Advertisement

The Development and Challenges of Oxidative Abatement for Contaminants of Emerging Concern

  • Stanisław Wacławek
  • Miroslav Černík
  • Dionysios D. DionysiouEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

For several years now, many substances that are known for saving the lives of billions of people, have paradoxically appeared as a new group of very dangerous contaminants. These compounds (for example, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, their metabolites, etc.) often have chronic and acute dangerous effects on humankind and other living beings. The presence of these pollutants is being documented and novel systems are being developed for their treatment every day. In this chapter, we review the literature from approximately the past 10 years, illustrating the decontamination of these chemicals by advanced oxidation processes (AOPs). A range of methods including novel catalytic systems for hydroxyl radical production as well as computation methods for prediction of CEC removal rate constants and their transformations are discussed. Furthermore, many (bio)transformation (by)products possess different (lower/higher) toxicological fingerprints, which can now also be assessed by advanced modelling. Moreover, many of these AOPs are limited commercially by their high capital and operating costs. All of these issues are addressed in this book chapter.

Keywords

AOP Oxidation Remediation Pollutants of emerging concern Micropollutants 

Abbreviation List

2,4-D

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

ACR

Acridine

AOPs

Advanced Oxidation Processes

AST

Activated Sludge Treatment

ATZ

Atrazine

BE

Benzocaine

BHT

Butylated Hydroxytoluene

BPA

Bisphenol A

BZ8

Dioxybenzone

CAF

Caffeine

CBZ

Carbamazepine

CD-polymers

Cyclodextrin polymers

CECs

Contaminants of Emerging Concern

CFD

Computational Fluid Dynamics

CIP

Ciprofloxacin

CPI

Controlled Periodic Illumination

DCF

Diclofenac

DO

Dissolved Oxygen

DOM

Dissolved Organic Matter

E1

Estrone

E2

17-β-Estradiol

EDCs

Endocrine disruptors

EE/O

Electrical energy per order for degradation

EE2

17-α-ethinylestradiol

EEME

Mestranol

EU

European Union

GBZ

Gemfibrozil

GCN

Graphitic Carbon Nitride

HCNNSs

Hollow Carbon Nitride Nanospheres

HCT

Hydrochlorothiazide

IBP

Ibuprofen

ISCO

In Situ Chemical Oxidation

I-TEF

International-Toxicity Equivalency Factor

LDH

Lactate Dehydrogenase

LDPE

Low-Density Polyethylene

LFER

Linear Free Energy Relationship

MTT

Methyl-thiazolyl blue tetrazolium reduction

NP4EO

Nonylphenol ethoxylate

NPX

Naproxen

O3-MB

Ozonated microbubbles

ODZ

Oxadiazon

OSTP

Office of Science and Technology Policy

P4

Progesterone

PCDD/Fs

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans

PDNN

Prednisolone

PPCPs

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products

PVA

Polyvinyl Alcohol

ROS

Reactive Oxygen Species

TRI

Triallate

QC

Quantum Chemical Computations

QSARs/QSPR

Quantitative Structure–Activity(Property) Relationships

SMX

Sulfamethoxazole

SQX

Sulfaquinoxaline

TBA

Terbuthylazine

TF

Task Force on emerging contaminants

TMP

Trimethoprim

TPs

Transformation Products

TCS

Triclosan

TST

Transition State Theory

UV

Ultraviolet light

W/WWTP

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant

YAS

Yeast Androgen Screen

YES

Yeast Estrogen Screen

Notes

Acknowledgements

This review was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports in the framework of the targeted support of the OPR & DI project ‘Extension of CxI facilities’ (CZ.1.05/2.1.00/19.0386). The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the Research Infrastructure NanoEnviCz, supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under Project No. LM2015073. This work was also supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic and the European Union—European Structural and Investment Funds in the framework of the Operational Programme Research, Development and Education—project ‘Hybrid Materials for Hierarchical Structures’ (HyHi, Reg. No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000843). D. D. Dionysiou also acknowledges support from the University of Cincinnati through a UNESCO co-Chair Professor position on ‘Water Access and Sustainability’ and the Herman Schneider Professorship in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

