Advertisement

Scope of Conventional Versus Advanced Technologies for the Control and Prevention of Emerging Contamination

  • Anjana SrivastavaEmail author
Chapter
  • 3 Downloads
Part of the Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering book series (STICEE)

Abstract

Owing to on-going demographic shifts, urbanization and changing life styles supported by rapid industrialization, pollution by so-called emerging contaminants (ECs) is a rising environmental and public health concern globally.

References

  1. Adams C, Wang Y, Loftin K, Meyer M (2002) Removal of antibiotics from surface and distilled water in conventional water treatment processes. J Environ Eng 128(3):253–260Google Scholar
  2. Agüera A, Bueno MJM, Fernández-Alba AR (2013) New trends in the analytical determination of emerging contaminants and their transformation products in environmental waters. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:3496–3515Google Scholar
  3. Ahmad M, Lee SS, Dou X, Mohan D, Sung JK, Yang JE, Ok YS (2012) Effects of pyrolysis temperature on soybean stover and peanut shell-derivedbiochar properties and TCE adsorption in water. Biores Technol 118:536–544Google Scholar
  4. Ahmed MJ, Theydan SK (2012) Adsorption of cephalexin onto activated carbons from Albizia lebbeck seed pods by microwave-induced KOH and K2CO3 activations. Chem Eng J 211:200–207Google Scholar
  5. Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W (2015) Adsorptive removal of antibiotics from water and wastewater: progress and challenges. Sci Total Environ 532:112–126Google Scholar
  6. Al-Othman ZA, Ali R, Naushad M (2012) Hexavalent chromium removal from aqueous medium by activated carbon prepared from peanut shell: adsorption kinetics, equilibrium and thermodynamic studies. Chem Eng J 184:238–247Google Scholar
  7. Amos GCA, Hawkey PM, Gaze WH, Wellington EM (2014) Waste water effluent contributes to the dissemination of CTX-M-15 in the natural environment. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:1785–1791Google Scholar
  8. Apel PYu, Blonskaya IV, Dmitriev SM, Orelovitch OL, Sartowska B (2006) Structure of polycarbonate track-etch: origin of the “paradoxical” pore shape. J Membr Sci 282(1):393–400Google Scholar
  9. Avisar D, Primor O, Gozlan I, Mamane H (2010) Sorption of sulfonamides and tetracyclines to montmorillonite clay. Water Air Soil Pollut 209:439–450Google Scholar
  10. Baker R (2012) Microfiltration. In: Membrane technology and applications, 3rd edn. Wiley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  11. Baker LA, Martin C (2007) Nanotechnology in biology and medicine: methods. Devices Appl Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 9:1–24Google Scholar
  12. Cho HH, Huang H, Schwab K (2011) Effects of solution chemistry on the adsorption of ibuprofen and triclosan onto carbon nanotubes. Langmuir 27:12960–12967Google Scholar
  13. Deegan AM, Shaik B, Nolan K, Urell K, Oelgemöller M, Tobin J, Morrissey A (2011) Treatment options for wastewater effluents from pharmaceutical companies. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8(3):649–666Google Scholar
  14. Eijkel JC, Van Den Berg A (2005) Nanofluidics: what is it and what can we expect from it? Microfluid Nanofluid 1(3):249–267Google Scholar
  15. Fraiese A, Naddeo V, Uyguner-Demirel CS, Prado M, Cesaro A, Zarra TL, Liu H, Belgiorno V, Ballesteros FN Jr (2019) Removal of emerging contaminants in wastewater by sonolysis, photocatalysis and ozonation. Glob Net Environ Sci Technol J 21(2):98–105Google Scholar
  16. Genç EC, Dogan (2015) Adsorption kinetics of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin on bentonite, activated carbon, zeolite, and pumice. Desalination Water Treat 53:785–793Google Scholar
