidation is required. Graphical Abstract 2 AbstractThis study compared the UVC/S 2 O 8 2-system with the more commonly used AOP in water industry, UVC/H 2 O 2 , and examined whether the first one can be an economically feasible alternative technology. Atrazine and 4 volatile compounds (methyl tert-butyl ether, cisdichlorethen, 1,4-dioxane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane) were chosen as model contaminants because they exhibit different susceptibility to UVC photolysis and AOPs. A collimated beam apparatus was utilized for the majority of the experiments (controlled environment, without mass transfer phenomena), while selected experiments were performed in a flow-through reactor to simulate industrial applications. Initial experiments on the activation of oxidants with a LP lamp indicated that S 2 O 8 2-is photolysed about 2.3 times faster than H 2 O 2 and that the applied treatment times were not sufficient to utilize the majority of the oxidant. The effect of oxidants' concentrations were tested with atrazine alone and in the micropollutants' mixture and it was decided to use 11.8 mg/L S 2 O 8 2-and 14.9 mg/L H 2 O 2 for further testing since is closer to industrial applications and to minimize the residual oxidant concentration. Changes of the matrix composition of the treated water were investigated with the addition of chloride, bicarbonate and humic acids at concentrations relevant to a well-water-sample, the results showed that the system least affected was UVC/H 2 O 2 . Only when bicarbonate was used, UVC/S 2 O 8 2-performed better. Overall, testing these systems with the mixture of micropollutants gave better insights to their efficiency than atrazine alone and UVC/S 2 O 8 2-is recommended for selective oxidation of challenging matrices.

show abstract