References

  1. Agócs TZ, Puskás I, Varga E et al (2016) Stabilization of nanosized titanium dioxide by cyclodextrin polymers and its photocatalytic effect on the degradation of wastewater pollutants. Beilstein J Org Chem 12:2873–2882.  https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.12.286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajo P, Krzymyk E, Preis S et al (2016) Pulsed corona discharge oxidation of aqueous carbamazepine micropollutant. Environ Technol 37:2072–2081.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2016.1141236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alsbaiee A, Smith BJ, Xiao L et al (2016) Rapid removal of organic micropollutants from water by a porous β-cyclodextrin polymer. Nature 529:190–194.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez-Corena JR, Bergendahl JA, Hart FL (2016) Photocatalytic oxidation of five contaminants of emerging concern by UV/TiO2: identification of intermediates and degradation pathways. Environ Eng Sci 33:140–147.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2015.0388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anis M, Haydar S (2019) Oxidative degradation of acetaminophen by continuous flow classical Fenton process. Desalin Water Treat 139:166–173.  https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2019.23278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audino F, Toro Santamaria J, del Valle Mendoza L et al (2019) Removal of paracetamol using effective advanced oxidation processes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:505.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autin O, Hart J, Jarvis P et al (2013a) Comparison of UV/TiO2 and UV/H2O2 processes in an annular photoreactor for removal of micropollutants: influence of water parameters on metaldehyde removal, quantum yields and energy consumption. Appl Catal B Environ 138–139:268–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2013.02.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Autin O, Romelot C, Rust L et al (2013b) Evaluation of a UV-light emitting diodes unit for the removal of micropollutants in water for low energy advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere 92:745–751.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2013.04.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Avery-Gomm S, Borrelle SB, Provencher JF (2018) Linking plastic ingestion research with marine wildlife conservation. Sci Total Environ 637–638:1492–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azuma T, Otomo K, Kunitou M et al (2019) Removal of pharmaceuticals in water by introduction of ozonated microbubbles. Sep Purif Technol 212:483–489.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.11.059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bagheri M, Mohseni M (2015) A study of enhanced performance of VUV/UV process for the degradation of micropollutants from contaminated water. J Hazard Mater 294:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.03.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bagheri M, Mohseni M (2014) Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of VUV/UV photoreactors for water treatment. Chem Eng J 256:51–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2014.06.068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barbosa MO, Moreira NFF, Ribeiro AR et al (2016) Occurrence and removal of organic micropollutants: an overview of the watch list of EU decision 2015/495. Water Res 94:257–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barbusinski K (2009) Fenton reaction—Controversy concerning the chemistry. Ecol Chem Eng S/Chemia i Inz Ekol S 16:347–358Google Scholar
  15. Biancullo F, Moreira NFF, Ribeiro AR et al (2019) Heterogeneous photocatalysis using UVA-LEDs for the removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistant bacteria from urban wastewater treatment plant effluents. Chem Eng J 367:304–313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2019.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bieber S, Rauch-Williams T, Drewes JE (2016) An assessment of international management strategies for CECs in water. In: ACS Symposium Series, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  17. Borhani TNG, Saniedanesh M, Bagheri M, Lim JS (2016) QSPR prediction of the hydroxyl radical rate constant of water contaminants. Water Res 98:344–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2016.04.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boyd GR, Tuccillo ME, Sandvig A et al (2013) Nanomaterials: removal processes and beneficial applications in treatment. J Am Water Works Assoc 105:E699–E708.  https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brienza M, Katsoyiannis IA (2017) Sulfate radical technologies as tertiary treatment for the removal of emerging contaminants from wastewater. Sustain 9:1604.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bu L, Zhou S, Zhu S et al (2018) Insight into carbamazepine degradation by UV/monochloramine: reaction mechanism, oxidation products, and DBPs formation. Water Res 146:288–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.09.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cai W-W, Peng T, Zhang J-N et al (2019) Degradation of climbazole by UV/chlorine process: kinetics, transformation pathway and toxicity evaluation. Chemosphere 219:243–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.12.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Capocelli M, Prisciandaro M, Piemonte V, Barba D (2019) A technical-economical approach to promote the water treatment & reuse processes. J Clean Prod 207:85–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carvalho IT, Santos L (2016) Antibiotics in the aquatic environments: a review of the European scenario. Environ Int 94:736–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cédat B, de Brauer C, Métivier H et al (2016) Are UV photolysis and UV/H2O2 process efficient to treat estrogens in waters? Chemical and biological assessment at pilot scale. Water Res 100:357–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chen Y, Ye J, Chen Y et al (2019) Degradation kinetics, mechanism and toxicology of tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate with 185 nm vacuum ultraviolet. Chem Eng J 356:98–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chen Z, Li M, Wen Q, Ren N (2017) Evolution of molecular weight and fluorescence of effluent organic matter (EfOM) during oxidation processes revealed by advanced spectrographic and chromatographic tools. Water Res 124:566–575.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2017.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cheng Z, Yang B, Chen Q et al (2018) 2D-QSAR and 3D-QSAR simulations for the reaction rate constants of organic compounds in ozone-hydrogen peroxide oxidation. Chemosphere 212:828–836.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.08.097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Crutzen PJ, Wacławek S (2014) Atmospheric chemistry and climate in the anthropocene/Chemia Atmosferyczna I Klimat W Antropocenie. Chem Didact Ecol Metrol 19:9–28.  https://doi.org/10.1515/cdem-2014-0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cvetnić M, Novak Stankov M, Kovačić M et al (2019) Key structural features promoting radical driven degradation of emerging contaminants in water. Environ Int 124:38–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2018.12.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. da Costa EP, Bottrel SEC, Starling MCVM et al (2019) Degradation of carbendazim in water via photo-fenton in raceway pond reactor: assessment of acute toxicity and transformation products. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:4324–4336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2130-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. da Trindade CM, da Silva SW, Bortolozzi JP et al (2018) Synthesis and characterization of TiO2 films onto AISI 304 metallic meshes and their application in the decomposition of the endocrine-disrupting alkylphenolic chemicals. Appl Surf Sci 457:644–654.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.06.287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. De la Cruz N, Giménez J, Esplugas S et al (2012) Degradation of 32 emergent contaminants by UV and neutral photo-fenton in domestic wastewater effluent previously treated by activated sludge. Water Res 46:1947–1957.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2012.01.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. de Vera GA, Gernjak W, Weinberg H et al (2017) Kinetics and mechanisms of nitrate and ammonium formation during ozonation of dissolved organic nitrogen. Water Res 108:451–461.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2016.10.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Deng J, Wu G, Yuan S et al (2019) Ciprofloxacin degradation in UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process: influencing factors, mechanisms and degradation pathways. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem 371:151–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2018.10.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Deniere E, Van Hulle S, Van Langenhove H, Demeestere K (2018) Advanced oxidation of pharmaceuticals by the ozone-activated peroxymonosulfate process: the role of different oxidative species. J Hazard Mater 360:204–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2018.07.071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dhiman P, Naushad M, Batoo KM et al (2017) Nano FexZn1−xO as a tuneable and efficient photocatalyst for solar powered degradation of bisphenol A from aqueous environment. J Clean Prod 165:1542–1556.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Drewes JE, Letzel T (2016) Chemicals of emerging concern and their transformation products in the aqueous environment. In: ACS Symposium Series, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  38. Duan X, Sanan T, de la Cruz A et al (2018) Susceptibility of the algal toxin microcystin-LR to UV/chlorine process: comparison with chlorination. Environ Sci Technol 52:8252–8262.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dudziak M (2015) Microtox as a tool to evaluate unfavourable phenomenon occurrences during micropollutants decompositions in AOPs. ACEE Arch Civ Eng Environ 8:85–90Google Scholar
  40. Dudziak M, Kudlek E, Burdzik-Niemiec E (2018) Decomposition of micropollutants and changes in the toxicity of water matrices subjected to various oxidation processes. Desalin Water Treat 117:181–187.  https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2018.22233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ertl G, Zielińska M, Rajfur M, Wacławek M (2017) Elementary steps in heterogeneous catalysis: the basis for environmental chemistry. Chem Didact Ecol Metrol 22:11–41.  https://doi.org/10.1515/cdem-2017-0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Espíndola JC, Cristóvão RO, Araújo SRF et al (2019) An innovative photoreactor, FluHelik, to promote UVC/H2O2 photochemical reactions: tertiary treatment of an urban wastewater. Sci Total Environ 667:197–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.02.335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. EU (2013) Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013. Off J Eur Union L 226/1-L 226/17Google Scholar
  44. EU Water Framework Directive (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Parliam L327:1–82.  https://doi.org/10.1039/ap9842100196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. European Commission (2015) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/495 of 20 March 2015 establishing a watch list of substances for Union-wide monitoring in the field of water policy pursuant to Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counc Off J Eur Union L78/40:20–30. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_285/l_28520031101en00330037.pdf
  46. Feng M, Wang Z, Dionysiou DD, Sharma VK (2018) Metal-mediated oxidation of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in water: a review on kinetics, transformation products, and toxicity assessment. J Hazard Mater 344:1136–1154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2017.08.067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fenton HJH (1894) LXXIII—Oxidation of tartaric acid in presence of iron. J Chem Soc Trans 65:899–910.  https://doi.org/10.1039/CT8946500899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Foster JE (2017) Plasma-based water purification: challenges and prospects for the future. Phys Plasmas 24:055501.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4977921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Foster JE, Mujovic S, Groele J, Blankson IM (2018) Towards high throughput plasma based water purifiers: design considerations and the pathway towards practical application. J Phys D Appl Phys 51:293001.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aac816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fu Y, Wu G, Geng J et al (2019) Kinetics and modeling of artificial sweeteners degradation in wastewater by the UV/persulfate process. Water Res 150:12–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.11.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gao Z-C, Lin Y-L, Xu B et al (2017) Degradation of acrylamide by the UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process. Chemosphere 187:268–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.08.085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ge L, Na G, Chen C-E et al (2016) Aqueous photochemical degradation of hydroxylated PAHs: kinetics, pathways, and multivariate effects of main water constituents. Sci Total Environ 547:166–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2015.12.143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Giannakis S, Hendaoui I, Jovic M et al (2017a) Solar photo-Fenton and UV/H2O2 processes against the antidepressant Venlafaxine in urban wastewaters and human urine. Intermediates formation and biodegradability assessment. Chem Eng J 308:492–504.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.09.084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Giannakis S, Jovic M, Gasilova N et al (2017b) Iohexol degradation in wastewater and urine by UV-based advanced oxidation processes (AOPs): process modeling and by-products identification. J Environ Manage 195:174–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2016.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gomes J, Costa R, Quinta-Ferreira RM, Martins RC (2017) Application of ozonation for pharmaceuticals and personal care products removal from water. Sci Total Environ 586:265–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.01.216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gómez Bernal H, Benito P, Rodríguez-Castellón E et al (2019) Synthesis of isopropyl levulinate from furfural: insights on a cascade production perspective. Appl Catal A Gen 575:111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APCATA.2019.02.