Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Nowadays, the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in sewage/wastewater is a major environmental concern. Their precise characterization and suitable treatment/disposal is a must else it pollutes the surface water bodies and causes major distress on aquatic lives and human health. Also, the up-gradation of the sewage/wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is a must to consider the removal of these pollutants and to provide the best quality effluent for various reuse purposes. Mostly, the conventional treatment methods are inefficient for their removal, and hence, the most advanced and refined treatment options are needed for their effective treatment. In this chapter, we have highlighted the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in various water samples and their treatment options are reviewed. It was recommended that integrated treatment systems are more efficient, economical, and environmental friendly than single stand-alone treatment. Further advancement and modifications in the treatment options are required to overcome the shortcomings regarding pharmaceutical removal to achieve the legal standard discharge limit.
Department of Civil Engineering, Z.H. College of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
Izharul Haq Farooqi
Department of Civil Engineering, Z.H. College of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
*Address all correspondence to: msmahtab@zhcet.ac.in
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the problems associated with the widespread occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment have been recognized as an emerging environmental issue [1, 2, 3]. The increasing usage of pharmaceuticals and their improper discharge is one of the major environmental concerns. Pharmaceuticals are a large and diverse group of compounds designed to prevent, cure, and treat disease and improve health. Their usage and consumption are increasing consistently due to the discoveries of new drugs, the expanding population, etc. [2, 3]. After intake, these pharmaceutically active compounds undergo metabolic processes in the organism. Significant fractions of the parent compound are excreted in un-metabolized form into raw sewage and wastewater treatment systems. The most commonly occurring pharmaceuticals in the environment are given in Table 1 [4]. Thus, body metabolization and excretion followed by wastewater treatment are considered to be the primary pathway of pharmaceuticals to the environment [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7]. Disposal of drug leftovers into sewage and trash is another source of entry [8]. In addition, sewer leaking [9], sewer overflow [10], and surface runoff [11] are also considered as additional sources contributing to the presence of pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment [5].
Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), diclofenac, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, naproxen, and phenazone
5.
Beta-blockers
Metoprolol, propranolol, nadolol, and atenolol
6.
Diuretics
Furosemide
7.
Lipid regulators
Bezafibrate, gemfibrozil, clofibric acid, and fenofibrate
8.
Steroids and related hormones
17-β-estradiol, estrone, and diethylstilbestrol
9.
Tranquilizers
Diazepam
Table 1.
Some common pharmaceuticals are found in the environment [4].
Their detection techniques and proper characterization are relatively difficult which required distinctive procedures and sophisticated instruments due to their low concentration levels in different environmental matrices [7, 11, 12]. Several studies investigated the occurrence and distribution of pharmaceuticals in soil irrigated with reclaimed water [13, 14] and soil that received biosolids from urban sewage treatment plants [15, 16]. These studies confirmed that the conventional systems are not enough to completely remove such micro-pollutants from wastewater and sludge, and as a result, they find their way into the environment [17]. Once entered the environment, pharmaceutically active compounds can produce subtle effects on aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Therefore, the occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds and the extent to which they can be eliminated during wastewater treatment have become the active subject matter of actual research [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
Domestic sewage is relatively simple to treat with conventional methods due to the absence of any recalcitrant compounds. The conventional treatment options are widely applicable for their effective treatment [1, 18, 19, 20]. The sewage/wastewater treatment plants are generally not designed to consider the specific pharmaceuticals, emerging compounds, etc., during the treatment. Hence, their presence in the sewage water is very problematic for the treatment performance of the plant [1, 5, 6, 7, 21]. Furthermore, the presence of pharmaceuticals in the effluents of sewage/wastewater treatment plants is very toxic in many ways to the soil and surrounding water bodies [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 21]. To overcome the abovementioned problems, firstly, we have to stop the improper disposal of pharmaceuticals and their proper monitoring/collection system should be designed [3]. The accurate characterization and suitable treatment options should be provided to obtain the legal effluent discharge standards. The constant discharge of various pharmaceuticals into the water bodies and their persistent nature and bioaccumulation potential cause serious effects to aquatic lives and human health [21, 22, 23]. Therefore, in this chapter, we have highlighted the occurrence and some of the removal techniques specifically for the pharmaceuticals from sewage/wastewater. The scope for future research directions is also highlighted in the conclusion part.
2. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals in sewage/wastewater
The huge variation in the concentrations of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) was observed due to various factors viz. environmental persistency, dilution, treatment efficiency [21, 24, 25]. In some studies, the reported amounts of pharmaceuticals are estimated to be 5.6, 2.0, and 0.4 g/day/1000 equivalent inhabitants [1, 21]. In one of the studies, the highest levels at the influent of WWTPs were observed for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were expected due to their high consumption [1]. Lower but still significant levels of lipid-modifying agents (7–12%), diuretics (8–10%), and beta-blockers (5–9%) were detected entering the WWTPs [1]. Atenolol and carbamazepine were quantified in the influent samples of WWTPs in average concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 1.4 mg/L [1]. The amount found in effluent or sludge depended on the removal efficiency of the plant and/or the physicochemical properties of the compounds. In the effluent waters, NSAIDs were present in the highest percentage (35–44%), followed by the lipid-modifying agents (8–29%) and psychiatric drugs (17–30%) [1]. The highest concentrations in the effluents were found for naproxen, diclofenac, and carbamazepine [1].
It has been reported that from the list of detected samples of the emerging contaminants about 70% are PACs and personal care products (PCPs) [26]. Globally, more than 200 PhACs have been reported in river waters with a maximum concentration of 6 mg/L for ciprofloxacin antibiotics [27]. Similarly, tamoxifen was detected in the range of 25–38 ng/L [28]. Also, the concentrations of antibiotics, hormones, antidepressants, and chemotherapy drugs range from 0.04 to 6.3 μg/L [29]. Out of the various sources of the PhACs into the environment, the domestic discharge and effluents of the manufacturing units of pharmaceuticals are well-thought-out major sources [22]. Various categories for the occurrence of the PhACs have been reported viz. wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), wastewater, sewage, sewage sludge, groundwater, surface water, and drinking water [24, 30, 31]. So, WWTPs are considered as one of the prominent anthropogenic sources emitting pharmaceuticals into the environment along with industrial discharges, hospital effluents, etc. [22, 25]. Furthermore, the inefficient management and treatments of PhACs risk the prospect of sustainable reuse of treated wastewater and sludge [21]. Figure 1 shows the flowchart showing PhACs pathways in the environment [30, 31].
Figure 1.
Flowchart showing PhACs pathways in the environment [30, 31].
3. Removal of pharmaceuticals from sewage/wastewater
It was well recognized in the literature that the conventional biological treatment systems alone are not sufficient enough to completely remove the pharmaceuticals and therefore, some additional steps are required for their proper treatment. It was reported that among the conventional activated sludge process (ASP) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems, the MBR system appeared to have a higher removal efficiency for many of the pharmaceuticals [1, 32]. On the other hand, carbamazepine and hydrochlorothiazide showed poor removal efficiencies in either ASP or MBR systems [1, 32]. O’Brien et al. [33] have found that compounds such as atenolol, carbamazepine, and ibuprofen appeared to be persistent in the sewer system. It was recommended to use a composite sampling approach in wastewater treatment plants [5, 33]. The superior performance of MBR in the removal of some target pharmaceuticals is due to the result of the higher biomass concentration, longer solid retention time (SRT), and better-retaining capacity of solids and microbes [32, 34]. On the other hand, the integration approach of membrane technology is called electrochemical membrane bioreactors (EMBR). It was observed that EMBRs are more efficient with low energy consumptions as compared to MBRs and ASPs [21, 35]. But the common problem with the advanced technologies is their limited applications only at laboratory and pilot scales. Besides, membrane fouling, high energy demand, and costly membrane materials are some limitations of MBRs, which need to be overcome for their extensive full-scale applications [21].
The term removal of pharmaceuticals used here means the conversion of the parent compound. Thus, the overall removal refers to the losses of a parent compound by different mechanisms of chemical and physical transformation, biodegradation, and sorption to solid matter [1]. The most analyzed carbamazepine showed very low removal (<25%) regardless of the treatment applied [32]. The pharmaceuticals removal efficiencies are based on the characteristics of the wastewater, treatment types used, and other operational conditions [1, 21]. The addition of the occasional tertiary treatment improves the removal efficiencies of the pharmaceuticals. The lower removal efficiency of diclofenac was reported in some studies [1, 36, 37]. Better performances of WWTP may be due to longer both hydraulic and solid retention times. As a compound spends more time in reactors wherein bacteria growth is promoted, the biological transformation may occur to a greater extent [38]. It has been proven that longer SRT, especially, improves the elimination of most of the pharmaceuticals during sewage treatment [1, 39].
