Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 30, pp 30517–30546 | Cite as

Applying analytical decision methods for determination of the best treatment alternative to remove emerging micropollutants from drinking water and wastewater: triclosan example

  • Emrah Ozturk
Research Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

Increasing human activities have not only substantially altered the natural material cycle but also created new synthetic chemicals flows. Some of these chemicals, which are described as micropollutants (MPs), may result in adverse effects on human health, aquatic organisms, and ecosystems. MPs can be transported to the environment and water resources in a variety ways including domestic and industrial wastewater. Unfortunately, most MPs are only partially removed in existing conventional treatment plants. Therefore, conventional treatment plants should be modernized by advanced treatment technologies to protect the environment and human health. However, there are various mysteries about best treatment techniques, evaluation criteria, and decision-making methods. In this study, it was aimed to determine the best treatment alternatives for triclosan (TCS) which is one of the priority MPs. A total of 18 evaluation criteria were identified and prioritized by employing analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and entropy methods. Treatment alternatives were identified and their performance was assessed through a comprehensive literature investigation. In decision-making processes of determining these alternatives, “technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS),” “preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE),” and “Višekriterijumsko kompromisno rangiranje (VIKOR)” analytical decision-making methods were employed, and priority rankings were determined according to each decision method. The final priority ranking was found as adsorption > membrane filtration > hybrid processes > advanced oxidation processes > constructed wetlands > conventional treatment processes > biological treatment > other treatment processes. Although the obtained results are specific to TCS, the employed analytical decision methods can be also used to decide the best treatment alternatives for other MPs.

Keywords

Drinking water Micropollutant PROMETHEE Treatment Triclosan TOPSIS VIKOR Wastewater 

References

  1. Afful-Dadzie E, Nabareseh S, Oplatková ZK (2014) Fuzzy VIKOR approach: evaluating quality of internet health information. Proceedings of the 2014 federated conference on computer science and information systems (FEDCSIS) 2:183–190.  https://doi.org/10.15439/2014F203. Retrieved from: https://annals-csis.org/proceedings/2014/pliks/203.pdf. Accessed date: 12 May 2018.
  2. Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W, Thomaidis NS, Xu J (2017) Progress in the biological and chemical treatment technologies for emerging contaminant removal from wastewater: a critical review. J Hazard Mater 323:274–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aragonés-Beltrán P, Mendoza-Roca JA, Bes-Piá A, García-Melón M, Parra-Ruiz E (2009) Application of multicriteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals selection in the physical-chemical treatment of textile wastewater. J Hazard Mater 164:288–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.08.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong DL, Rice CP, Ramirez M, Torrents A (2017) Influence of thermal hydrolysis-anaerobic digestion treatment of wastewater solids on concentrations of triclosan, triclocarban, and their transformation products in biosolids. Chemosphere 171:609–616.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong DL, Lozano N, Rice CP, Ramirez M, Torrents A (2018) Degradation of triclosan and triclocarban and formation of transformation products in activated sludge using benchtop bioreactors. Environ Res 161:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azzouz A, Ballesteros E (2013) Influence of seasonal climate differences on the pharmaceutical hormone and personal care product removal efficiency of a drinking water treatment plant. Chemosphere 93:2046–2054.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.07.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bai X, Acharya K (2016) Removal of trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, and triclosan by the green alga Nannochloris sp. J Hazard Mater 315:70–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben W, Sun P, Huang C (2016) Effects of combined UV and chlorine treatment on chloroform formation from triclosan. Chemosphere 150:715–722.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bui XT, Vo TPT, Ngo HH, Guo WS, Nguyen TT (2016) Multi-criteria assessment of advanced treatment technologies for micropollutants removal at large-scale applications. Sci Total Environ 563–564:1050–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buth JM, Ross MR, McNeill K, Arnold WA (2011) Reprint of: Removal and formation of chlorinated triclosan derivatives in wastewater treatment plants using chlorine and UV disinfection. Chemosphere 85:284–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Çalışkan H, Kurşuncu B, Kurbanoğlu C, Güven ŞY (2013) Material selection for the tool holder working under hard milling conditions using different multi criteria decision-making methods. Mater Des 45:473–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter CMG, Helbling DE (2017) Removal of micropollutants in biofilters: hydrodynamic effects on biofilm assembly and functioning. Water Res 120:211–221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carranza-Diaz O, Schultze-Nobre L, Moeder M, Nivala J, Kuschk P, Koeser H (2014) Removal of selected organic micropollutants in planted and unplanted pilot-scale horizontal flow constructed wetlands under conditions of high organic load. Ecol Eng 71:234–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen MF, Tzeng GH (2004) Combining gray relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Math Comput Model 40:1473–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen J, Qu R, Pan X, Wang Z (2016) Oxidative degradation of triclosan by potassium permanganate: kinetics, degradation products, reaction mechanism, and toxicity. Water Res 103:215–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chou Y-C, Yen H-Y, Sun C-C (2011) Evaluation of women in science and technology. Proceeding of 2nd international conference on education and management technology 139–143, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  17. Chu KH, Al-Hamadani YAJ, Park CM, Lee G, Jang M, Jang A, Her N, Son A, Yoon Y (2017) Ultrasonic treatment of endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products in water: a review. Chem Eng J 327:629–647.