Environmental Engineering Research

Korean Society of Environmental Engineers (대한환경공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Rejection rate and mechanisms of drugs in drinking water by nanofiltration technology

  • Ge, Sijie (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Beijing Forestry University) ;
  • Feng, Li (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Beijing Forestry University) ;
  • Zhang, Liqiu (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Beijing Forestry University) ;
  • Xu, Qiang (Dan F. Smith Department of Chemical Engineering, Lamar University) ;
  • Yang, Yifei (School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University) ;
  • Wang, Ziyuan (Dan F. Smith Department of Chemical Engineering, Lamar University) ;
  • Kim, Ki-Hyun (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University)
  • Received : 2016.12.24
  • Accepted : 2017.03.22
  • Published : 2017.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Nanofiltration (NF) technology is a membrane-based separation process, which has been pervasively used as the high-effective technology for drinking water treatment. In this study, a kind of composite polyamide NF thin film is selected to investigate the removal efficiencies and mechanisms of 14 trace drugs, which are commonly and frequently detected in the drinking water. The results show that the removal efficiencies of most drugs are quite high, indicating the NF is an effective technology to improve the quality of drinking water. The removal efficiencies of carbamazepine, acetaminophen, estradiol, antipyrine and isopropyl-antipyrine in ultrapure water are $78.8{\pm}0.8%$, $16.4{\pm}0.5%$, $65.4{\pm}1.8%$, $71.1{\pm}1.5%$ and $89.8{\pm}0.38%$, respectively. Their rejection rates increase with the increasing of their three-dimensional sizes, which indicates that the steric exclusion plays a significant role in removal of these five drugs. The adsorption of estradiol with the strongest hydrophobicity has been studied, which indicates that adsorption is not negligible in terms of removing this kind of hydrophobic neutral drugs by NF technology. The removal efficiencies of indomethacin, diclofenac, naproxen, ketoprofen, ibuprofen, clofibric acid, sulfamethoxazole, amoxicillin and bezafibrate in ultrapure water are $81{\pm}0.3%$, $86.3{\pm}0.5%$, $85.7{\pm}0.4%$, $93.3{\pm}0.3%$, $86.6{\pm}2.5%$, $90.6{\pm}0.4%$, $59.7{\pm}1.7%$, $80.3{\pm}1.4%$ and $80{\pm}0.5%$, respectively. For these nine drugs, their rejection rates are better than the above five drugs because they are negatively charged in ultrapure water. Meanwhile, the membrane surface presents the negative charge. Therefore, both electrostatic repulsion and steric exclusion are indispensable in removing these negatively charged drugs. This study provides helpful and scientific support of a highly effective water treatment method for removing drugs pollutants from drinking water.