  17. Greenlee LF, Lawler DF, Freeman BD, Marrot B, Moulin P (2009) Reverse osmosis desalination: water sources, technology, and today’s challenges. Water Res 43(9):2317–2348Google Scholar
  18. Hickey RF, Wu WM, Veiga MC, Jones R (1991) The start-up, operation and monitoring of high-rate anaerobic treatment systems. Water Sci Technol 24:207–255Google Scholar
  19. Hou J, Pan B, Niu X, Chen J, Xing B (2010) Sulfamethoxazole sorption by sediment fractions in comparison to pyrene and bisphenol A. Environ Pollut 158:2826–2832Google Scholar
  20. Howe KJ, Hand DW, Crittenden JC, Trussell RR, Tchobanoglous G (2012) Principles of water treatment, 2nd edn. Wiley, New Jersey Google Scholar
  21. Hu J, Shang R, Fralova M, Heijman B, Rietveld L (2015) Pharmaceutical adsorption 376 from primary and secondary effluent of a wastewater treatment plant by powdered 377 activated carbon. Desalination Water Treat 1–10Google Scholar
  22. Ji L, Chen W, Bi J, Zheng S, Xu Z, Zhu D, Alvarez PJ (2010a) Adsorption of tetracycline on single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotubes as affected by aqueous solution chemistry. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:2713–2719Google Scholar
  23. Ji L, Shao Y, Xu Z, Zheng S, Zhu D (2010b) Adsorption of monoaromatic compounds and pharmaceutical antibiotics on carbon nanotubes activated by KOH etching. Environ Sci Technol 44:6429–6436Google Scholar
  24. Ji L, Wan Y, Zheng S, Zhu D (2011) Adsorption of tetracycline and sulfamethoxazole on crop residue derived ashes: Implication for the relative importance of black carbon to soil sorption. Environ Sci Technol 45:5580–5586Google Scholar
  25. Kabra K, Chaudhary R, Sawhney RL (2004) Treatment of hazardous organic and inorganic compounds through aqueous-phase photocatalysis: a review. Ind Eng Chem Res 43(24):7683–7696Google Scholar
  26. Karakoyun N, Kubilay S, Aktas N, Turhan O, Kasimoglu M, Yilmaz S, Sahiner N (2011) Hydrogel-biochar composites for effective organic contaminant removal from aqueous media. Desalination 280:319–325Google Scholar
  27. Kenna EN, Zander AK (2000) Current management of membrane plant concentrate. Am Water Works Assoc, Denver, p 14Google Scholar
  28. Khedkar SV, Ingole NW (2017) Control of emerging contaminants in drinking water by using suitable methods. IOSR J Environ Sci Toxicol Food Technol 11(6):66–71Google Scholar
  29. Kim H, Hwang YS, Sharma VK (2014) Adsorption of antibiotics and iopromide onto single walled and multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Chem Eng J 255:23–27Google Scholar
  30. Kunkel U, Radke M (2008) Biodegradation of acidic pharmaceuticals in bed sediments: insight from a laboratory experiment. Environ Sci Technol 42:7273–7279Google Scholar
  31. Labban O, Liu C, Chong TH, Lienhard VJH (2017) Fundamentals of low-pressure nanofiltration: membrane characterization, modeling, and understanding the multi-ionic interactions in water softening. J Membr Sci 521:18–32Google Scholar
  32. Lara IV, Zanella I, Fagan SB (2014) Functionalization of carbon nanotube by carboxyl group under radial deformation. Chem Phys 428:117–120Google Scholar
  33. Liu Y, Tay JH (2004) State of the art of biogranulation technology for wastewater treatment. Biotechnol Adv 22:533–563Google Scholar
  34. Liu H, Yang Y, Kang J, Fan M, Qu J (2012) Removal of tetracycline from water by Fe-Mn binary oxide. J Environ Sci 24:242–247Google Scholar
  35. Masciangioli T, Zhang WX (2003) Peer reviewed: environmental technologies at the nanoscale. Environ Sci Technol 37(5):102A–108AGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller JE (2003) Review of water resources and desalination technologies. Sandia national labs unlimited release report, SAND 2003–0800Google Scholar