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.06.137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Constantin LA, Nitoi I, Cristea NI, Constantin MA (2018) Possible degradation pathways of triclosan from aqueous systems via TiO2 assisted photocatalyis. J Ind End Chem 58:155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2017.09.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Curiel-Esparza J, Cuenca-Ruiz MA, Martin-Utrillas M, Canto-Perello J (2014) Selecting a sustainable disinfection technique for wastewater reuse projects. Water 6:2732–2747.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w6092732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ding T, Lin K, Bao L, Yang M, Li J, Yang B, Gan J (2018) Biouptake, toxicity and biotransformation of triclosan in diatom Cymbella sp. and the influence of humic acid. Environ Pollut 234:231–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Durán-Álvarez JC, Prado B, González D, Sánchez Y, Jiménez-Cisneros B (2015) Environmental fate of naproxen, carbamazepine and triclosan in wastewater, surface water and wastewater irrigated soil—results of laboratory scale experiments. Sci Total Environ 538:350–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dursun M (2015) An integrated approach for the evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives. Proceedings of the world congress on engineering and computer science (WCECS), October 21–23, 2015, San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Dursun M (2016) Evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives using fuzzy VIKOR method. J Adv Manag Sci 4:333–336.  https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.4.4.333-336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eraslan S (2015) A decision making method via TOPSIS on soft sets. J. New Results Sci 8:57–71. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/jnrs/issue/27522/123293. Accessed date: 12 May 2018
  25. Feng CM, Wang RT (2001) Considering the financial ratios on the performance evaluation of highway bus industry. Transp Rev 21:449–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gao R, Kong X, Su F, He X, Chen L, Zhang Y (2010) Synthesis and evaluation of molecularly imprinted core-shell carbon nanotubes for the determination of triclosan in water samples. J Chromatogr 1217:8095–8102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2010.10.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gautam P, Carsella JS, Kinney CA (2014) Presence and transport of the antimicrobials triclocarban and triclosan in a wastewater-dominated stream and freshwater environment. Water Res 48:247–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.09.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gogoi A, Mazumder P, Tyagi VK, Chaminda GGT, An AK, Kumar M (2018) Occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants in water environment: a review. Groundwater Sustainable Dev 6:169–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2017.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gruchlik Y, Linge K, Joll C (2018) Removal of organic micropollutants in waste stabilisation ponds: a review. J Environ Manag 206:202–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamza RA, Lorhemen OT, Tay JH (2016) Occurrence, impacts and removal of emerging substances of concern from wastewater. Environ Technol Innov 5:161–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2016.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Han B, Liu W, Li J, Wang J, Zhao D, Xu R, Lin Z (2017) Catalytic hydrodechlorination of triclosan using a new class of anion-exchange-resin supported palladium catalysts. Water Res 120:199–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoque ME, Cloutier F, Arcieri C, Mclnnes M, Sultana T, Murray C, Vanrolleghem PA, Metcalfe CD (2014) Removal of selected pharmaceuticals, personal care products and artificial sweetener in an aerated sewage lagoon. Sci Total Environ 487:801–812.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang CL, Abass OK, Yu CP (2016) Triclosan: a review on systematic risk assessment and control from the perspective of substance flow analysis. Sci Total Environ 566–567:771–785.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inoue Y, Hata T, Kawai S, Okamura H, Nishida T (2010) Elimination and detoxification of triclosan by manganese peroxidase from white rot fungus. J Hazard Mater 180:764–767.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.04.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Janic M (2003) Multicriteria evaluation of high-speed rail, transrapid maglev, and air passenger transport in Europe. Transp Plan Technol 26:491–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jiang Q, Ngo HH, Nghiem LD, Hai FI, Price WE, Zhang J, Liang S, Deng L, Guo W (2018) Effect of hydraulic retention time on the performance of a hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor system for micropollutants removal from municipal wastewater. Bioresour Technol 247:1228–1232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jurewicz J, Radwan M, Wielgomas B, Kałużny P, Klimowska A, Radwan P, Hanke W (2018) Environmental levels of triclosan and male fertility. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:5484–5490.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0866-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kalbar PP, Karmakan S, Asolekar SR (2012) Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: a scenario-based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. J Environ Manag 113:158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kapelewska J, Kotowska U, Karpińska J, Kowalczuk D, Arciszewska A, Świrydo A (2018) Occurrence, removal, mass loading and environmental risk assessment of emerging organic contaminants in leachates, groundwaters and wastewaters. Microchem J 137:292–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2017.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Karimi AR, Mehrdadi N, Hashemian SJ, Nabi Bidhendi GR, Moghaddam RT (2011) Using of the fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy AHP methods for wastewater treatment process selection. Int J Acad Res 3:737–745Google Scholar
  41. Katsigiannis A, Noutsopoulos C, Mantziaras J, Gioldasi M (2015) Removal of emerging pollutants through granular activated carbon. Chem Eng J 280:49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim HC, Yu MJ (2005) Characterization of natural organic matter in conventional water treatment processes for selection of treatment processes focused on DBPs control. Water Res 39:4779–4789.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim G, Park CS, Yoon KP (1997) Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 50:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kim S, Chu KH, Al-Hamadani YAJ, Park CM, Jang M, Kim D, Yu M, Heo J, Yoon Y (2018) Removal of contaminants of emerging concern by membranes in water and wastewater: a review. Chem Eng J 335:896–914.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.11.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kosera VS, Cruz TM, Chaves ES, Tibustius ERL (2017) Triclosan degradation by heterogeneous photocatalysis using ZnO immobilized in biopolymer as catalyst. J Photochem Photobiol 344:184–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2017.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kwong CK, Tam SM (2002) Case-based reasoning approach to concurrent design of low power transformers. J Mater Process Technol 128:136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lee CE, Howe JJ, Thomson BM (2009) State of knowledge of pharmaceutical, personal care product and endocrine disrupting compound removal during municipal wastewater treatment. The University of New Mexico, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee DG, Zhao F, Rezenom YH, Russell DH, Chu K (2012) Biodegradation of triclosan by a wastewater microorganism. Water Res 46:4226–4234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee DG, Cho K, Chu K (2015) Removal of triclosan in nitrifying activated sludge: effects of ammonia amendment and bioaugmentation. Chemosphere 125:9–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.12.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lehutso RF, Daso AP, Okonkwo JO (2017) Occurrence and environmental levels of triclosan and triclocarban in selected wastewater treatment plants in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Emerging Contam 3:107–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2017.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lei C, Hu Y, He M (2013) Adsorption characteristics of triclosan from aqueous solution onto cetylpyridinium bromide (CPB) modified zeolites. Chem Eng J 219:361–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.12.099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Li J, Peng J, Zhang Y, Ji Y, Shi H, Mao L, Gao S (2016) Removal of triclosan via peroxidases-mediated reaction in water: reaction kinetics, products and detoxification. J Hazard Mater 310:152–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.02.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Li J, Zhou Q, Campos LC (2017) Removal of selected emerging PPCP compounds using greater duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza) based lab-scale free water constructed wetland. Water Res 126:252–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lozano N, Rice CP, Ramirez M, Torrents A (2013) Fate of triclocarban, triclosan and methytriclosan during wastewater and biosolids treatment processes. Water Res 47:4519–4527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Majidi I (2013) Comparative evaluation of PROMETHEE and ELECTRE with application to sustainability assessment. A Master Thesis in The Department of Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering (CIISE), Montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  56. Marković L, Marković LM, Mitrović S, Stanarević S (2017) The evaluation of alternative solutions for the highway route E-763 Belgrade-South Adriatic: a case study of Serbia. Tehnički Vjesnik 24:1951–1958.  https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20160403134356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Milani AS, Shanian A, Madoliat R (2005) The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Struct Multidiscip Optim 29:312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Montaseri H, Forbes PBC (2016) A review of monitoring methods for triclosan and its occurrence in aquatic environments. Trends Anal Chem 85:221–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2016.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mulder M, Antakyali D, Ante S (2015) Costs of removal of micropollutants from effluents of municipal wastewater treatment plants—general cost estimates for the Netherlands based on implemented full-scale post treatments of effluents of wastewater treatment plants in Germany and Switzerland. STOWA and Waterboard the Dommel, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  60. Munoz M, Pedro ZM, Casas JA, Rodriguez JJ (2012) Triclosan breakdown by Fenton-like oxdidation. Chem Eng J 198–199:275–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nas B, Dolu T, Ateş H, Argun ME, Yel E (2017) Treatment alternatives for micropollutant removal in wastewater. S Univ J Eng Sci Technol 5:133–143.  https://doi.org/10.15317/Scitech.2017.77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) (2009) Triclosan, priority existing chemical assessment report no. 30 (January 2009), Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Sydney, Australia. ISBN 0-9803124-4-2Google Scholar
