Next Article in Journal
Factors Influencing the Adoption of Water Conservation Technologies by Smallholder Farmer Households in Tanzania
Next Article in Special Issue
Hydrothermal Enhanced Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron Activated Peroxydisulfate Oxidation of Chloramphenicol in Aqueous Solutions: Fe-Speciation Analysis and Modeling Optimization
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Filters to Reduce Phosphorus Losses: Field Observations and Modelling Tests in Tile-Drained Lowland Catchments
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/w11122639
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Degradation of Micropollutants by UV–Chlorine Treatment in Reclaimed Water: pH Effects, Formation of Disinfectant Byproducts, and Toxicity Assay

by
Chi Wang
1,
Zhian Ying
1,
Ming Ma
1,
Mingxin Huo
1,2,3,* and
Wu Yang
1,2,3,*
1
School of Environment, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130117, China
2
Science and Technology Innovation Center for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Water Quality Protection, Jilin Province, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130117, China
3
Engineering Lab for Water Pollution Control and Resources Recovery, Jilin Province, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130117, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(12), 2639; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122639
Submission received: 7 November 2019 / Revised: 8 December 2019 / Accepted: 12 December 2019 / Published: 13 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) for Urban Wastewater Treatment and Re-use)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The utilization of reclaimed water is a reliable and sustainable approach to enhance water supply in water-deficient cities. However, the presence of micro-organic pollutants (MPs) in reclaimed water has potential adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and human health. In this study, we investigated the occurrence of 12 target MPs in the influent and reclaimed water collected from a local wastewater treatment plant, and the ultraviolet (UV)–chlorine process was applied to analyze its ability to remove MPs. The results showed that all 12 MPs were detected in both the influent and the reclaimed water, with the concentrations ranging from 25.5 to 238 ng/L and 8.6 to 42.5 ng/L, respectively. Over 52% of all the target MPs were readily degraded by the UV–chlorine process, and the removal efficiency was 7.7% to 64.2% higher than the corresponding removal efficiency by chlorination or UV irradiation only. The degradation efficiency increased with the increasing initial chlorine concentration. The pH value had a slight influence on the MP degradation and exhibited different trends for different MPs. The formation of known disinfectant byproducts (DBPs) during the UV–chlorine process was 33.8% to 68.4% of that in the chlorination process, but the DBPs’ formation potentials were 1.3 to 2.2 times higher. The toxicity assay indicated that UV–chlorine can effectively reduce the toxicity of reclaimed water.

1. Introduction

China, the largest developing country and one of the most important economic entities in the world, faces increasingly serious water scarcity and water pollution problems. In order to solve these problems, the State Council of China promulgated and implemented the Action Plan for Prevention and Treatment of Water Pollution in 2015. According to the plan, the utilization rate of reclaimed water, which has been proven as a reliable, safe, and sustainable approach to enhance water supply security [1] in water-deficient cities, should reach above 20% by 2020. Reclaimed water is encouraged to be used for landscaping, industrial purposes, agricultural irrigation, and even as a source to replenish groundwater in China, depending on the level of treatment [2,3,4,5]. According to the annual statistical yearbook for urban construction, 4.92 × 1010 m3 wastewater was discharged, more than 94.5% of the wastewater was treated by wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and 22.8% of the treated wastewater was used to yield reclaimed water in 2017 [6].
In past decades, the widespread occurrence of micro-organic pollutants (MPs) has been documented in the aquatic environment, such as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) [7,8,9,10,11]. The presence of EDCs and PPCPs in the aquatic environment has received great attention because of their potential adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and human health [12,13]. Various engineering techniques, such as bioprocesses, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection, are often applied to produce reclaimed water and have been reported to be inefficient for the removal of EDCs and PPCPs [4,12,14]. A study of 9 PPCPs and 5 EDCs from 12 cities in northern China showed that all the PPCPs and EDCs were found in reclaimed water, with a maximum concentration of 470.8 ng/L [15].
The ultraviolet (UV-based advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), including UV/H2O2, UV/O3, and UV–chlorine, have gained recognition as promising approaches towards removing organic contaminates in aqueous solution through the formation of strong oxidation hydroxyl radicals (HO·). Among these AOPs, the UV/H2O2 process has been applied in full-scale water treatment plants, but excessive H2O2 is needed to reach the target efficiency because of the low molar absorption coefficient of H2O2 [16]. The UV–chlorine process has been considered as an emerging alternative to the UV/H2O2 process [17,18], because except for the HO·, reactive chlorine species (RSC) such as Cl·, Cl2·− and ClO· are also generated by the UV–chlorine process. Several studies have proven the effectiveness of the UV–chlorine process in removal of organic contaminants, such as pesticides [19], ronidazole [20], chloramphenicol [21], benzophenone [22], as well as humic acid [23]. However, most of these studies have been conducted in simulated water and do not reflect the real efficiency in real water.
So far, there is a lack of information about the application of the UV–chlorine process for removal of MPs from reclaimed water. In this study, therefore, we collected reclaimed water samples from local WWTPs and investigated the occurrence of 12 target MPs in the reclaimed water. After that, the UV–chlorine process was applied to analyze its ability to remove the target MPs. The effects of chlorine concentration and initial pH on the degradation process were investigated. The formation of disinfectant byproducts, the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of the reclaimed water before and after UV–chlorine treatment were also evaluated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Estrogen (E1), 17α-estradiol (17α-E2), 17β-estradiol (17β-E2), ethinylestradiol (EE2), estriol (E3), carbamazepine (CBZ), naproxen (NAP), clarithromycin (CLA), diclofenac (DCF), ibuprofen (IBP), bisphenol A (BPA), and indomethacin (Indo) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (USA). Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution containing 10% free chlorine, methanol, methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE), and sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3) were obtained from Aladdin (Shanghai, China). Sodium hydroxyl (NaOH) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) were supplied by Fuchen Chemical Reagent Factory (Tianjin, China). Standards of trichloromethane (TCM), dichloroacetic acid (DCAA), and trichloroacetic acid (TCAA) were purchased from Supelco (Bellefonte, PA, USA). All reagents were of at least analytical grade and were used as received. The stock solutions were prepared in Milli-Q water.