  37. Mitchell SM, Subbiah M, Ullman JL, Frear C, Call DR (2015) Evaluation of 27 different biochars for potential sequestration of antibiotic residues in food animal production environments. J Environ Chem Eng 3:162–169Google Scholar
  38. Nancharaiah YV, Joshi HM, Mohan TVK, Venugopalan VP, Narasimhan SV (2006) Aerobic granular biomass: a novel biomaterial for efficient uranium removal. Curr Sci 91(4):503–509Google Scholar
  39. Nancharaiah YV, Reddy GKK, Mohan TK, Venugopalan VP (2015) Biodegradation of tributyl phosphate, an organosphate triester, by aerobic granular biofilms. J Hazard Mater 283:705–711Google Scholar
  40. Nancharaiah YV, Sarvajith M, Krishna Mohan TV (2019) Aerobic granular sludge: the future of wastewater treatment. Curr Sci 117(3):395–404Google Scholar
  41. Nikolaou A (2013) Pharmaceuticals and related compounds as emerging pollutants in water: analytical aspects. Glob Net Environ Sci Technol J 15:1–12Google Scholar
  42. Oller I, Malato S, Sanchez Perez JA (2011) Combination of advanced oxidation processes and biological treatments for wastewater decontamination—A review. Sci Total Environ 409(20):4141–4166Google Scholar
  43. Parolo ME, Avena MJ, Pettinari GR, Baschini MT (2012) Influence of Ca2+ on tetracycline adsorption on montmorillonite. J Colloid Interface Sci 368:420–426Google Scholar
  44. Peng H, Pan B, Wu M, Liu Y, Zhang D, Xing B (2012) Adsorption of ofloxacin and norfloxacin on carbon nanotubes: hydrophobicity- and structure-controlled process. J Hazard Mater 233:89–96Google Scholar
  45. Rahardjo AK, Susanto MJJ, Kurniawan A, Indraswati N, Ismadji S (2011) Modified Ponorogo bentonite for the removal of ampicillin from wastewater. J Hazard Mater 190:1001–1008Google Scholar
  46. Rahimpour A, Jahanshahi M, Mortazavian N, Madaeni SS, Mansourpanah Y (2010) Preparation and characterisation of asymmetric polyethersulfone and thin-film composite polyamide nanofiltration membranes for water softening. Appl Surf Sci 256(6):1657–1663Google Scholar
  47. Ramos C, Suárez-Ojeda ME, Carrera J (2015) Long-term impact of salinity on the performance and microbial population of an aerobic granular reactor treating a high-strength aromatic wastewater. Biores Technol 198:844–851Google Scholar
  48. Ren X, Chen C, Nagatsu M, Wang X (2011) Carbon nanotubes as adsorbents in environmental pollution management: a review. Chem Eng J 170:395–410Google Scholar
  49. Rickerby DG, Morrison M (2007) Nanotechnology and the environment: a European perspective. Sci Technol Adv Mater 8(1–2):19–24Google Scholar
  50. Rivera-Utrilla J, Sánchez-Polo M, Ferro-García MÁ, Prados-Joya G, Ocampo-Pérez R (2013) Pharmaceuticals as emerging contaminants and their removal from water. A Rev Chemosphere 93:1268–1287Google Scholar
  51. Rodriguez-Narvaez OM, Peralta-Hernandez JM, Goonetilleke A, Bandala ER (2017) Treatment technologies for emerging contaminants in water: a review. Chem Eng J 323:361–380Google Scholar
  52. Savage N, Diallo MS (2005) Nanomaterials and water purification: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 7(4–5):331–342Google Scholar
  53. Schlüter A, Szczepanowski R, Pühler A, Top EM (2007) Genomics of IncP-1 antibiotic resistance plasmids isolated from wastewater treatment plants provides evidence for a widely accessible drug resistance gene pool. FEMS Microbiol Rev 31:449–477Google Scholar
  54. Shephard GS, Stockenström S, de Villiers D, Engelbrecht WJ, Wessels GF (2002) Degradation of microcystin toxins in a falling film photocatalytic reactor with immobilized titanium dioxide catalyst. Water Res 36(1):140–146Google Scholar
