4.7 Article

Evaluation of wastewater reclamation technologies based on in vitro and in vivo bioassays

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 407, 期 5, 页码 1588-1597

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.048

关键词

Ecotoxicity; Genotoxicity; Hatching success; RAR activity; Secondary effluent; Reclamation technologies

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50525824, 20777002]
  2. Tianjin Special innovation Fund [06FZZDSH00900]
  3. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization of Japan (NEDO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When municipal secondary effluent is used as the main supplementation water source for surface water bodies, its potential adverse ecological effects should not be neglected. The objective of this work was to investigate the effectiveness of several technologies, i.e. combination of coagulation and sand filtration (CSF), ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, chlorination, ozonation, ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis filtration (RO), on the removal of acute ecotoxicity, genotoxicity and retinoic acid receptor (RAR) agonist activity from the municipal secondary effluent. The effects of treated effluents on the development of Japanese medaka (oryzias latipes) embryos were also evaluated. The secondary effluent exhibited a mutagenic effect on Salmonella typhimurium strain TA 1535/pSK1002, acute invertebrate toxicity to Daphnia magna, and weak RAR a activity. RO and ozonation demonstrated remarkable removals of the genotoxic effect, acute toxicity and RAR activity from secondary effluent, while chlorination could elevate both genotoxicity and acute toxicity. CSF, UV, UF, chlorination as well as RO could decrease the 4-day mortality of medaka embryos and accordingly increase the hatching success rate, comparing with the secondary effluent. Ozonation at 4 mg/l and higher doses, however, elicited significantly higher 4-day mortality, leading to the reduction of the hatching success rate. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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