  63. Nghiem LD, Coleman PJ (2008) NF/RO filtration of the hydrophobic ionogenic compound triclosan: transport mechanisms and the influence of membrane fouling. Sep Purif Technol 62:709–716.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2008.03.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ogutverici A, Yilmaz L, Yetis U, Dilek FB (2016) Triclosan removal by NF from a real drinking water source-effect of natural organic matter. Chem Eng J 283:330–337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.07.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Opricović S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking. Eur J Oper Res 178:514–529.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Orhon KB, Orhon AK, Dilek FB, Yetis U (2017) Triclosan removal from surface water by ozonation-kinetics and by-products formation. J Environ Manag 204:327–336.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ozbek A (2017) Multi criteria decision making methods and problem solution with Excel. Seckin Publishing, Ankara ISBN: 978-975-02-4513-8Google Scholar
  68. Ozturk E (2018) Determination of best treatment alternatives for di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in drinking water and wastewater employing multiple criteria decision-making methods. Fresenius Environ Bull 27:2456–2467Google Scholar
  69. Pamučar DS, Božanić D, Ranđelović A (2017) Multi-criteria decision making: an example of sensitivity analysis. Serb J Manage 12:1–27.  https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm12-9464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Park J, Yamashita N, Park C, Shimono T, Takeuchi DM, Tanaka H (2017) Removal characteristics of pharmaceuticals and personal care products: comparison between membrane bioreactor and various biological treatment processes. Chemosphere 179:347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peng J, Shi H, Li J, Wang L, Wang Z, Gao S (2016) Bicarbonate enhanced removal of triclosan by copper(II) catalyzed Fenton-like reaction in aqueous solution. Chem Eng J 306:484–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.07.088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Phan HV, Hai FI, McDonald JA, Khan SJ, Zhang R, Price WE, Broeckmann A, Nghiem LD (2015) Nutrient and trace organic contaminant removal from wastewater of a resort town: comparison between a pilot and a full scale membrane bioreactor. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 102:40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Qu J, Meng X, Yu H, You H (2016) A triangular fuzzy TOPSIS-based approach for the application of water technologies in different emergency water supply scenarios. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:17277–17286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6911-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rahmani M, Ebrahimi B (2015) A multi-criteria decision making approach for priority areas selection in membrane industry for investment promotion: a case study in Iran marketplace. J Ind Syst Eng 8:41–61Google Scholar
  75. Ren Y, Franke M, Anschuets F, Ondruschka B, Ignaszak A, Braeutigam P (2014) Ultrason. Sonochem 21:2020–2025.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.03.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rodriguez-Narvaez OM, Peralta-Hernandez JM, Goonetilleke A, Bandala ER (2017) Treatment technologies for emerging contaminants in water: a review. Chem Eng J 323:361–380.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.04.106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rossner A, Snyder SA, Knappe DRU (2009) Removal of emerging contaminants of concern by alternative adsorbents. Water Res 43:3787–3796.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sakar B, Mandan S, Tsang YF, Kumar P, Kim KH, Ok YS (2018) Designer carbon nanotubes for contaminant removal in water and wastewater: a critical review. Sci Total Environ 612:561–581.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schnitzler JG, Frédérich B, Dussenne M, Klaren PHM, Silvestre F, Das K (2016) Triclosan exposure result in alterations of thyroid hormone status and retarded early development and metamorphosis in Cyprinodom variegatus. Aquat Toxicol 181:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2016.10.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schuwirth N, Reichert P, Lienert J (2012) Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: a case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater. Eur J Oper Res 220:472–483.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.01.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sgroi M, Roccaro P, Korshin GV, Greco V, Sciuto S, Anumol T, Snyder SA, Vagliasindi GA (2017) Use of fluorescence EEM to monitor the removal of emerging contaminants in full scale wastewater treatment plants. J Hazard Mater 323:367–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.05.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shanian A, Savadogo O (2006) TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J Power Sources 159:1095–1104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2005.12.