2.2. Sample Collection

Triple water samples were collected from a local wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) from 24 June 2018, to 22 July 2018. The biotreatment process for the WWTP was anaerobic–anoxic–oxic (A/A/O). Coagulation, sedimentation, and sand filtration were employed to produce reclaimed water. The collected samples were filtered through 0.45 μm membrane filters and stored at 4 °C before use. The water quality parameters are listed in Table 1.

2.3. Experimental Procedures

UV photolysis and UV–chlorine advanced oxidation experiments were conducted in a cylindrical glass reactor, the inner diameter of which was 6.0 cm, and the effective height was 30.0 cm. A low-pressure mercury UV lamp (15 W, 60 mW/cm2, Ruipu, Yangzhou, China) with an outer diameter of 3.0 cm and a height of 23.0 cm was fixed at the center of the reactor with a collimated tube. A 500 mL water sample was added into the reactor and a given volume of NaOCl solution was spiked into the sample to obtain a given initial chlorine concentration. The magnetic stirrer was used to keep the samples well mixed. The temperature was kept at 22 ± 1 °C during the experiment. After reaching a given time, the UV lamp turned off, 5 mL of the sample was used to determine the residual-free chlorine, and the other sample was quenched by the addition of Na2S2O3 and concentrated by solid-phase extraction (SPE) for analysis of MP concentration.
The chlorination was conducted in an amber glass bottle. It was simulated by adding a given volume of NaClO solution to a 500 mL sample to obtain a given initial chlorine concentration. After reaching a given time, 5 mL of the sample was used to determine the residual-free chlorine, and the other sample was quenched with the addition of Na2S2O3 and concentrated by SPE for analysis of MP concentration.
All the experiments were conducted in triplicate and the standard deviations were shown.

2.4. Solid-Phase Extraction Procedure

The SPE procedure was carried out for MP analysis by an Aqua Trace 899 automated SPE machine (GL Science, Tokyo, Japan). A 500 mL of sample was extracted by a C18 SPE cartridge (6 mL, 500 mg). The cartridge was preconditioned consecutively with 2 mL Milli-Q water, 2 mL of acetonitrile, and 2 mL of methylene dichloride. The samples passed through the cartridge at a flow rate of 10 mL/min. Then, the cartridge was rinsed with 5 mL Milli-Q water and 5 mL of hexyl hydride. The analytes absorbed on the cartridge were eluted with 4 mL of hexyl hydride at a flow rate of 3 mL/min and then dried with N2. After that, 1 mL of acetonitrile was added, vortex oscillation was used to resolve the dried analytes, and the resolved analytes were stored at 4 °C and analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) within a week.

