4.7 Article

Perspectives of coagulation/flocculation for the removal of pharmaceuticals from domestic wastewater: A critical view at experimental procedures

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101161

关键词

Pharmaceutical; Filtration; Sorption; Wastewater; Colloids

资金

  1. Optimix project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Literature frequently reports that colloids in aqueous matrices sorb a large fraction of pharmaceuticals. Since coagulation/flocculation removes colloids, it is expected that coagulation/flocculation in principle should be useful in concentrating pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatment, which would facilitate the treatment of these refractory compounds. In our present work, we researched the potential of coagulation/flocculation for removing pharmaceuticals from raw sewage. Results from jar tests showed that pharmaceuticals are hardly removed from sewage with coagulation/flocculation. To investigate the discrepancy between reported colloidal sorption and the lack of removal when removing colloids, we tested a commonly applied experimental setup, which makes use of ultra-filtration (UF), for determining the colloidal sorption of pharmaceuticals. The UF method under research was compared with an assessment making use of flocculation. Both methods, UF and flocculation, showed similar removal of colloids. However, during UF, the retention of pharmaceuticals reached values up to 93 +/- 4 %. In contrast, when removing the colloids with flocculation, no pharmaceutical removal was observed. These results confirm that it is very likely to introduce an analysis bias in using UF membranes in the determination of colloidal sorption of pharmaceuticals. In fact, results predict an over-estimation caused by a direct retention of pharmaceuticals without any binding to colloidal matter. Overall results of the current work show that pharmaceuticals hardly sorb to colloids and herewith the absence of removal of pharmaceuticals during coagulation/flocculation is explained.

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