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shanmuganathan S, Loganathan P, Kazner C, Johir MAH, Vigneswaran S (2017) Submerged membrane filtration adsorption hybrid system for the removal of organic micropollutants from a water reclamation plant reverse osmosis concentrate. Desalination 401:134–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sharipova AA, Aidarova SB, Bekturganova NE, Tleuova A, Schenderlein M, Lygina O, Lyubvhik S, Miller R (2016) Triclosan as model system for the adsorption on recycled adsorbent materials. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 505:193–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2016.04.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sharipova AA, Aidarova SB, Bekturganova NY, Tleuova A, Kerimkulova M, Yessimova O, Kairaliyeva T, Lygina O, Lyubchik S, Miller R (2017) Triclosan adsorption from model system by mineral sorbent diatomite. Colloids Surf 532:97–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2017.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sheng C, Nnanna AGA, Liu Y, Vargo JD (2016) Removal of trace pharmaceuticals from water using coagulation and powdered activated carbon as pretreatment to ultrafiltration membrane system. Sci Total Environ 550:1075–1083.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shih HS, Shyur HJ, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model 45:801–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Singer H, Muller S, Tixier C, Pillonel L (2002) Triclosan: occurrence and fate of a widely used biocide in the aquatic environment: field measurements in wastewater treatment plants, surface waters, and lake sediments. Environ Sci Technol 36:4998–5004.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es025750i CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sires I, Oturan N, Oturan MA, Rodriquez RM, Garrido J, Brillas E (2007) Electro-Fenton degradation of antimicrobials triclosan and triclocarban. Electrochim Acta 52:5493–5503.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2007.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Smet YD, Mareschal B, Verly C (2009) Extending the PROMETHEE II method to continuous and combinatorial multiobjective optimization problems: a first model. Int Conf Ind Eng Manage (IEEM) 1:1608–1611.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2009.5373111
  91. Song Z, Wang N, Zhu L, Huang A, Zhao X, Tang H (2012) Efficient oxidative degradation of triclosan by using an enhanced Fenton-like process. Chem Eng J 198–199:379–387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Song JY, Bhadra BN, Jhung SH (2017) Contribution of H-bond in adsorptive removal of pharmaceutical and personal care products from water using oxidized activated carbon. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 243:221–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2017.02.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Song X, Luo W, McDonald J, Khan SJ, Hai FI, Price WE, Nghiem LD (2018) An anaerobic membrane bioreactor-membrane distillation hybrid system for energy recovery and water reuse: removal performance of organic carbon, nutrients, and trace organic contaminants. Sci Total Environ 628–629:358–365.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Srdjevic B, Medeiros YDP, Faria AS (2004) An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water Resour Manag 18:35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Srdjevic B, Srdjevic Z, Suvocarev K (2017) Multi-criteria evaluation of wastewater treatment technologies in constructed wetlands. Eur Water 58:165–171Google Scholar
  96. Stanujkic D, Đorđević B, Đorđević M (2013) Comparative analysis of some prominent MCDM methods: a case of ranking Serbian banks. Serb J Manag 8:213–241.  https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm8-3774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stern ZS, Mehrez A, Hadad Y (2000) An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. Intl Trans In Op Res 7:109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Styszko K, Nosek K, Motak M, Bester K (2015) Preliminary selection of clay minerals for the removal of pharmaceuticals, bisphenol A and triclosan in acidic and neutral aqueous solutions. CR Chim 18:1134–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2015.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sudhakaran S, Calvin J, Amy GL (2012) QSAR models for the removal of organic micropollutants in four different river water matrices. Chemosphere 87:144–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Taheran M, Brar SK, Verma M, Surampalli RY, Zhang TC, Valero JR (2016) Membrane processes for removal of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) from water and wastewater. Sci Total Environ 547:60–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thomaidi VS, Stasinakis AS, Borova VL, Thomaidis NS (2015) Is there a risk for the aquatic environment due to the existence of emerging organic contaminants in treated domestic wastewater? Greece as a case-study. J Hazard Mater 283:740–747.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.10.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Tohidi F, Cai Z (2017) Fate and mass balance of triclosan and its degradation products: comparison of three different types of wastewater treatments and aerobic/anaerobic sludge digestion. J Hazard Mater 323:329–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tzeng G, Huang J (2011) Multiple attribute decision-making: methods and applications. CRC, New York ISBN: 978-1-4398-6157-8Google Scholar
  104. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) (2004) Domestic wastewater treatment. United States of America (USA) Department of Defense, January 2004, UFC 3240-09A. Retrieved from: https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFC/ARCHIVES/ufc_3_240_09fa_2004.pdf, Accessed date: 08 March 2018.
  105. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1995) Waste water treatment manuals preliminary treatment. Environmental Protection Agency Ardcavan, Wexford ISBN 1-899965-22-XGoogle Scholar
  106. Vigneswaran S, Ngo HH, Visvanathan C, Sundaravadivel M (2009) Wastewater recycle, reuse, and reclamation. In: Vigneswaran S (ed) Conventional water treatment technologies. UNESCO and EOLSS, Oxford ISBN: 978-1-905839-25-4Google Scholar
  107. Vivekh P, Sudhakar M, Srinivas M, Vishwanthkumar V (2017) Desalination technology selection using multi-criteria evaluation: TOPSIS and PROMETHEE-2. Int J Low Carbon Technol 12:24–35.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctw001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Vymazal J, Brezinová TD, Kozeluh M, Kule L (2017) Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals in four full-scale constructed wetlands in the Czech Republic—the first year of monitoring. Ecol Eng 98:354–364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wang Y, Guo J, Dai J, Chen C (2016) A fuzzy VIKOR approach for renewable energy resources selection in China. Rev Fac Ing UCV 31:62–77.  https://doi.org/10.21311/002.31.10.07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wang F, Liu F, Chen W, Xu R, Wang W (2018) Effect of triclosan (TCS) on hormonal balance and genes of hypothalamus-pituitary-gonad axis of juvenile male Yellow River carp (Cyprinus carpio). Chemosphere 193:695–701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wu Y, Beland FA, Fang J (2016) Effect of triclosan, 2,2′,4,4′-tetrabromodiphenyl ether, and bisphenol A on the iodide uptake, thyroid peroxidase activity, and expression of genes involved in thyroid hormone synthesis. Toxicol in Vitro 32:310–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2016.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Xiong J, Kurade MB, Jeon B (2018) Can microalgae remove pharmaceutical contaminants from water? Trends Biotechnol 36:30–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Xu Q, Shi H, Adams CD, Timmons T, Ma Y (2012) Oxidative removal of selected endocrine-disruptors and pharmaceuticals in drinking water treatment systems, and identification of degradation products of triclosan. Sci Total Environ 439:18–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Yang B, Ying G, Zhao J, Zhang L, Fang Y, Nghiem LD (2011) Oxidation of triclosan by ferrate: reaction kinetics, products identification and toxicity evaluation. J Hazard Mater 186:227–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.10.106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Yang GCC, Yen C, Wang C (2014) Monitoring and removal of residual phthalate esters and pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of Kaohsiung City, Taiwan. J Hazard Mater 277:53–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Yue Z (2011) A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS. Appl Math Model 35:1926–1936.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Yuval A, Eran F, Janin W, Oliver O, Yael D (2017) Photodegradation of micropollutants using V-UV/UV-C processes; triclosan as a model compound. Sci Total Environ 601-602:397–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Zhao C, Xie H, Xu J, Zhang J, Liang S, Hao J, Ngo HH, Guo W, Xu X, Wang Q, Wang J (2016) Removal mechanisms and plant species selection by bioaccumulative factors in surface flow constructed wetlands (CWs): in the case of triclosan. Sci Total Environ 547:9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zhou H, Zhang Z, Wang M, Hu T, Wang Z (2017) Enhancement with physicochemical and biological treatment in the removal of pharmaceutically active compounds during sewage sludge anaerobic digestion processes. Chem Eng J 316:361–369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.01.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental EngineeringSuleyman Demirel UniversityIspartaTurkey

Personalised recommendations