  55. Simeonov L, Sargsyan V (eds) (2008) Soil chemical pollution, risk assessment, remediation and security. Springer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  56. Strathmann H (2001) Membrane separation processes: current relevance and future opportunities. Am Ins Chem Eng J 47(5):1077–1087Google Scholar
  57. Teixidó M, Pignatello JJ, Beltrán JL, Granados M, Peccia J (2011) Speciation of the ionizable antibiotic sulfamethazine on black carbon (Biochar). Environ Sci Technol 45:10020–10027Google Scholar
  58. Thwaites BJ, Short MD, Stuetz RM, Reeve PJ, Gaitan JPA, Dinesh N, van den Akker B (2018) Comparing the performance of aerobic granular sludge versus conventional activated sludge for microbial log removal and effluent quality: implications for water reuse. Water Res 145:442–452Google Scholar
  59. Torres-Pérez J, Gérente C, Andrès Y (2012) Sustainable activated carbons fromagricultural residues dedicated to antibiotic removal by adsorption. Chin J Chem Eng 20:524–529Google Scholar
  60. Wu Q, Li Z, Hong H, Yin K, Tie L (2010) Adsorption and intercalation of ciprofloxacin on montmorillonite. Appl Clay Sci 50:204–211Google Scholar
  61. Wu D, Pan B, Wu M, Peng H, Zhang D, Xing B (2012a) Coadsorption of Cu and sulfamethoxazole on hydroxylized and graphitized carbon nanotubes. Sci Total Environ 427:247–252Google Scholar
  62. Wu Q, Li Z, Hong H (2012b) Influence of types and charges of exchangeable cations on ciprofloxacin sorption by montmorillonite. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed 27:516–522Google Scholar
  63. Xie M, Chen W, Xu Z, Zheng S, Zhu D (2014) Adsorption of sulfonamides to demineralized pine wood biochars prepared under different thermochemical conditions. Environ Pollut 186:187–194Google Scholar
  64. Xu W, Zhang G, Li X, Zou S, Li P, Hu Z, Li J (2007) Occurrence and elimination of antibiotics at four sewage treatment plants in the Pearl River Delta (PRD), south china. Water Res 41:4526–4534Google Scholar
  65. Yang X, Flowers RC, Weinberg HS, Singer PC (2011) Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in an advanced wastewater reclamation plant. Water Res 45:5218–5228Google Scholar
  66. Yang W, Lu Y, Zheng F, Xue X, Li N, Liu D (2012) Adsorption behavior and mechanisms of norfloxacin onto porous resins and carbon nanotube. Chem Eng J 179:112–118Google Scholar
  67. Zhang D, Pan B, Zhang H, Ning P, Xing B (2010) Contribution of different sulfamethoxazole species to their overall adsorption on functionalized carbon nanotubes. Environ Sci Technol 44:3806–3811Google Scholar
  68. Zhang L, Song X, Liu X, Yang L, Pan F, Lv J (2011) Studies on the removal of tetracycline by multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Chem Eng J 178:26–33Google Scholar
  69. Zhao X, Lv L, Pan B, Zhang W, Zhang S, Zhang Q (2011) Polymer-supported nanocomposites for environmental application: a review. Chem Eng J 170(2–3):381–394Google Scholar
  70. Zhao Y, Gu X, Gao S, Geng J, Wang X (2012) Adsorption of tetracycline (TC) onto montmorillonite: cations and humic acid effects. Geoderma 183:12–18Google Scholar
  71. Zhao X, Chen Z, Wang X, Li J, Shen J, Xu H (2015) Remediation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products using an aerobic granular sludge sequencing bioreactor and microbial community profiling using Solexa sequencing technology analysis. Biores Technol 179:104–112Google Scholar
  72. Zheng H, Wang Z, Zhao J, Herbert S, Xing B (2013) Sorption of antibiotic sulfamethoxazole varies with biochars produced at different temperatures. Environ Pollut 181:60–67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryCollege of Basic Science & Humanities, GBPUA&TPantnagarIndia

Personalised recommendations