4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Activated sludge systems removal efficiency of veterinary pharmaceuticals from slaughterhouse wastewater

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 8790-8800

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-1867-7

关键词

Veterinary pharmaceuticals; Wastewater treatment; Activated sludge treatment; Removal efficiency; Fluoroquinolones; Tetracyclines; Antibiotics

资金

  1. FEDER funds through Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade-COMPETE
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [REEQ/304/QUI/2005, PesT-C/MAR/LA0015/2011, SFRH/BD/44934/2008]
  3. POPH/FSE
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/44934/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The knowledge on the efficiency of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) from animal food production industry for the removal of both hormones and antibiotics of veterinary application is still very limited. These compounds have already been reported in different environmental compartments at levels that could have potential impacts on the ecosystems. This work aimed to evaluate the role of activated sludge in the removal of commonly used veterinary drugs, enrofloxacin (ENR), tetracycline (TET), and ceftiofur, from wastewater during a conventional treatment process. For that, a series of laboratory-controlled experiments using activated sludge were carried out in batch reactors. Sludge reactors with 100 mu g/L initial drug charge presented removal rates of 68 % for ENR and 77 % for TET from the aqueous phase. Results indicated that sorption to sludge and to the wastewater organic matter was responsible for a significant percentage of drugs removal. Nevertheless, these removal rates still result in considerable concentrations in the aqueous phase that will pass through the WWTP to the receiving environment. Measuring only the dissolved fraction of pharmaceuticals in the WWTP effluents may underestimate the loading and risks to the aquatic environment.

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