4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Occurrence of UV filters, fragrances and organophosphate flame retardants in municipal WWTP effluents and their removal during membrane post-treatment

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 323, Issue -, Pages 166-176

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.08.001

Keywords

(max 5): municipal WWTP; Effluent polishing; Membrane post-treatment; Removal of CECs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Membrane filtration using ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) or reverse osmosis (RO) membranes was evaluated as an efficient effluent polishing step at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for the removal of selected contaminants of emerging concern and for improvement of water quality according to water reuse requirements. In samples collected at two largest WWTPs in Norway, 12 out of 14 selected personal care products and organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) were found above analytical detection limit. The highest concentrations were observed for BP3, OC (UV filters), HHCB, AHTN (fragrances), TCPP and TBP (OPFRs), exceeding the predicted no-effect concentration for BP3 in one sample and AHTN in five samples. Independently of the membrane type used, membrane filtration effectively (>60%) removed BP3, UV-329, OC, HHCB, AHTN and DBPP. However, UF was insufficient (<20%) for removal of DEET, TCPP and TCEP. UF was sufficient to remove 30-50% of COD, 80-95% of TP, up to 30% of TN and NH4, and a min of 2 log reduction of E. coli. Water quality improved further with application of NF and RO. The results indicate that membrane filtration can be effective post-treatment to improve overall water quality and a measure to reduce potential risk in the receiving aquatic environment. (C) 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.orgilicensesiby/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available