2.5. Formation Potential of Disinfectant Byproducts

The formation potential of disinfectant byproducts was assessed as in our previous work [24]. Briefly, 100 mL water was adjusted to pH 7.0 ± 0.2 with 0.1 M NaOH or H2SO4. 20 mg/L NaOCl was added, and then incubated at 25 °C for 24 h in the dark. The residual-free chlorine was kept over 2 mg Cl2/L. Chlorine was analyzed by N, N-diethyl-p-phenylelenediamine (DPD) method at 515 nm via T6 spectrophotometer (Pgeneral, China). The reactions were halted by the addition of sodium thiosulfate solution and samples were collected for gas chromatography (GC) analysis.

2.6. Analytical Methods

In this study, a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system (HPLC-10AVP, Shimazu, Tokyo, Japan) consisting of a Waters Symmetry C18 column (50 mm × 2.1 mm, 3.5 μm particle size) was used for MP separation. The mobile phase was composed of ultrapure water (eluent A) and acetonitrile (eluent B). The following gradient was used: 0–4 min, 45% A; 4–4.2 min, 45% A to 55% A; 4.2–5.0 min, 55% A to 10% A; 5.0–7.0 min, re-equilibrate with 45% A. The flow rate of the mobile phase was 0.25 mL/min for all stages and the sample injection volume was 20 μL. Analyses were performed using Qtrap 5500 tandem mass spectrometry (Applied Biosystems Sciex, Vaughan, ON, Canada) equipped with a turbo ion spray source. Data acquisition was performed in the negative ion mode, and the optimized parameters were as follows: source temperature, 120 °C; desolvation temperature, 380 °C; capillary voltage, 3.2 kV; desolvation gas flow, 700 L/h; cone gas flow, 80 L/h. Argon (99.999%) was used as the collision gas. Quantitative analysis was performed in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode.
The overall method recoveries for the target analytes were between 78.3% and 116.1%, with a relative standard deviation of less than 13.4%. The limits of quantification of the target analytes were between 1 μg/L and 5 μg/L.
A gas chromatograph (PerkinElmer Clarus 680, Waltham, MA, USA) equipped with an electron capture detector and a DB-5 capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) was used to analyze the concentration of TCM, DCAA, and TCAA following United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methods 551.1 and 552.3, with minor modifications.

2.7. Cytotoxicity Test

For cytotoxicity assay, water samples were pretreated following the method described by Pan et al. [25], with minor modifications. Overdosed Na2SO4 was added to a 500 mL water sample and acidified to pH 0.5 with concentrated sulfuric acid, while 100 mL MtBE was used to extract the water samples. The collected organic phase was concentrated to 1 mL with rotary evaporation and then mixed with 5 mL of ethyl acetate. The mixture was then dried under a high purity nitrogen stream and the organics were solvent transferred to 20 μL of DMSO.
3-(4,5)-dimethylthiahiazo(-z-y1)-3,5-di-phenytetrazoliumromide (MTT) assay and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assay were conducted to evaluate the cytotoxicity of treated water samples. Both assays were performed on human hepatoma cell line (HepG2) cells, which were provided by the school of life science. The MTT assay was conducted following the description of our previous work [26]. As for LDH assay, the HepG2 cells were seeded and incubated in 96-well plates at 37 °C for 24 h, then exposed to the DMSO-dissolved samples for 24 h. The LDH content in the supernatants was measured using the LDH Cytotoxicity Assay Kit (KeyGEN BioTECH, Nanjing, China), according to the manufacturer’s protocol. LDH activity was determined by spectrophotometric absorbance at 490 nm.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

T-test was performed for significance analysis by using the SPSS software package (IBM SPSS statistic 23.0), and the significance was determined at the 95% confidence limit (p < 0.05)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Occurrence of Micropollutants in Reclaimed Water

Firstly, the occurrence of the target MPs, consisting of 6 EDCs (E1, 17α-E2, 17β-E2, EE2, E3, and BPA) and 6 PPCPs (CBZ, CLA, DCF, IBP, Indo, NAP), in a local water treatment plant was investigated. As can be seen from Figure 1, all the target MPs were detected not only in the influent but also in the reclaimed water. The concentrations of MPs in the influent ranged from 25.5 to 238 ng/L, and CLA, BPA, and Indo were the most abundant MPs, with relatively high concentrations (>180 ng/L). The concentrations of MPs in the influent of current work were comparable with previous studies in China [27,28], revealing a national wide usage and release of these MPs.
All the target MPs with concentrations between 8.6 and 42.5 ng/L were detected from the reclaimed water, and even the wastewater was treated by the biotreatment process followed by tertiary treatment processes (coagulation, sedimentation, and sand filtration). The removal efficiencies for the target MPs varied largely from −7% to 92.6% (p < 0.05) with secondary and tertiary treatment processes, and the results were consistent with previous work [28]. It is noted that EE2 showed negative removal efficiency (p < 0.05), probably due to the transformation from the conjugated form to the free form [29]. Except for EE2, only 27.8% of the removal efficiency was found for CBZ, which may be due to its persistence in conventional wastewater treatment processes.