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gorito AM, Ribeiro AR, Almeida CMR, Silva AMT (2017) A review on the application of constructed wetlands for the removal of priority substances and contaminants of emerging concern listed in recently launched EU legislation. Environ Pollut 227:428–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gou N, Yuan S, Lan J et al (2014) A quantitative toxicogenomics assay reveals the evolution and nature of toxicity during the transformation of environmental pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 48:8855–8863.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es501222tCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Guo K, Wu Z, Yan S et al (2018a) Comparison of the UV/chlorine and UV/H2O2 processes in the degradation of PPCPs in simulated drinking water and wastewater: kinetics, radical mechanism and energy requirements. Water Res 147:184–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.08.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Guo K, Zhang J, Li A et al (2018b) Ultraviolet irradiation of permanganate enhanced the oxidation of micropollutants by producing HO• and reactive manganese species. Environ Sci Technol Lett 5:750–756.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.8b00402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Guo Y, Wang H, Wang B et al (2018c) Prediction of micropollutant abatement during homogeneous catalytic ozonation by a chemical kinetic model. Water Res 142:383–395.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.06.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gupta S, Basant N (2017a) Modeling the aqueous phase reactivity of hydroxyl radical towards diverse organic micropollutants: an aid to water decontamination processes. Chemosphere 185:1164–1172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2017.07.057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Gupta S, Basant N (2017b) Modeling the pH and temperature dependence of aqueousphase hydroxyl radical reaction rate constants of organic micropollutants using QSPR approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:24936–24946.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0161-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Gupta VK, Fakhri A, Azad M, Agarwal S (2017) Synthesis of CdSe quantum dots decorated SnO2 nanotubes as anode for photo-assisted electrochemical degradation of hydrochlorothiazide: kinetic process. J Colloid Interface Sci 508:575–582.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCIS.2017.08.083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Heeb MB, Criquet J, Zimmermann-Steffens SG, von Gunten U (2014) Oxidative treatment of bromide-containing waters: formation of bromine and its reactions with inorganic and organic compounds—A critical review. Water Res 48:15–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2013.08.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hernández-Colorado PP, Pinto S, Morales-Mejia JC et al (2017) Photocatalytic oxidation of aqueous naproxen with a horizontally placed solar CPC slurry reactor. Desalin Water Treat 67:159–167.  https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hofman-Caris CHM, Harmsen DJH, Van Remmen AM et al (2017) Optimization of UV/H2O2 processes for the removal of organic micropollutants from drinking water: effect of reactor geometry and water pretreatment on EEO values. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 17:508–518.  https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2016.160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hofman-Caris CHMHM, Harmsen DJH, Beerendonk EF et al (2012) Prediction of advanced oxidation performance in pilot UV/H2O2 reactor systems with MP- and LP-UV lamps. Ozone Sci Eng 34:120–124.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01919512.2011.650598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hrabák P, Homolková M, Wacławek S, Černík M (2016) Chemical degradation of PCDD/F in contaminated sediment. Ecol Chem Eng S 23:473–482.  https://doi.org/10.1515/eces-2016-0034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Huang Y, Kong M, Westerman D et al (2018a) Effects of HCO3- on degradation of toxic contaminants of emerging concern by UV/NO3-. Environ Sci Technol 52:12697–12707.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Huang Y, Liu Y, Kong M et al (2018b) Efficient degradation of cytotoxic contaminants of emerging concern by UV/H2O2. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 4:1272–1281.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ew00290hCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Jia L, Shen Z, Guo W et al (2015) QSAR models for oxidative degradation of organic pollutants in the Fenton process. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 46:140–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JTICE.2014.09.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Jiménez-Tototzintle M, Ferreira IJ, da Silva Duque S et al (2018) Removal of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and antibiotic resistant bacteria in urban wastewater using UVA/TiO2/H2O2 photocatalysis. Chemosphere 210:449–457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.07.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Jin X, Peldszus S, Huck PM (2012) Reaction kinetics of selected micropollutants in ozonation and advanced oxidation processes. Water Res 46:6519–6530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2012.09.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Jin X, Peldszus S, Huck PM (2015) Predicting the reaction rate constants of micropollutants with hydroxyl radicals in water using QSPR modeling. Chemosphere 138:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2015.05.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Jin X, Peldszus S, Sparkes DI (2014) Modeling ozone reaction rate constants of micropollutants using quantitative structure-property relationships. Ozone Sci Eng 36:289–302.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01919512.2014.910444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Katsoyiannis IA, Canonica S, von Gunten U (2011) Efficiency and energy requirements for the transformation of organic micropollutants by ozone, O3/H2O2 and UV/H2O2. Water Res 45:3811–3822.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.04.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Khan MF, Yu L, Achari G, Tay JH (2019) Degradation of sulfolane in aqueous media by integrating activated sludge and advanced oxidation process. Chemosphere 222:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2019.01.097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kim T-H, Lee S-H, Kim HY et al (2019) Decomposition of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) using a hybrid process with electron beam and chemical oxidants. Chem Eng J 361:1363–1370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.10.195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kolosov P, Peyot M-L, Yargeau V (2018) Novel materials for catalytic ozonation of wastewater for disinfection and removal of micropollutants. Sci Total Environ 644:1207–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.07.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kolosov P, Yargeau V (2019) Impact of catalyst load, chemical oxygen demand and nitrite on disinfection and removal of contaminants during catalytic ozonation of wastewater. Sci Total Environ 651:2139–2147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.09.394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Koltsakidou A, Terzopoulou Z, Kyzas G et al (2019) Biobased poly(ethylene furanoate) polyester/TiO2 supported nanocomposites as effective photocatalysts for anti-inflammatory/analgesic drugs. Molecules 24:564.  