4.7 Article

Destruction of phenicol antibiotics using the UV/H2O2 process: Kinetics, byproducts, toxicity evaluation and trichloromethane formation potential

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 351, 期 -, 页码 867-877

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2018.06.164

关键词

Phenicol antibiotics; Kinetic modeling; Degradation mechanism; Toxicity evaluation; Trichloromethane

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51478171, 51778218]
  2. Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems, Hightower Chair and Georgia Research Alliance at the Georgia Institute of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phenicol antibiotics (PABs) degradation by UV/H2O2 is important because we need to determine the reduction in toxicity and disinfection byproducts for post-chlorine. In this study, the degradation of PABs, including florfenicol (FLO), chloramphenicol (CAP) and thiamphenicol (THA), was examined. The pseudo-first order degradation rate constants of PABs were 3 times higher in ultrapure water (UW) than that in synthetic wastewater (SW) for these conditions: [PABs](0) = 1 mu M, [H2O2] = 0.1 mM, and I-0 = 1.985 x 10(-6) E L-1 s(-1). Fulvic acid (FA) and HCO3- inhibited PABs degradation, Cl- and NO3- concentrations of up to 5 mM and 10 mM had a negligible impact. The impact of water matrix on PABs degradation was successfully predicted using pseudo-steady-state kinetic model. The degradation of PABs was triggered via hydroxylation and/or hydrogen abstraction. The treatment of PABs via UV/H2O2 could decrease their antimicrobial properties, while the byproducts of FLO and THA showed higher acute toxicity in Vthrio fischeri. In addition, two identification products (TP-276 and TP-354) of FLO had higher ecotoxicity toxicity (using ECOSAR) in fish, daphnid and green algae. The trichloromethane formation potential (TCMFP) for PABs with post-chlorination in UW and SW can be reduced after UV/H2O2 compared to UV, and is related to the corresponding decrease of dissolved organic carbon (DOC).

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