4.7 Article

Caffeine vs. carbamazepine as indicators of wastewater pollution in a karst aquifer

期刊

HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 22, 期 12, 页码 6371-6381

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/hess-22-6371-2018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Israeli Water Authority [4500088042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the analysis of caffeine and carbamazepine transport in the subsurface as a result of wastewater release in the Sorek creek over the outcrops of the carbonate, Yarkon-Taninim, aquifer in Israel. Both caffeine and carbamazepine were used as indicators of sewage contamination in the subsurface. While carbamazepine is considered conservative, caffeine is subject to sorption and degradation. The objective of the study was to quantify differences in their transport under similar conditions in the karst aquifer. Water flow and pollutant transport in a vadose zone-aquifer system were simulated by a quasi-3-D dual permeability numerical model. The results of this study show that each of these two pollutants can be considered effective tracers for characterization and assessment of aquifer contamination. Carbamazepine was found to be more suitable for assessing the contamination boundaries, while caffeine can be used as a contaminant tracer only briefly after contamination occurs. In instances where there are low concentrations of carbamazepine which appear as background contamination in an aquifer, caffeine might serve as a better marker for detecting new contamination events, given its temporal nature. The estimated caffeine degradation rate and the distribution coefficient of a linear sorption isotherm were 0.091 d(-1) and 0.1 L kg(-1), respectively, which imply a high attenuation capacity. The results of the simulation indicate that by the end of the year most of the carbamazepine mass (approximately 95 %) remained in the matrix of the vadose zone, while all of the caffeine was completely degraded a few months after the sewage was discharged.

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