3.2. Degradation of Micropollutants

Figure 2 shows the comparison of the target MPs degradation from chlorine oxidation, UV photolysis, and UV–chlorine advanced oxidation process at pH 7.0 and 10 mg/L chlorine in reclaimed water in 5 min.
Chlorine is highly selective, and its reactivity was proven to be related to the chemical structure (functional group and dissociation) of organic materials [30]. Only 2.2% CBZ was degraded by chlorination under 10 mg/L chlorine after 5 min in the present work, and the negligible chlorination efficiency of CBZ is in accordance with the results reported in different water matrices [31,32,33]. The other target MPs exhibited specific degradation efficiency values ranging from 28.2% to 77.4%, and E3 was most sensitive to chlorine.
Direct UV photolysis for MPs was ascribed to the molar absorption coefficient and quantum yield [34]. Among the target MPs, IBP exhibited the highest degradation percentage of 68.4% by UV photolysis. 5 MPs, including 17β-E2, E3, BPA, CBZ, and CLA, showed degradation percentage of lower than 20%, and negligible photolysis efficiency was found for CBZ.
Over 52% of all the 12 target MPs were readily degraded when UV–chlorine advanced oxidation process was used, and the removal efficiency was 7.7%–64.2% higher than the corresponding removal efficiency by chlorination or UV irradiation only. Especially, the degradation of CBZ, which was resistant to both chlorination and UV irradiation, was enhanced to 52.1%, which was 50.1% higher than the corresponding combined removal efficiency by chlorination and UV irradiation. As mentioned above, both chlorination and UV irradiation are selective, and the reactivity relates to the properties (chemical structure, molar absorption coefficient, and quantum yield) of organic materials, which result in low degradation efficiency for some MPs. Potent nonselective oxidizing agents, including OH· and Cl·, can be generated during the UV–chlorine process [31], which can react with MPs and result in the significant enhancement of removal efficiency. Based on the above results, it is suggested that the UV–chlorine treatment has potential practical application in removal of MPs from real reclaimed water.

3.3. Effect of Initial Chlorine Concentration

Figure 3 shows the degradation efficiency of MPs from UV–chlorine processes at pH 7.0 in reclaimed water after 5 min with different initial concentrations of chlorine. Overall, the degradation efficiency for all the MPs increased with the increasing initial chlorine concentration. This is because chlorine is the primary source of the production of radicals, such as OH· and Cl·, which accounts for MP degradation. On the other hand, as mentioned above, chlorine itself could oxidize MPs to some extent. Hence, the higher initial concentration of chlorine resulted in higher MP degradation efficiency.
It should be noted that remarkably increased degradation efficiencies (5.1%–43.1%) were found when the initial concentration of chlorine increased from 5 to 10 mg/L, and the degradation efficiencies increased only 1.7%–6.4% when the initial concentration of chlorine increased from 10 to 20 mg/L. This trend is consistent with previous works when the UV–chlorine process was applied to degrade chloramphenicol [21] and six typical pesticides [19]. This phenomenon is presumably because when the chlorine concentration was lower than an optimal value, increasing the chlorine concentration promoted the production of OH·. However, when the initial chlorine concentration was higher than an optimal value, excessive chlorine could act as a radical scavenger and UV filter [21]. This result is also supported by the mathematical model calculation, which predicts a 30% increase in net OH· production at pH 6.5 and no increase at pH 8.0 when the chlorine dose increases from 5 mg/L to 10 mg/L [35]. Therefore, there was a limited increase in MP degradation efficiencies when the initial concentration of chlorine increased from 5 to 10 mg/L.