A variety of treatment techniques for pharmaceuticals removal have been considered in the past studies such as natural, conventional and advanced treatment approaches. Dilution, volatilization, photolysis, sorption, biodegradation, etc., are cost-effective and natural processes [21]. However, the natural processes are proved less efficient [22]. On the other hand, the conventional approaches viz. adsorption, ozonation, membrane filtration, showed high pharmaceuticals removal efficacies [23]. But these approaches are having some disadvantages like oxidation by-products formation in the ozonation process may be more toxic than the parent compounds, and high operational costs in addition to the concentrate disposal are required in the membrane filtration process [25]. The widespread applications of various advanced treatment approaches viz. advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), constructed wetlands, bioelectrical systems, enzymatic treatment, have been recommended in the past few years [21]. Also, the up-gradation of the conventional WWTPs might further minimize the environmental release of the various pharmaceuticals [21, 23, 40]. Although the AOPs are considered one of the most effective treatment options for a variety of pharmaceuticals removal, their full-scale applications are still limited due to the number of challenges [18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 41].
The WWTPs generally considered the primary, secondary, and sometimes tertiary treatment stages. The pharmaceuticals entered into the plants undergo several treatment stages, and their fraction is degraded/removed [21, 24, 42]. In the secondary stage, the pharmaceuticals are subjected to several processes such as biodegradation, sorption, dispersion, dilution, photodegradation, and volatilization [21, 22, 24]. Likewise, the tertiary treatment steps are reported to exhibit significant pharmaceuticals removal efficiency via ozonation-like conventional oxidation processes [21, 43, 44].
The importance of the tertiary treatment in the WWTPs is versatile as it supplements the secondary treatment and those pollutants that are not removed in the second stage are removed in the tertiary stage. Several advanced technologies are employed to remove the pharmaceuticals in the WWTPs themselves to produce high-quality effluent for reuse purposes [21, 44, 45]. Among the tertiary treatment, AOPs have been considered that oxidize/mineralize the various pharmaceuticals and their by-products to CO2, H2O, and simple inorganic ions [18, 21]. The various types are AOPs are now widely applied for various applications of high strength and pharmaceuticals removal viz. Fenton process, Photo-Fenton process, Electro-Fenton process, Sono-Fenton process, ozonation process, UV-based treatment [21, 46]. Also, a range of commercially available adsorbents, such as activated carbon (AC), biochar, carbon nanotubes, clay minerals, are used for the adsorption of various pharmaceuticals [21, 47]. The usages of AC for a broad-spectrum pharmaceutical adsorption were found most suitable due to reduced interference from the organic materials for the adsorption active sites [21, 48]. The adsorption efficiency depends on the types of PhACs, properties of AC, and other environmental conditions [21, 24].
Among the mentioned options, ozonation and AC treatment are found to be the economically feasible option and utilized in some WWTPs [21, 25]. The main reactive species in AOPs for the degradation/mineralization of the pharmaceuticals are hydroxyl radicals (OH•) and the number of parallel reactions is reported in their mechanism [18, 19, 20, 49, 50]. The suitability of the various adoption of the AOPs is mainly based on wastewater characteristics, recalcitrant nature of the target compounds, available resources, and economic conditions [50]. It was well recognized in the literature that the integrated processes are more efficient and environmental friendly [18, 50]. A very high removal efficiency (>95%) of diclofenac, carbamazepine, sulpiride, at an ozone dose of 5 mg/L, was observed [51]. All the AOPs are having their limitations/disadvantages as well; hence, the suitable/optimized treatment options should be designed and implemented to achieve the target removal efficacies etc. [18, 41, 50]. Some of the disadvantages of the Fenton process are low-working pH requirement and high sludge production, the chances of the pharmaceuticals accumulate in the iron sludge produced after the treatment [41]. On the other hand, when the applied ozone dosages are inadequate, it will result in the formation of transformation products [18], and the toxicity can further be reduced by a subsequent biological treatment [21, 52]. The combined approach of the ozonation-biological process is found most efficient for the removal of pharmaceuticals from secondary urban wastewater [21, 52, 53]. Currently, many treatment technologies are available as mentioned in Table 2 [54, 55].
This chapter provides a brief overview regarding the problems associated with the pharmaceuticals present in the sewage/wastewater and their suitable treatment options. From the literature, it was understood that the problems related to the emerging contaminants and particularly for the pharmaceuticals are of great concern and require specific attention to protecting the environment and public health. Out of the various categories of pharmaceuticals, different treatment options are required and one single option is not sufficient to remove all the types of pharmaceuticals. The challenges associated with their accurate analysis, detection, and extraction due to their low concentration are also an important domain for further research. Regarding the treatment options in various studies, it was reported that the integrated processes are more advantageous in many ways for pharmaceuticals removal. For example, the post-biological treatment option after the ozonation process significantly improves the pharmaceutical removal. The other options like ASP and MBR are also considered useful but not efficient enough for their complete mineralization and removal. Also, the activated carbon-adsorption process is just a phase change mechanism system and required extensive research for further improvement. Various transformation/intermediate products are formed in AOPs treatment, hence required more advancements to remove those toxic intermediates from the water matrix. The up-gradation of the WWTPs is a very important step to improve the effluent quality considering the problems of the pharmaceuticals. The single and combined AOPs are limited to lab/pilot scale only and their full-scale applications are required, which should be focused on in future research for the best-fit alternative both economically and environmental friendly.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
1.Jelic A, Gros M, Ginebreda A, Cespedes-Sànchez R, Ventura F, Petrovic M, et al. Occurrence, partition and removal of pharmaceuticals in sewage water and sludge during wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2011;45(3):1165-1176. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.11.010
2.Husain Khan A, Abdul Aziz H, Khan NA, Ahmed S, Mehtab MS, Vambol S, et al. Pharmaceuticals of emerging concern in hospital wastewater: Removal of Ibuprofen and Ofloxacin drugs using MBBR method. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry. 2020;19:1-5. DOI: 10.1080/03067319.2020.1855333
3.Khan AH, Aziz HA, Khan NA, Hasan MA, Ahmed S, Farooqi IH, et al. Impact, disease outbreak and the eco-hazards associated with pharmaceutical residues: A Critical review. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2021;10:1-2. DOI: 10.1007/s13762-021-03158-9
4.Nikolaou A, Meric S, Fatta D. Occurrence patterns of pharmaceuticals in water and wastewater environments. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2007;387(4):1225-1234. DOI: 10.1007/s00216-006-1035-8
5.Tran NH, Gin KY. Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals, hormones, personal care products, and endocrine disrupters in a full-scale water reclamation plant. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;599:1503-1516. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.097
6.Madikizela LM, Ncube S, Chimuka L. Analysis, occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals in African water resources: A current status. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020;253:109741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109741
7.Mousel D, Bastian D, Firk J, Palmowski L, Pinnekamp J. Removal of pharmaceuticals from wastewater of health care facilities. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;751:141310. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141310
8.Ruhoy IS, Daughton CG. Beyond the medicine cabinet: An analysis of where and why medications accumulate. Environment International. 2008;34(8):1157-1169. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2008.05.002
9.Wolf L, Zwiener C, Zemann M. Tracking artificial sweeteners and pharmaceuticals introduced into urban groundwater by leaking sewer networks. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;430:8-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.059
10.Launay MA, Dittmer U, Steinmetz H. Organic micropollutants discharged by combined sewer overflows–characterisation of pollutant sources and stormwater-related processes. Water Research. 2016;104:82-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.068
11.Pedersen JA, Soliman M, Suffet IH. Human pharmaceuticals, hormones, and personal care product ingredients in runoff from agricultural fields irrigated with treated wastewater. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2005;53(5):1625-1632. DOI: 10.1021/jf049228m
12.Majumder A, Gupta AK, Ghosal PS, Varma M. A review on hospital wastewater treatment: A special emphasis on occurrence and removal of pharmaceutically active compounds, resistant microorganisms, and SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2020;22:104812. DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104812
13.Gielen GJ, van den Heuvel MR, Clinton PW, Greenfield LG. Factors impacting on pharmaceutical leaching following sewage application to land. Chemosphere. 2009;74(4):537-542. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.09.048
