4.4 Article

Paracetamol biodegradation by activated sludge and photocatalysis and its removal by a micelle-clay complex, activated charcoal, and reverse osmosis membranes

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
卷 37, 期 19, 页码 2414-2427

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2016.1150355

关键词

Al-Quds sludge; biodegradation; paracetamol; micelle-clay complex; removal of pharmaceuticals; activated charcoal; membrane technology; toxicity; advanced oxidation techniques

资金

  1. Sanofi through the Peres Center for Peace

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kinetic studies on the stability of the pain killer paracetamol in Al-Quds activated sludge demonstrated that paracetamol underwent biodegradation within less than one month to furnish p-aminophenol in high yields. Characterizations of bacteria contained in Al-Quds sludge were accomplished. It was found that Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the bacterium most responsible for the biodegradation of paracetamol to p-aminophenol and hydroquinone. Batch adsorptions of paracetamol and its biodegradation product (p-aminophenol) by activated charcoal and a composite micelle (octadecyltrimethylammonium)-clay (montmorillonite) were determined at 25 degrees C. Adsorption was adequately described by a Langmuir isotherm, and indicated better efficiency of removal by the micelle-clay complex. The ability of bench top reverse osmosis (RO) plant as well as advanced membrane pilot plant to remove paracetamol was also studied at different water matrixes to test the effect of organic matter composition. The results showed that at least 90% rejection was obtained by both plants. In addition, removal of paracetamol from RO brine was investigated by using photocatalytic processes; optimal conditions were found to be acidic or basic pH, in which paracetamol degraded in less than 5min. Toxicity studies indicated that the effluent and brine were not toxic except for using extra low energy membrane which displayed a half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC-50) value of 80%.

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