3.4. Effect of pH

According to the local WWTP’s regular monitoring data, the pH value of the reclaimed water was 7.0 ± 0.7. As an essential environmental factor, the pH can affect the formation of free radicals and the ionization of organic pollutants. Thus, in the present work, the effects of pH on MP degradation by UV–chlorine were conducted at pH 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0, with 10 mg/L chlorine in reclaimed water over 5 min. The results are shown in Figure 4. Generally, the pH had a slight influence on the MP degradation, and with increasing pH from 6.0 to 8.0, the degradation of 7 MPs decreased, including 6 estrogens and CBZ, while 4 MPs increased, including CLA, DCF, IBP, and Indo. The pH had a negligible influence on the degradation of NAP. Previous studies demonstrated that lower concentrations of OH· and Cl· but a higher concentration of ClO· formed at higher pH levels [21,31,33]. With increasing pH, the decreasing concentrations of OH· and Cl· could be responsible for the decreased removal efficiencies of the 7 MPs, while the enhancement of ClO· could contribute to the accelerated degradation of MPs, such as CLA, DCF, IBP, and Indo.

3.5. DBP Formation

The formation of chlorinated DBPs, such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), is of concern in the water treatment process when chlorine is applied. The known DBPs’ yields in the chlorine oxidation and UV–chlorine process were evaluated.
Previous works reported that the UV–chlorine process could significantly increase the formation of DBPs, including THMs and HAAs, not only in commercial organic matter samples [36] but also in river water samples [37]. Different results were found in our work. After reacting at an initial chlorine concentration of 10 mg/L during the UV–chlorine process for 5 min, the formation amounts of TCM, TCAA, and DCAA were 7.6, 6.5, and 3.2 μg/L, respectively, which were 33.8%–68.4% of those formed during chlorination alone. The lower DBPs yields during the UV–chlorine process may contribute to the faster chlorine consumption by UV photolysis, which leads to the reduction of free chlorine available for the reactions with DBP precursors in reclaimed water. The residual chlorine values were 4.26 and 1.06 mg/L for chlorination and UV–chlorine process. On the other hand, the formation of HO· in the UV–chlorine process can inhibit the reaction of chlorine with DBP precursors because of the nonselectivity of HO· oxidation, leading to lower DBP formation.
Though the yields of DBPs in the UV–chlorine process were much lower than in the chlorine oxidation process, the DBP formation potential showed a reverse trend. The formation potentials of TCM, TCAA, and DCAA were 75.2, 46.8, and 27.4 μg/L with UV–chlorine pretreatment, which were 1.3 to 2.2 times higher than those with only chlorine pretreatment following post-chlorination. This phenomenon can be explained by the formation of HO· during the UV–chlorine process, and HO· is known to readily react with DBP precursors in water through either hydrogen abstraction from the C-H bond or addition to the C=C bond and C=O bond, which are conjugated with aromatic rings [38]. After HO· exposure, precursors that carry electron-donating groups generated products that were much more reactive toward electrophilic halogenation [39], leading to more DBP formation.

3.6. Cytotoxicity

Figure 5 shows the HepG2 cell death percentage according to MTT assay. One can readily see that the cell death percentage for the control incubation was about 15.1%, and the cell death percentage increased to 20.1% (p < 0.03, p value means significant difference between “target” and “normal”) when the cells were exposed to the extract of the reclaimed water, which means the reclaimed water produced from the WWTP water exhibited toxicity. The chlorine oxidation, UV photolysis, and UV–chlorine advanced oxidation processes can effectively reduce the toxicity of reclaimed water to a comparable level of the control incubation. From the perspective of LDH release, as can be seen from Figure 6, the extract of the water samples can significantly induce the LDH release, which means the water samples exhibited toxicity. The LDH release increased to 145.5% (p < 0.04, p is the significant difference in comparison with the control group) of the control cells when the cells were exposed to the reclaimed water extract. However, when the chlorine oxidation and UV–chlorine oxidation processes were applied, the LDH release levels decreased to 135.4% and 120.9% (p < 0.05, p is the significant difference in comparison with the control group) of the control cells, respectively. The results indicate that although the reclaimed water exhibits toxicity, the UV–chlorine can effectively reduce the toxicity.

4. Conclusions

In summary, dozens to hundreds of ng/L of the 12 target MPs were detected from the influent of the local water treatment plant. Even after being treated by the combination of bio- and tertiary treatment processes, 8.6 to 42.5 ng/L of the 12 MPs were detected in the reclaimed water. Due to the formation of nonselective oxidizing radicals, the MPs removal efficiency was significantly enhanced by the UV–chlorine process. The higher initial concentration of chlorine resulted in higher MP degradation efficiency. With increasing pH from 6.0 to 8.0, the degradation of 7 MPs decreased, while 4 MPs increased. The pH had a negligible influence on the degradation of NAP. Lower amounts of known DBPs formed during the UV–chlorine process than in the chlorination process, however, the DBP formation potentials for the UV–chlorine process were 1.3 to 2.2 times higher than in the chlorination process. The UV–chlorine process can effectively reduce the toxicity of reclaimed water.