https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24030564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Krzeminski P, Tomei MC, Karaolia P et al (2019) Performance of secondary wastewater treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern implicated in crop uptake and antibiotic resistance spread: a review. Sci Total Environ 648:1052–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kudlek E, Dudziak M (2018) Toxicity and degradation pathways of selected micropollutants in water solutions during the O3 and O3/H2O2 process. Desalin Water Treat 117:88–100.  https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2018.22096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kudlek E, Kudlek Edyta (2018) Decomposition of contaminants of emerging concern in advanced oxidation processes. Water 10:955.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w10070955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kudlek E, Silvestri D, Wacławek S et al (2017) TiO2 immobilised on biopolymer nanofibers for the removal of bisphenol A and diclofenac from water. Ecol Chem Eng S 24:417–429.  https://doi.org/10.1515/eces-2017-0028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Kümmerer K (2011) Emerging contaminants versus micro-pollutants. CLEAN—Soil Air Water 39:889–890.  https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201110002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kümmerer K, Dionysiou DD, Olsson O, Fatta-Kassinos D (2019) Reducing aquatic micropollutants—Increasing the focus on input prevention and integrated emission management. Sci Total Environ 652:836–850.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Lado Ribeiro AR, Moreira NFF, Li Puma G, Silva AMT (2019) Impact of water matrix on the removal of micropollutants by advanced oxidation technologies. Chem Eng J 363:155–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.01.080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lanzarini-Lopes M, Garcia-Segura S, Hristovski K, Westerhoff P (2017) Electrical energy per order and current efficiency for electrochemical oxidation of p-chlorobenzoic acid with boron-doped diamond anode. Chemosphere 188:304–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2017.08.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lecours M-A, Eysseric E, Yargeau V et al (2018) Electrochemistry-high resolution mass spectrometry to study oxidation products of trimethoprim. Environments 5:18.  https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5010018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lee H, Park SH, Kim BH et al (2012) Contribution of dissolved oxygen to methylene blue decomposition by hybrid advanced oxidation processes system. Int J Photoenergy 2012:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/305989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lee M, Zimmermann-Steffens SG, Arey JS et al (2015) Development of prediction models for the reactivity of organic compounds with ozone in aqueous solution by quantum chemical calculations: the role of delocalized and localized molecular orbitals. Environ Sci Technol 49:9925–9935.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lee Y, von Gunten U (2016) Advances in predicting organic contaminant abatement during ozonation of municipal wastewater effluent: reaction kinetics, transformation products, and changes of biological effects. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 2:421–442.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00025HCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lee Y, von Gunten U (2012) Quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) for the transformation of organic micropollutants during oxidative water treatment. Water Res 46:6177–6195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2012.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Li C, Sun Z, Dong X et al (2018) Acetic acid functionalized TiO2/kaolinite composite photocatalysts with enhanced photocatalytic performance through regulating interfacial charge transfer. J Catal 367:126–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcat.2018.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Li M, Xu B, Liungai Z et al (2016) The removal of estrogenic activity with UV/chlorine technology and identification of novel estrogenic disinfection by-products. J Hazard Mater 307:119–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2016.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Li X, Wang B, Wang Y et al (2019) Synergy effect of E-peroxone process in the degradation of structurally diverse pharmaceuticals: a QSAR analysis. Chem Eng J 360:1111–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.10.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Liang R, Van Leuwen JC, Bragg LM et al (2019) Utilizing UV-LED pulse width modulation on TiO2 advanced oxidation processes to enhance the decomposition efficiency of pharmaceutical micropollutants. Chem Eng J 361:439–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.12.065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Lin L, Jiang W, Bechelany M et al (2019) Adsorption and photocatalytic oxidation of ibuprofen using nanocomposites of TiO2 nanofibers combined with BN nanosheets: degradation products and mechanisms. Chemosphere 220:921–929.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Liu C, Li P, Tang X, Korshin GV (2016) Ozonation effects on emerging micropollutants and effluent organic matter in wastewater: characterization using changes of three-dimensional HP-SEC and EEM fluorescence data. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:20567–20579.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7287-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Liu Z, Zhao C, Wang P et al (2018) Removal of carbamazepine in water by electro-activated carbon fiber-peroxydisulfate: comparison, optimization, recycle, and mechanism study. Chem Eng J 343:28–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.02.114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Longobucco G, Pasti L, Molinari A et al (2017) Photoelectrochemical mineralization of emerging contaminants at porous WO3 interfaces. Appl Catal B Environ 204:273–282.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APCATB.2016.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Martín-Sómer M, Pablos C, de Diego A et al (2019) Novel macroporous 3D photocatalytic foams for simultaneous wastewater disinfection and removal of contaminants of emerging concern. Chem Eng J 366:449–459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.02.102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Martín de Vidales MJ, Nieto-Márquez A, Morcuende D et al (2019) 3D printed floating photocatalysts for wastewater treatment. Catal Today 328:157–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2019.01.074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Martínez S, Morales-Mejía JC, Hernández PP et al (2014) Solar photocatalytic oxidation of triclosan with tio2 immobilized on volcanic porous stones on a CPC pilot scale reactor. Energy Procedia 57:3014–3020.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2014.10.337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Matafonova G, Batoev V (2017) Comparison of energy requirements for removal of organic micropollutants from lake water and wastewater effluents by direct UV and UV/H2O2 using excilamp. Desalin Water Treat 85:92–102.  https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.21245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Mathon B, Coquery M, Miege C et al (2017) Removal efficiencies and kinetic rate constants of xenobiotics by ozonation in tertiary treatment. Water Sci Technol 75:2737–2746.