4.5 Article

Laboratory- and full-scale studies on the removal of pharmaceuticals in an aerated constructed wetland: effects of aeration and hydraulic retention time on the removal efficiency and assessment of the aquatic risk

Journal

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 6, Pages 1457-1465

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wst.2017.328

Keywords

forced bed aeration; hazard quotient; hybrid; light expanded clay aggregate (LECA); sub-surface flow

Funding

  1. Committee for Scientific Research of the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering of Ghent University
  2. Ghent University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pharmaceutical residues in wastewater pose a challenge to wastewater treatment technologies. Constructed wetlands (CWs) are common wastewater treatment systems in rural areas and they discharge often in small water courses in which the ecology can be adversely affected by the discharged pharmaceuticals. Hence, there is a need for studies aiming to improve the removal of pharmaceuticals in CWs. In this study, the performance of a full-scale aerated sub-surface flow hybrid CW treating wastewater from a healthcare facility was studied in terms of common water parameters and pharmaceutical removal. In addition, a preliminary aquatic risk assessment based on hazard quotients was performed to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects on aquatic organisms in the forest creek where this CW discharges. The (combined) effect of aeration and hydraulic retention time (HRT) was evaluated in a laboratory-scale batch experiment. Excellent removal of the targeted pharmaceuticals was obtained in the full-scale CW (>90%) and, as a result, the aquatic risk was estimated low. The removal efficiency of only a few of the targeted pharmaceuticals was found to be dependent on the applied aeration (namely gabapentin, metformin and sotalol). Longer and the HRT increased the removal of carbamazepine, diclofenac and tramadol.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available