4.7 Article

Fate of selected pharmaceutically active compounds during simulated riverbank filtration

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 505, Issue -, Pages 615-622

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.032

Keywords

PhACs; RBF; Temperature; Oxygen; Humic acid; Biodegradation

Funding

  1. US Geological Survey (USGS) [2012HI362B]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of temperature, oxygen, and organic matter on the removal of selected pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) during simulated riverbank filtration (RBF). The behavior of six PhACs (caffeine, carbamazepine, 17-beta estradiol [E2], estrone [E1], gemfibrozil, and phenazone) was evaluated by small flow-through column experiments. Results from our study showed that RBF can be used to treat many of the PhACs found in environmental waters. Local conditions at the RBF site, however, can affect the removal of PhACs and should be investigated. Biodegradation and sorption represented the predominant mechanisms involved during the removal of the selected PhACs. All selected PhACs showed limited and slower removal during the winter. Phenazone was highly impacted by the level of oxygen; complete depletion of phenazone below the analytical limit occurred only under aerobic conditions (dissolved oxygen >8 mg L-1). Caffeine and E2 were highly impacted by the presence of humic acid in the feed water. Caffeine and E2 were depleted below the detection limit in the presence of humic acid regardless of the temperature and the level of oxygen. El was impacted by the different environmental conditions and depletion below the detection limit occurred only during the summer under aerobic conditions. Carbamazepine (10%) and gemfibrozil (<30%) showed limited removal regardless of the different levels of temperature, oxygen and humic acid. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available