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Metheniti ME, Frontistis Z, Ribeiro RS et al (2018) Degradation of propyl paraben by activated persulfate using iron-containing magnetic carbon xerogels: investigation of water matrix and process synergy effects. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:34801–34810.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0178-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Miklos DB, Remy C, Jekel M et al (2018) Evaluation of advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment—A critical review. Water Res 139:118–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.03.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Do Minh T, Ncibi MC, Srivastava V et al (2019) Gingerbread ingredient-derived carbons-assembled CNT foam for the efficient peroxymonosulfate-mediated degradation of emerging pharmaceutical contaminants. Appl Catal B Environ 244:367–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.11.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Molinari A, Sarti E, Marchetti N, Pasti L (2017) Degradation of emerging concern contaminants in water by heterogeneous photocatalysis with Na4W10O32. Appl Catal B Environ 203:9–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.09.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Moreira NFF, Narciso-da-Rocha C, Polo-López MI et al (2018) Solar treatment (H2O2, TiO2-P25 and GO-TiO2 photocatalysis, photo-Fenton) of organic micropollutants, human pathogen indicators, antibiotic resistant bacteria and related genes in urban wastewater. Water Res 135:195–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.01.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Moreira NFF, Sampaio MJ, Ribeiro AR et al (2019) Metal-free g-C3N4 photocatalysis of organic micropollutants in urban wastewater under visible light. Appl Catal B Environ 248:184–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APCATB.2019.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Moreira NFF, Sousa JM, Macedo G et al (2016) Photocatalytic ozonation of urban wastewater and surface water using immobilized TiO2 with LEDs: micropollutants, antibiotic resistance genes and estrogenic activity. Water Res 94:10–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2016.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Mousset E, Wang Z, Lefebvre O (2016) Electro-Fenton for control and removal of micropollutants—process optimization and energy efficiency. Water Sci Technol 74:2068–2074.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Murgolo S, Yargeau V, Gerbasi R et al (2017) A new supported TiO2 film deposited on stainless steel for the photocatalytic degradation of contaminants of emerging concern. Chem Eng J 318:103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.05.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Nihemaiti M, Miklos DB, Hübner U et al (2018) Removal of trace organic chemicals in wastewater effluent by UV/H2O2 and UV/PDS. Water Res 145:487–497.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.08.052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Oliveira HG, Ferreira LH, Bertazzoli R, Longo C (2015) Remediation of 17-α-ethinylestradiol aqueous solution by photocatalysis and electrochemically-assisted photocatalysis using TiO2 and TiO2/WO3 electrodes irradiated by a solar simulator. Water Res 72:305–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2014.08.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Ortiz EV, Bennardi DO, Bacelo DE et al (2017) The conformation-independent QSPR approach for predicting the oxidation rate constant of water micropollutants. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:27366–27375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0315-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Palma D, Bianco Prevot A, Brigante M et al (2018) New insights on the photodegradation of caffeine in the presence of bio-based substances-magnetic iron oxide hybrid nanomaterials. Mater (Basel) 11:1084.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11071084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Pelaez M, Nolan NT, Pillai SC et al (2012) A review on the visible light active titanium dioxide photocatalysts for environmental applications. Appl Catal B Environ 125:331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Pérez-Moya M, Kaisto T, Navarro M, del Valle LJ (2017) Study of the degradation performance (TOC, BOD, and toxicity) of bisphenol A by the photo-Fenton process. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:6241–6251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7386-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Plakas KV, Sklari SD, Yiankakis DA et al (2016) Removal of organic micropollutants from drinking water by a novel electro-Fenton filter: pilot-scale studies. Water Res 91:183–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2016.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Plantard G, Goetz V (2012) Experimental and numerical studies of a solar photocatalytic process in a dynamic mode applied to three catalyst media. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 62:129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEP.2012.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Psutka JM, Dion-Fortier A, Dieckmann T et al (2018) Identifying Fenton-reacted trimethoprim transformation products using differential mobility spectrometry. Anal Chem 90:5352–5357.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Rahman SM, Eckelman MJ, Onnis-Hayden A, Gu AZ (2018) Comparative life cycle assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes for removal of chemicals of emerging concern 52:11346–11358.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Ranjbar-Mohammadi M, Bahrami SH (2016) Electrospun curcumin loaded poly(ε-caprolactone)/gum tragacanth nanofibers for biomedical application. Int J Biol Macromol 84:448–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.12.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Ren B, Han C, Al Anazi AH et al (2013) Iron-based nanomaterials for the treatment of emerging environmental contaminants. ACS Symp Ser 1150:135–146.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2013-1150.ch008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Restivo J, Órfão JJM, Pereira MFR et al (2013) Catalytic ozonation of organic micropollutants using carbon nanofibers supported on monoliths. Chem Eng J 230:115–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.06.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Řezanka M, Langton MJ, Beer PD (2015) Anion recognition in water by a rotaxane containing a secondary rim functionalised cyclodextrin stoppered axle. Chem Commun 51:4499–4502.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CC00171DCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Rice RG, Robson CM, Miller GW, Hill AG (1981) Uses of ozone in drinking water treatment. J Am Water Work Assoc 73:44–57.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41270552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Rizzo L, Agovino T, Nahim-Granados S et al (2019a) Tertiary treatment of urban wastewater by solar and UV-C driven advanced oxidation with peracetic acid: effect on contaminants of emerging concern and antibiotic resistance. Water Res 149:272–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.11.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Rizzo L, Malato S, Antakyali D et al (2019b) Consolidated vs new advanced treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern from urban wastewater. Sci Total Environ 655:986–1008.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.11.