Author Contributions

C.W. and Z.Y. conceived and designed the experiments. C.W. and M.M. performed the experiments. C.W., W.Y., and M.H. analyzed the data. W.Y. contributed analysis tools. C.W. and W.Y. wrote the paper.

Funding

PThis research was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2412019FZ020) and Shandong Key Laboratory of Water Pollution Control and Resource Reuse (Grant No. 2019KF07)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Xueqing Ba of school of life science, Northeast Normal University for supporting us in the cytotoxicity experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Burgess, J.; Meeker, M.; Minton, J.; O’Donohue, M. International Research Agency Perspectives on Potable Water Reuse. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2015, 1, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Lavrnic, S.; Zapater-Pereyra, M.; Mancini, M.L. Water Scarcity and Wastewater Reuse Standards in Southern Europe: Focus on Agriculture. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Martínez-Piernas, A.B.; Plaza-Bolaños, P.; Fernández-Ibáñez, P.; Agüera, A. Organic Microcontaminants in Tomato Crops Irrigated with Reclaimed Water Grown under Field Conditions: Occurrence, Uptake, and Health Risk Assessment. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 6930–6939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Park, S.; Lee, W. Removal of selected pharmaceuticals and personal care products in reclaimed water during simulated managed aquifer recharge. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 640, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Wilcox, J.; Nasiri, F.; Bell, S.; Rahman, M.S. Urban Water Reuse: A Triple Bottom Line Assessment Framework and Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lyu, S.; Chen, W.; Zhang, W.; Fan, Y.; Jiao, W. Wastewater reclamation and reuse in China: Opportunities and challenges. J. Environ. Sci. China 2016, 39, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Estévez, E.; Cabrera, M.D.C.; Molina-Díaz, A.; Robles-Molina, J.; Palacios-Díaz, M.D.P. Screening of emerging contaminants and priority substances (2008/105/EC) in reclaimed water for irrigation and groundwater in a volcanic aquifer (Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 433, 538–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gavrilescu, M.; Demnerová, K.; Aamand, J.; Agathos, S.; Fava, F. Emerging pollutants in the environment: Present and future challenges in biomonitoring, ecological risks and bioremediation. New Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hayati, B.; Maleki, A.; Najafi, F.; Gharibi, F.; McKay, G.; Gupta, V.K.; Harikaranahalli Puttaiah, S.; Marzban, N. Heavy metal adsorption using PAMAM/CNT nanocomposite from aqueous solution in batch and continuous fixed bed systems. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 346, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, Y.; Hu, W.; Cao, Z.; Fu, X.; Zhu, T. Occurrence of endocrine-disrupting compounds in reclaimed water from Tianjin, China. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2005, 383, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ma, W.; Sun, J.; Li, Y.; Lun, X.; Shan, D.; Nie, C.; Liu, M. 17α-Ethynylestradiol biodegradation in different river-based groundwater recharge modes with reclaimed water and degradation-associated community structure of bacteria and archaea. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 64, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Tran, N.H.; Reinhard, M.; Gin, K.Y. Occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants in municipal wastewater treatment plants from different geographical regions-a review. Water Res. 2017, 133, 182–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lin, T.; Yu, S.; Chen, W. Occurrence, removal and risk assessment of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) in an advanced drinking water treatment plant (ADWTP) around Taihu Lake in China. Chemosphere 2016, 152, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Santos, J.L.; Aparicio, I.; Alonso, E. Occurrence and risk assessment of pharmaceutically active compounds in wastewater treatment plants. A case study: Seville city (Spain). Environ. Int. 2007, 33, 596–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Li, K.; Zeng, Z.; Yana, L.; Luo, S.; Luo, X.; Huo, M.; Guo, Y. Fabrication of platinum-deposited carbon nitride nanotubes by a one-step solvothermal treatment strategy and their efficient visible-light photocatalytic activity. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2015, 165, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Watts, M.J.; Linden, K.G. Chlorine photolysis and subsequent OH radical production during UV treatment of chlorinated water. Water Res. 2007, 41, 2871–2878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Miklos, D.; Wang, W.; Linden, K.G.; Drewes, J.E.; Hubner, U. Comparison of UV-AOPs (UV/H2O2, UV/PDS and UV/Chlorine) for TOrC removal from municipal wastewater effluent and optical surrogate model evaluation. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 362, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guo, K.; Wu, Z.; Yan, S.; Yao, B.; Song, W.; Hua, Z.; Zhang, X.; Kong, X.; Li, X.; Fang, J. 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. 2018, 147, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, L.; Zhang, Z. Degradation of six typical pesticides in water by VUV/UV/chlorine process: Evaluation of the synergistic effect. Water Res. 2019, 161, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zou, X.; Lin, Y.; Xu, B.; Zhang, T.; Hu, C.; Cao, T.; Chu, W.; Pan, Y.; Gao, N. Enhanced ronidazole degradation by UV-LED/chlorine compared with conventional low-pressure UV/chlorine at neutral and alkaline pH values. Water Res. 2019, 160, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dong, H.; Qiang, Z.; Hu, J.; Qu, J. Degradation of chloramphenicol by UV/chlorine treatment: Kinetics, mechanism and enhanced formation of halonitromethanes. Water Res. 2017, 121, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jia, X.; Jin, J.; Gao, R.; Feng, T.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Li, A. Degradation of benzophenone-4 in a UV/chlorine disinfection process: Mechanism and toxicity evaluation. Chemosphere 2019, 222, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gao, Z.-C.; Lin, Y.-L.; Xu, B.; Xia, Y.; Hu, C.-Y.; Zhang, T.-Y.; Cao, T.-C.; Chu, W.-H.; Gao, N.-Y. Effect of UV wavelength on humic acid degradation and disinfection by-product formation during the UV/chlorine process. Water Res. 2019, 154, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wang, X.; Liu, Z.; Wang, C.; Ying, Z.; Fan, W.; Yang, W. Occurrence and formation potential of nitrosamines in river water and ground water along the Songhua River, China. J. Environ. Sci. China 2016, 50, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pan, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wagner, E.D.; Osiol, J.; Plewa, M.J. Boiling of simulated tap water: Effect on polar brominated disinfection byproducts, halogen speciation, and cytotoxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhu, X.; Wu, G.; Lu, N.; Yuan, X.; Li, B. A miniaturized electrochemical toxicity biosensor based on graphene oxide quantum dots/carboxylated carbon nanotubes for assessment of priority pollutants. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 324, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yuan, X.; Qiang, Z.; Ben, W.; Zhu, B.; Qu, J. Distribution, mass load and environmental impact of multiple-class pharmaceuticals in conventional and upgraded municipal wastewater treatment plants in East China. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2015, 17, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ben, W.; Zhu, B.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, M.; Qiang, Z. Occurrence, removal and risk of organic micropollutants in wastewater treatment plants across China: Comparison of wastewater treatment processes. Water Res. 2018, 130, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ashfaq, M.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, W.; Wang, H.; Chen, X.; Wu, W.; Huang, Z.; Yu, C.; Sun, Q. Occurrence, fate, and mass balance of different classes of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in an anaerobic-anoxic-oxic wastewater treatment plant in Xiamen, China. Water Res. 2017, 123, 655–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Deborde, M.; von Gunten, U. Reactions of chlorine with inorganic and organic compounds during water treatment—Kinetics and mechanisms: A critical review. Water Res. 2008, 42, 13–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, W.-L.; Wu, Q.-Y.; Huang, N.; Wang, T.; Hu, H.-Y. Synergistic effect between UV and chlorine (UV/chlorine) on the degradation of carbamazepine: Influence factors and radical species. Water Res. 2016, 98, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Soufan, M.; Deborde, M.; Delmont, A.; Legube, B. Aqueous chlorination of carbamazepine: Kinetic study and transformation product identification. Water Res. 2013, 47, 5076–5087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yang, X.; Sun, J.; Fu, W.; Shang, C.; Li, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gan, W.; Fang, J. PPCP degradation by UV/chlorine treatment and its impact on DBP formation potential in real waters. Water Res. 2016, 98, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wols, B.A.; Hofmancaris, C.H.M. Review of photochemical reaction constants of organic micropollutants required for UV advanced oxidation processes in water. Water Res. 2012, 46, 2815–2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, C.; Moore, N.; Bircher, K.; Andrews, S.; Hofmann, R. Full-scale comparison of UV/H2O2 and UV/Cl2 advanced oxidation: The degradation of micropollutant surrogates and the formation of disinfection byproducts. Water Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, W.-L.; Zhang, X.; Wu, Q.-Y.; Du, Y.; Hu, H.-Y. Degradation of natural organic matter by UV/chlorine oxidation: Molecular decomposition, formation of oxidation byproducts and cytotoxicity. Water Res. 2017, 124, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, D.; Bolton, J.R.; Andrews, S.A.; Hofmann, R. Formation of disinfection by-products in the ultraviolet/chlorine advanced oxidation process. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 518, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, G.; Liao, C.H.; Chen, H.W.; Yang, H.C. Characteristics of Natural Organic Matter Degradation in Water by UV/H2O2 Treatment. Environ. Technol. 2006, 27, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhao, Q.; Shang, C.; Zhang, X.; Ding, G.; Yang, X. Formation of halogenated organic byproducts during medium-pressure UV and chlorine coexposure of model compounds, NOM and bromide. Water Res. 2011, 45, 6545–6554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 11 02639 g001 550
Figure 1. The concentrations of micro-organic pollutants (MPs) in the influent and reclaimed water of the local wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
Figure 1. The concentrations of micro-organic pollutants (MPs) in the influent and reclaimed water of the local wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
Water 11 02639 g001
Water 11 02639 g002 550
Figure 2. The micro-organic pollutant (MP) removal efficiency under different treatments.
Figure 2. The micro-organic pollutant (MP) removal efficiency under different treatments.
Water 11 02639 g002
Water 11 02639 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of initial concentrations of chlorine on the degradation efficiency of MPs from UV–chlorine processes.
Figure 3. Effect of initial concentrations of chlorine on the degradation efficiency of MPs from UV–chlorine processes.
Water 11 02639 g003
Water 11 02639 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of pH on the degradation efficiency of MPs from UV–chlorine processes.
Figure 4. Effect of pH on the degradation efficiency of MPs from UV–chlorine processes.
Water 11 02639 g004
Water 11 02639 g005 550
Figure 5. The human hepatoma cell line (HepG2) cell death percentage for the extract of different water samples (raw = reclaimed water; UV = reclaimed water treated by UV photolysis; chlorine = reclaimed water treated by chlorine oxidation; UV–chlorine = reclaimed water treated by UV–chlorine oxidation).
Figure 5. The human hepatoma cell line (HepG2) cell death percentage for the extract of different water samples (raw = reclaimed water; UV = reclaimed water treated by UV photolysis; chlorine = reclaimed water treated by chlorine oxidation; UV–chlorine = reclaimed water treated by UV–chlorine oxidation).
Water 11 02639 g005
Water 11 02639 g006 550
Figure 6. The lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release for the extract of different water samples (raw = reclaimed water; UV = reclaimed water treated by UV photolysis; chlorine = reclaimed water treated by chlorine oxidation; UV–chlorine = reclaimed water treated by UV–chlorine oxidation.).
Figure 6. The lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release for the extract of different water samples (raw = reclaimed water; UV = reclaimed water treated by UV photolysis; chlorine = reclaimed water treated by chlorine oxidation; UV–chlorine = reclaimed water treated by UV–chlorine oxidation.).
Water 11 02639 g006
Table
Table 1. The water parameters of the local WWTP.
Table 1. The water parameters of the local WWTP.
ParametersInfluentReclaimed Water
pH7.2 ± 0.2 *7.1 ± 0.2
UV254 (cm−1) **0.26 ± 0.040.06 ± 0.01
NH3-N (mg/L)25.2 ± 3.62.6 ± 0.2
Total phosphorus (mg/L)2.8 ± 0.20.4 ± 0.1
COD (mg/L)240 ± 1640 ± 5
* Standard deviation, ** the UV absorbance at 254 nm.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, C.; Ying, Z.; Ma, M.; Huo, M.; Yang, W. Degradation of Micropollutants by UV–Chlorine Treatment in Reclaimed Water: pH Effects, Formation of Disinfectant Byproducts, and Toxicity Assay. Water 2019, 11, 2639. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122639

AMA Style

Wang C, Ying Z, Ma M, Huo M, Yang W. Degradation of Micropollutants by UV–Chlorine Treatment in Reclaimed Water: pH Effects, Formation of Disinfectant Byproducts, and Toxicity Assay. Water. 2019; 11(12):2639. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122639

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Chi, Zhian Ying, Ming Ma, Mingxin Huo, and Wu Yang. 2019. "Degradation of Micropollutants by UV–Chlorine Treatment in Reclaimed Water: pH Effects, Formation of Disinfectant Byproducts, and Toxicity Assay" Water 11, no. 12: 2639. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11122639

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop