4.8 Article

Behavior of selected pharmaceuticals in subsurface flow constructed wetlands:: A pilot-scale study

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 14, Pages 5449-5454

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es050022r

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Subsurface flow constructed wetlands (SSFs) constitute a wastewater treatment alternative to small communities due to the low operational cost, reduced energy consumption, and no sewage sludge production. Although much information is available about conventional water quality parameters in SSF constructed wetlands, few data are available regarding specific contaminants. In this paper, we focus on the behavior of three widely used pharmaceuticals (clofibric acid, ibuprofen, and carbamazepine) in two pilot SSF constructed wetlands planted with Phragmites australis and characterized by different water depths (i.e., 0.3 and 0.5 m). These SSFs partially treat the urban wastewater from a housing development (ca. 200 inhabitants). The three pharmaceuticals and bromide were continuously injected into the two SSFs during a period of 150-200 In, and the effluent concentration was simultaneously measured as 6 h composite samples. Their removal efficiency was calculated from the injected concentration, and the hydraulic parameters were evaluated and compared to bromide as tracer. In this regard, the behavior of clofibric acid was similar to that of bromide, and no sorption into the gravel bed occurred. On the other hand, carbamazepine showed a higher sorption than bromide and clofibric acid, which is attributable to its interaction on the gravel bed. Accordingly, the use of clofibric acid as a hydraulic tracer is proposed, taking into account its low residence time. lbuprofen removal was 81% in the shallow SSF and 48% in the deep one. Differences in removal efficiency could be explained by the less anaerobic environment of the shallow wetland.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available