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Rodríguez-Chueca J, Laski E, García-Cañibano C et al (2018) Micropollutants removal by full-scale UV-C/sulfate radical based advanced oxidation processes. Sci Total Environ 630:1216–1225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.02.279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Salimi M, Esrafili A, Gholami M et al (2017) Contaminants of emerging concern: a review of new approach in AOP technologies. Environ Monit Assess 189:414.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6097-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Schwarzenbach RP, Escher BI, Fenner K et al (2006) The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313:1072–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Serna-Galvis EA, Botero-Coy AM, Martínez-Pachón D et al (2019) Degradation of seventeen contaminants of emerging concern in municipal wastewater effluents by sonochemical advanced oxidation processes. Water Res 154:349–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2019.01.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Sharma A, Ahmad J, Flora SJS (2018) Application of advanced oxidation processes and toxicity assessment of transformation products. Environ Res 167:223–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVRES.2018.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Shu Z, Singh A, Klamerth N, et al (2016) Application of the UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process for municipal reuse water: bench- and pilot-scale studies. In: Water Pollution XIII. WP, pp 233–244Google Scholar
  141. Singh RR, Lester Y, Linden KG et al (2015a) Application of metabolite profiling tools and time-of-flight mass spectrometry in the identification of transformation products of iopromide and iopamidol during advanced oxidation. Environ Sci Technol 49:2983–2990.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es505469hCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Singh S, Seth R, Tabe S, Yang P (2015b) Oxidation of emerging contaminants during pilot-scale ozonation of secondary treated municipal effluent. Ozone Sci Eng 37:323–329.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01919512.2014.998755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Solá-Gutiérrez C, Schröder S, San Román MF, Ortiz I (2019) PCDD/Fs traceability during triclosan electrochemical oxidation. J Hazard Mater 369:584–592.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2019.02.066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Sorg O, Zennegg M, Schmid P et al (2009) 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) poisoning in Victor Yushchenko: identification and measurement of TCDD metabolites. Lancet 374:1179–1185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60912-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Soriano-Molina P, Plaza-Bolaños P, Lorenzo A et al (2019) Assessment of solar raceway pond reactors for removal of contaminants of emerging concern by photo-Fenton at circumneutral pH from very different municipal wastewater effluents. Chem Eng J 366:141–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.02.074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Su H, Yu C, Zhou Y et al (2018) Quantitative structure–activity relationship for the oxidation of aromatic organic contaminants in water by TAML/H2O2. Water Res 140:354–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.04.062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Sudhakaran S, Amy GL (2013) QSAR models for oxidation of organic micropollutants in water based on ozone and hydroxyl radical rate constants and their chemical classification. Water Res 47:1111–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2012.11.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 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.2011.12.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Sundaram V, Emerick RW, Shumaker SE (2014) Advanced treatment process for pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, and flame retardants removal. Water Environ Res 86:111–122.  https://doi.org/10.2175/106143013X13807328849053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Tasca AL, Puccini M, Fletcher A (2018) Terbuthylazine and desethylterbuthylazine: recent occurrence, mobility and removal techniques. Chemosphere 202:94–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.03.091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Tentscher PR, Lee M, von Gunten U (2019) Micropollutant oxidation studied by quantum chemical computations: methodology and applications to thermodynamics, kinetics, and reaction mechanisms. Acc Chem Res 52:605–614.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Teodosiu C, Gilca AF, Barjoveanu G, Fiore S (2018) Emerging pollutants removal through advanced drinking water treatment: a review on processes and environmental performances assessment. J Clean Prod 197:1210–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. TF (Task force on emerging contaminants) (2018) Plan for addressing critical research gaps related to emerging contaminants in drinking waterGoogle Scholar
  154. Tiedeken EJ, Tahar A, McHugh B, Rowan NJ (2017) Monitoring, sources, receptors, and control measures for three European Union watch list substances of emerging concern in receiving waters—A 20 year systematic review. Sci Total Environ 574:1140–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Tsitonaki A, Petri B, Crimi M et al (2010) In situ chemical oxidation of contaminated soil and groundwater using persulfate: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 40:55–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380802039303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations (2018) Departments of commerce and justice, science, and related agencies appropriations billGoogle Scholar
  157. Urbano VR, Maniero MG, Pérez-Moya M, Guimarães JR (2017) Influence of pH and ozone dose on sulfaquinoxaline ozonation. J Environ Manage 195:224–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2016.08.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Van Wezel AP, Ter Laak TL, Fischer A et al (2017) Mitigation options for chemicals of emerging concern in surface waters operationalising solutions-focused risk assessment. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 3:403–414.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ew00077dCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB et al (2012) Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocr Rev 33:378–455.  https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2011-1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. von Gunten U (2018) Oxidation processes in water treatment: are we on track? Environ Sci Technol 52:5062–5075.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. von Gunten U (2003) Ozonation of drinking water: part I. Oxidation kinetics and product formation. Water Res 37:1443–1467.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00457-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. von Sonntag C, von Gunten U (2012) Chemistry of ozone in water and wastewater treatmentGoogle Scholar
  163. Vries D, Wols BA, de Voogt P (2013) Removal efficiency calculated beforehand: QSAR enabled predictions for nanofiltration and advanced oxidation. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 13:1425–1436.  https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2013.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Wacławek S, Lutze HV, Grübel K et al (2017) Chemistry of persulfates in water and wastewater treatment: a review. Chem Eng J 330:44–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.07.132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Wacławek S, Padil VVT, Černík M (2018) Major advances and challenges in heterogeneous catalysis for environmental applications: a review. Ecol Chem Eng S 25:9–34.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ECES-2018-0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Wang A-Q, Xu B, Zhang T-Y et al (2017) Effect of UV irradiation and UV/chlorine processes on trichloronitromethane formation during chlorination of ronidazole. CLEAN—Soil Air Water 45:1600163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201600163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Wang Y, Yu G, Deng S et al (2018) The electro-peroxone process for the abatement of emerging contaminants: mechanisms, recent advances, and prospects. Chemosphere 208:640–654.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.05.095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Wardenier N, Vanraes P, Nikiforov A et al (2019) Removal of micropollutants from water in a continuous-flow electrical discharge reactor. J Hazard Mater 362:238–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2018.08.095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Westlund P, Isazadeh S, Therrien A, Yargeau V (2018a) Endocrine activities of pesticides during ozonation of waters. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 100:112–119.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-017-2254-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Westlund P, Isazadeh S, Yargeau V (2018b) Investigating the androgenic activity of ozonation transformation products of testosterone and androstenedione. J Hazard Mater 342:492–498.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2017.08.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Willach S, Lutze HV, Eckey K et al (2017) Degradation of sulfamethoxazole using ozone and chlorine dioxide—Compound-specific stable isotope analysis, transformation product analysis and mechanistic aspects. Water Res 122:280–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2017.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Wols BA, Harmsen DJH, Beerendonk EF, Hofman-Caris CHM (2014) Predicting pharmaceutical degradation by UV (LP)/H2O2 processes: a kinetic model. Chem Eng J 255:334–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.05.088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Wols BA, Hofman-Caris CHM (2012) Modelling micropollutant degradation in UV/H2O2 systems: Lagrangian versus Eulerian method. Chem Eng J 210:289–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.08.088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Wols BA, Hofman-Caris CHM, Harmsen DJH, Beerendonk EF (2013) Degradation of 40 selected pharmaceuticals by UV/H2O2. Water Res 47:5876–5888.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2013.07.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Wu G, Qin W, Sun L et al (2019a) Role of peroxymonosulfate on enhancing ozonation for micropollutant degradation: performance evaluation, mechanism insight and kinetics study. Chem Eng J 360:115–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.11.183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Wu Y, Deng L, Bu L et al (2019b) Degradation of diethyl phthalate (DEP) by vacuum ultraviolet process: influencing factors, oxidation products, and toxicity assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:5435–5444.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3914-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Wu Z, Guo K, Fang J et al (2017) Factors affecting the roles of reactive species in the degradation of micropollutants by the UV/chlorine process. Water Res 126:351–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2017.09.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Xiang W, Zhang B, Zhou T et al (2016) An insight in magnetic field enhanced zero-valent iron/H2O2 Fenton-like systems: critical role and evolution of the pristine iron oxides layer. Sci Rep 6:24094.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Xiao R, Ye T, Wei Z et al (2015) Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) for the oxidation of trace organic contaminants by sulfate radical. Environ Sci Technol 49:13394–13402.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Yang Y, Hu A, Wang X et al (2019) Nanopore enriched hollow carbon nitride nanospheres with extremely high visible-light photocatalytic activity in the degradation of aqueous contaminants of emerging concern. Catal Sci Technol 9:355–365.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CY02073FCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Yang Y, Ok YS, Kim K-H et al (2017) Occurrences and removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in drinking water and water/sewage treatment plants: a review. Sci Total Environ 596–597:303–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2017.04.102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Yao W, Ur Rehman SW, Wang H et al (2018) Pilot-scale evaluation of micropollutant abatements by conventional ozonation, UV/O3, and an electro-peroxone process. Water Res 138:106–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Yao Y, Teng G, Yang Y et al (2019) Electrochemical oxidation of acetamiprid using Yb-doped PbO2 electrodes: electrode characterization, influencing factors and degradation pathways. Sep Purif Technol 211:456–466.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.10.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Yargeau V, Danylo F (2015) Removal and transformation products of ibuprofen obtained during ozone- and ultrasound-based oxidative treatment. Water Sci Technol 72:491–500.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Yin K, He Q, Liu C et al (2018) Prednisolone degradation by UV/chlorine process: influence factors, transformation products and mechanism. Chemosphere 212:56–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2018.08.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Yuan S, Gou N, Alshawabkeh AN, Gu AZ (2013) Efficient degradation of contaminants of emerging concerns by a new electro-Fenton process with Ti/MMO cathode. Chemosphere 93:2796–2804.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2013.09.051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Zhang R, Wang X, Zhou L et al (2018) The impact of dissolved oxygen on sulfate radical-induced oxidation of organic micro-pollutants: a theoretical study. Water Res 135:144–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2018.02.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Zhang R, Yang Y, Huang C-H et al (2016) Kinetics and modeling of sulfonamide antibiotic degradation in wastewater and human urine by UV/H2O2 and UV/PDS. Water Res 103:283–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2016.07.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Zhang S, Yu G, Chen J et al (2017) Elucidating ozonation mechanisms of organic micropollutants based on DFT calculations: taking sulfamethoxazole as a case. Environ Pollut 220:971–980.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2016.10.076CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanisław Wacławek
    • 1
  • Miroslav Černík
    • 1
  • Dionysios D. Dionysiou
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Nanomaterials, Advanced Technologies and Innovation, Technical University of LiberecLiberec 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.Environmental Engineering and Science Program, Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering705 Engineering Research Center, University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations