4.7 Article

Can the removal of pharmaceuticals in biofilters be influenced by short pulses of carbon?

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 707, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135901

关键词

Micropollutants; Wastewater; Biofilm reactor; Combined sewer overflow; beta-Blockers; Transformation products; Stormwater

资金

  1. BONUS CLEANWATER project from BONUS (Art 185)
  2. EU
  3. Innovation Fund Denmark
  4. Sweden's innovation agency VINNOVA
  5. German Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biofilters, similar to those already used for, e.g., removing particles from stormwater and combined sewer overflow can remove organic micropollutants from polluted waters. This study investigated the effects on removal of pharmaceuticals with pulse loadings of increased amounts of pre-settled raw wastewater to four individual biofilters containing different materials (sand, filtralite, stonewool, and sand amended with 1% peat). The effect of increasing BOD concentration to the removal rate constants could be divided into two groups; 1) compounds influenced by increasing loading of BOD: atenolol, propranolol, venlafaxine, citalopram, metoprolol, iohexol, and diclofenac 2) compounds only little or not influenced by increasing concentration of BOD: sulfamethoxazole, sulfamethizole, trimethoprim, iomeprol, and carbamazepine. Though BOD clearly had effects on the degradation, no indications towards a complete stop of the degradation were observed under any circumstances. The different biofilter materials influenced (indirectly) the removal of micropollutants: While the overall best performance was seen in the filtralite biofilter, the stonewool biofilter generally had the lowest removal rate constants. Furthermore, we observed different metabolic pathways of metoprolol in the four different biofilters under formation (and removal) of metoprolol acid, a-hydroxymetoprolol, and O-desmethylmetoprolol. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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