14.Kinney CA, Furlong ET, Werner SL, Cahill JD. Presence and distribution of wastewater-derived pharmaceuticals in soil irrigated with reclaimed water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal. 2006;25(2):317-326. DOI: 10.1897/05-187R.1
15.Carbonell G, Pro J, Gómez N, Babín MM, Fernández C, Alonso E, et al. Sewage sludge applied to agricultural soil: Ecotoxicological effects on representative soil organisms. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2009;72(4):1309-1319. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.01.007
16.Lapen DR, Topp E, Metcalfe CD, Li H, Edwards M, Gottschall N, et al. Pharmaceutical and personal care products in tile drainage following land application of municipal biosolids. Science of the Total Environment. 2008;399(1-3):50-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.02.025
17.Wick A, Fink G, Joss A, Siegrist H, Ternes TA. Fate of beta blockers and psycho-active drugs in conventional wastewater treatment. Water Research. 2009;43(4):1060-1074. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.031
18.Hussain M, Mahtab MS, Farooqi IH. The applications of ozone-based advanced oxidation processes for wastewater treatment: A review. Advances in Environmental Research. 2020;9(3):191-214. DOI: 10.12989/aer.2020.9.3.191
19.Mahtab MS, Farooqi IH, Khursheed A. Sustainable approaches to the Fenton process for wastewater treatment: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021;47(7):1480-1484. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.215
20.Hussain M, Mahtab MS, Farooqi IH. A comprehensive review of the Fenton-based approaches focusing on landfill leachate treatment. Advances in Environmental Research. 2021;10(1):59-86. DOI: 10.12989/aer.2021.10.1.059
21.Rout PR, Zhang TC, Bhunia P, Surampalli RY. Treatment technologies for emerging contaminants in wastewater treatment plants: A review. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;753:141990. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141990
22.Barbosa MO, Moreira NF, Ribeiro AR, Pereira MF, Silva AM. Occurrence and removal of organic micropollutants: An overview of the watch list of EU Decision 2015/495. Water Research. 2016;94:257-279. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.02.047
23.Pesqueira JF, Pereira MF, Silva AM. Environmental impact assessment of advanced urban wastewater treatment technologies for the removal of priority substances and contaminants of emerging concern: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;261:121078. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121078
24.Luo Y, Guo W, Ngo HH, Nghiem LD, Hai FI, Zhang J, et al. A review on the occurrence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment and their fate and removal during wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment. 2014;473:619-641. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.065
25.Rizzo L, Malato S, Antakyali D, Beretsou VG, Đolić MB, Gernjak W, et al. Consolidated vs new advanced treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern from urban wastewater. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;655:986-1008. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.265
26.Das S, Ray NM, Wan J, Khan A, Chakraborty T, Ray MB. Micropollutants in wastewater: Fate and removal processes. Physico-chemical Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery. 2017;3:75
27.Petrie B, Barden R, Kasprzyk-Hordern B. A review on emerging contaminants in wastewaters and the environment: Current knowledge, understudied areas and recommendations for future monitoring. Water Research. 2015;72:3-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.053
28.Ferrando-Climent L, Rodriguez-Mozaz S, Barceló D. Incidence of anticancer drugs in an aquatic urban system: From hospital effluents through urban wastewater to natural environment. Environmental Pollution. 2014;193:216-223. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.07.002
29.Jones OA, Voulvoulis N, Lester JN. Human pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: A review. Environmental Technology. 2001;22(12):1383-1394. DOI: 10.1080/09593332208618186
30.Balakrishna K, Rath A, Praveenkumarreddy Y, Guruge KS, Subedi B. A review of the occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in Indian water bodies. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2017;137:113-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.11.014
31.Khan SU, Rameez H, Basheer F, Farooqi IH. Eco-toxicity and health issues associated with the pharmaceuticals in aqueous environments: A global scenario. Pharmaceutical Wastewater Treatment Technologies: Concepts and Implementation Strategies. 2021:145-179. DOI: 10.2166/9781789061338
32.Radjenović J, Petrović M, Barceló D. Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment. Water Research. 2009;43(3):831-841. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.043
33.O’Brien JW, Banks AP, Novic AJ, Mueller JF, Jiang G, Ort C, et al. Impact of in-sewer degradation of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) population markers on a population model. Environmental Science & Technology. 2017;51(7):3816-3823. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02755
34.Joss A, Zabczynski S, Göbel A, Hoffmann B, Löffler D, McArdell CS, et al. Biological degradation of pharmaceuticals in municipal wastewater treatment: Proposing a classification scheme. Water Research. 2006;40(8):1686-1696. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.02.014
