4.7 Article

Distribution, fate, and risk assessment of antibiotics in five wastewater treatment plants in Shanghai, China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 18, 页码 18055-18063

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-6946-0

关键词

Antibiotics; Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs); Mass load; Removal efficiency; Risk assessment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41430644, 41373098, 41273141, 41473089, 41473090]
  2. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT13078]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The project studied the occurrence, fate, and seasonal variation of 14 antibiotics, from five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in Shanghai. The results indicated that ofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, and oxytetracycline were the predominant antibiotics, with maximum concentrations of 1208.20, 959.13, and 564.30 ng/L in influents, while 916.88, 106.60, and 337.81 ng/L in effluents, respectively. The level of antibiotics in WWTPs obviously varied with seasonal changes, and higher detectable frequencies and concentrations were found in winter. The daily mass loads per capita of amoxicillin, enrofloxacin, and oxytetracycline in the study were all higher than those in other regions/countries, such as Hong Kong, Australia, and Italy. The elimination of antibiotics through these WWTPs was incomplete, and a wide range of removal efficiencies during the different treatment process and seasons were observed (-500.56 to 100 % in winter and -124.24 to 94.21 % in summer). Sulfonamides were relatively easy to be removed in WWTPs and the ultraviolet (UV) process can effectively improve the removal efficiency. Risk assessment of antibiotics in effluents was estimated. Only AMOX's hazard quotient (HQ) was higher than 0.01. Even though the environmental risks in the study were estimated to be low, the potential negative effects on aquatic ecosystems should call our attention as continually discharge in the long term.

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