Keywords

References

  1. Mompelat S, Le Bot B, Thomas O. Occurrence and fate of pharmaceutical products and by-products, from resource to drinking water. Environ. Int. 2009;35:803-814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.10.008
  2. Diaz-Cruz MS, Barcelo D. Trace organic chemicals contamination in ground water recharge. Chemosphere 2008;72: 333-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.02.031
  3. Barnes KK, Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Zaugg SD, Meyer MT, Barber LB. A national reconnaissance of pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States - I) Groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 2008;402:192-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.028
  4. Focazio MJ, Kolpin DW, Barnes KK, et al. A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States - II) Untreated drinking water sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2008;402:201-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.02.021
  5. Schaider LA, Rudel RA, Ackerman JM, Dunagan SC, Brody JG. Pharmaceuticals, perfluorosurfactants, and other organic wastewater compounds in public drinking water wells in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer. Sci. Total Environ. 2014;468:384-393.
  6. Padhye LP, Yao H, Kung'u FT, Huang CH. Year-long evaluation on the occurrence and fate of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disrupting chemicals in an urban drinking water treatment plant. Water Res. 2014;51:266-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.070
  7. Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, et al. Pharmecueticals, hormons, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: A national reconnaissance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002;36:1202-1211. https://doi.org/10.1021/es011055j
  8. Clara M, Kreuzinger N, Strenn B, Gans O, Kroiss H. The solids retention time - A suitable design parameter to evaluate the capacity of wastewater treatment plants to remove micropollutants. Water Res. 2005;39:97-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.08.036
  9. Guardabassi L, Petersen A, Olsen JE, Dalsgaard A. Antibiotic resistance in Acinetobacter spp. isolated from sewers receiving waste effluent from a hospital and a pharmaceutical plant. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998;64:3499-3502.
  10. Guardabassi L, Wong DMLF, Dalsgaard A. The effects of tertiary wastewater treatment on the prevalence of antimicrobial resistant bacteria. Water Res. 2002;36:1955-1964. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00429-8
  11. Crane M, Watts C, Boucard T. Chronic aquatic environmental risks from exposure to human pharmaceuticals. Sci. Total Environ. 2006;367:23-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.04.010
  12. Shirley J, Mandale S, Kochkodan V. Influence of solute concentration and dipole moment on the retention of uncharged molecules with nanofiltration. Desalination 2014;344:116-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.03.024
  13. Weng XD, Ji YL, Ma R, Zhao FY, An QF, Gao CJ. Superhydrophilic and antibacterial zwitterionic polyamide nanofiltration membranes for antibiotics separation. J. Membrane Sci. 2016;510:122-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.02.070
  14. Bengani P, Kou Y, Asatekin A. Zwitterionic copolymer self-assembly for fouling resistant, high flux membranes with size-based small molecule selectivity. J. Membrane Sci. 2015;493:755-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.025
  15. Shahmansouri A, Bellona C. Nanofiltration technology in water treatment and reuse: Applications and costs. Water Sci. Technol. 2015;71:309-319. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.015
  16. Moulik S, Vadthya P, Kalipatnapu YR, Chenna S, Sundergopal S. Production of fructose sugar from aqueous solutions: Nanofiltration performance and hydrodynamic analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2015;92:44-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.092
  17. Elazhar F, Touir J, Elazhar M, et al. Techno-economic comparison of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration in desalination of a Moroccan brackish groundwater. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015;55:2471-2477. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.959739
  18. Ravikumar YVL, Kalyani S, Satyanarayana SV, Sridhar S. Processing of pharmaceutical effluent condensate by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane techniques. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2014;45:50-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2013.09.021
  19. Song J, Zhang M, Figoli A, et al. Arsenic removal using a sulfonated poly (ether ether ketone) coated hollow fiber nanofiltration membrane. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2015;1:839-845. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5EW00109A
  20. Yang H, Wang X. Mechanism of removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products by nanofiltration membranes. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015;53:2816-2824. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.942559
  21. Teh CY, Budiman PM, Shak KPY, Wu TY. Recent advancement of coagulation-flocculation and its application in wastewater treatment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016;55:4363-4389. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b04703
  22. Suriyanon N, Permrungruang J, Kaosaiphun J, Wongrueng A, Ngamcharussrivichai C, Punyapalakul P. Selective adsorption mechanisms of antilipidemic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug residues on functionalized silica-based porous materials in a mixed solute. Chemosphere 2015;136:222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.005
  23. Lin YL, Lee CH. Elucidating the rejection mechanisms of PPCPs by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014;53:6798-6806. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie500114r
  24. Wu F, Feng L, Zhang L. Rejection prediction of isopropylantipyrine and antipyrine by nanofiltration membranes based on the Spiegler-Kedem-Katchalsky model. Desalination 2015;362:11-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.01.046
  25. Feng G, Chu H, Dong B. Fouling effects of algogenic organic matters during nanofiltration of naproxen. Desalination 2014;350:69-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.07.009
  26. Yangali-Quintanilla V, Sadmani A, McConville M, Kennedy M, Amy G. Rejection of pharmaceutically active compounds and endocrine disrupting compounds by clean and fouled nanofiltration membranes. Water Res. 2009;43:2349-2362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.02.027
  27. Nordvang RT, Luo J, Zeuner B, et al. Separation of 3′-sialyllactose and lactose by nanofiltration: A trade-off between charge repulsion and pore swelling induced by high pH. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014;138:77-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2014.10.012
  28. Acero JL, Javier Benítez F, Real FJ, Rodriguez E. Influence of membrane, pH and water matrix properties on the retention of emerging contaminants by ultrafiltration and nanofiltration. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016;57:11685-11698. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1044919
  29. Nghiem LD, Schafer AI, Elimelech M. Pharmaceutical retention mechanisms by nanofiltration membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005;39:7698-7705. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0507665
  30. Ang WL, Nordin D, Mohammad AW, Benamor A, Hilal N. Effect of membrane performance including fouling on cost optimization in brackish water desalination process. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2017;117:401-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.10.041
  31. Suarez A, Fernandez P, Iglesias JR, Iglesias E, Riera FA. Cost assessment of membrane processes: A practical example in the dairy wastewater reclamation by reverse osmosis. J. Membrane Sci. 2015;493:389-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.04.065
  32. Sethi S, Wiesner MR. Cost modeling and estimation of crossflow membrane filtration processes. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2000;17: 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2000.17.61
  33. Xu L, Shahid S, Shen J, Emanuelsson E, Patterson DA. A wide range and high resolution one-filtration molecular weight cut-off method for aqueous based nanofiltration and ultrafiltration membranes. J. Membrane Sci. 2017;525:304-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.004
  34. Mahlangu TO, Schoutteten KVKM, D'Haese A, et al. Role of permeate flux and specific membrane-foulant-solute affinity interactions (${\Delta}$ Gslm) in transport of trace organic solutes through fouled nanofiltration (NF) membranes. J. Membrane Sci. 2016;518:203-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.06.013

Cited by

  1. Consolidated vs new advanced treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern from urban wastewater vol.655, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.265
  2. 110th Anniversary: Polyamide/Metal-Organic Framework Bilayered Thin Film Composite Membranes for the Removal of Pharmaceutical Compounds from Water vol.58, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b06017
  3. Assessment of Structural and Separation Properties of a PVDF/PD Composite Membrane Incorporated with TiO2 Nanotubes and SiO2 Particles vol.60, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c06045
  4. Removal of emerging micropollutants from wastewater by nanofiltration and biofilm reactor (MicroStop) vol.40, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13587
  5. Lab experiments on hybridization of managed aquifer recharge with river water via sand column, pre-oxidation, and nanofiltration vol.287, pp.p3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132350