4.4 Article

Soil Persistence and Fate of Carbamazepine, Lincomycin, Caffeine, and Ibuprofen from Wastewater Reuse

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 1473-1480

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2011.0353

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reuse of treated wastewater for groundwater recharge is an effective way to provide advanced treatment and water storage. Contaminants such as human drugs have been identified as a potential problem for use of this water. Gilbert, Arizona maintains a 28.3-ha facility designed to recharge 15,150 m(3) d(-1) through recharge basins constructed on native soil. The facility averages an infiltration rate of > 5 cm d(-1), resulting in the potential of pharmaceutical compounds leaching to groundwater. One 4-ha basin was selected for spatial sampling of four pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs). The compounds were carbamazepine, lincomycin, ibuprofen, and caffeine. Soils were extracted and analyzed using pressurized liquid extraction and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-mass spectrometry. The concentration of ibuprofen was below detection limits in all samples. Lincomycin exhibited no net accumulation from year to year but had significantly higher concentrations from depths of 0 to 5 cm than from depths > 10 cm. Carbamazepine had the lowest concentration at 0 to 5 cm (0.18 ng g soil(-1)), providing evidence that there is potential degradation of carbamazepine in surface soils. Carbamazepine also exhibited significant accumulation from year to year. Caffeine exhibited net accumulation and had higher concentrations in surface samples. The accumulation of PhACs in the soil beneath recharge basins indicates that PhACs are being removed from the infiltrating water and that, regarding ibuprofen and lincomycin, the treatment is sustainable due to the lack of accumulation. Regarding carbamazepine and caffeine, further investigations are needed to determine possible management and environmental conditions that could prevent accumulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据