35.Asif MB, Maqbool T, Zhang Z. Electrochemical membrane bioreactors: State-of-the-art and future prospects. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;741:140233
36.Cirja M, Ivashechkin P, Schäffer A, Corvini PF. Factors affecting the removal of organic micropollutants from wastewater in conventional treatment plants (CTP) and membrane bioreactors (MBR). Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology. 2008;7(1):61-78. DOI: 10.1007/s11157-007-9121-8
37.Kimura K, Hara H, Watanabe Y. Elimination of selected acidic pharmaceuticals from municipal wastewater by an activated sludge system and membrane bioreactors. Environmental Science & Technology. 2007;41(10):3708-3714. DOI: 10.1021/es061684z
38.Reif R, Suárez S, Omil F, Lema JM. Fate of pharmaceuticals and cosmetic ingredients during the operation of a MBR treating sewage. Desalination. 2008;221(1-3):511-517. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.111
39.Göbel A, McArdell CS, Joss A, Siegrist H, Giger W. Fate of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in different wastewater treatment technologies. Science of the Total Environment. 2007;372(2-3):361-371. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.07.039
40.Roccaro P. Treatment processes for municipal wastewater reclamation: The challenges of emerging contaminants and direct potable reuse. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 2018;2:46-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.coesh.2018.02.003
41.Mahtab MS, Farooqi IH, Khursheed A. Zero Fenton sludge discharge: A review on reuse approach during wastewater treatment by the advanced oxidation process. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2021;13:1-4. DOI: 10.1007/s13762-020-03121-0
42.Tran NH, Reinhard M, Gin KY. Occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants in municipal wastewater treatment plants from different geographical regions—A review. Water Research. 2018;133:182-207. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.029
43.Rout PR, Bhunia P, Dash RR. Response surface optimization of phosphate removal from aqueous solution using a natural adsorbent. Trends in Asian Water Environmental Science and Technology. 2017:93-104. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39259-2_8
44.Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W, Thomaidis NS, Xu J. Progress in the biological and chemical treatment technologies for emerging contaminant removal from wastewater: A critical review. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2017;323:274-298. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.045
45.Wang J, Wang S. Removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) from wastewater: A review. Journal of Environmental Management. 2016;182:620-640. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.049
46.de Oliveira M, Frihling BE, Velasques J, Magalhães Filho FJ, Cavalheri PS, Migliolo L. Pharmaceuticals residues and xenobiotics contaminants: Occurrence, analytical techniques and sustainable alternatives for wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;705:135568. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135568
47.Rodriguez-Narvaez OM, Peralta-Hernandez JM, Goonetilleke A, Bandala ER. Treatment technologies for emerging contaminants in water: A review. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2017;323:361-380. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.04.106
48.Budimirović D, Veličković ZS, Djokić VR, Milosavljević M, Markovski J, Lević S, et al. Efficient As (V) removal by α-FeOOH and α-FeOOH/α-MnO2 embedded PEG-6-arm functionalized multiwall carbon nanotubes. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. 2017;119:75-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2017.01.010
49.Mahtab MS, Farooqi IH. UV-TiO2 process for landfill leachate treatment: Optimization by response surface methodology. International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management. 2020;5(12):14-18. DOI: 10.35291/2454-9150.2020.0160
50.Mahtab MS, Islam DT, Farooqi IH. Optimization of the process variables for landfill leachate treatment using Fenton based advanced oxidation technique. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal. 2021;24(2):428-435. DOI: 10.1016/j.jestch.2020.08.013
51.Sui Q , Huang J, Deng S, Yu G, Fan Q . Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals, caffeine and DEET in wastewater treatment plants of Beijing, China. Water Research. 2010;44(2):417-426. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.07.010
52.Knopp G, Prasse C, Ternes TA, Cornel P. Elimination of micropollutants and transformation products from a wastewater treatment plant effluent through pilot scale ozonation followed by various activated carbon and biological filters. Water Research. 2016;100:580-592. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.04.069
53.McArdell C. The first full-scale advanced ozonation plant in the Dübendorf WWTP running; the new Swiss water protection act approved. Norman Bulletin. 2015;4:36-37
54.Mahmood Q , Khan MS, Riaz N. Existing treatment—Globally in full scale plants. Pharmaceutical Wastewater Treatment Technologies: Concepts and Implementation Strategies. 2021:402-428. DOI: 10.2166/9781789061338
55.Khan NA, Ahmed S, Vambol V, Vambol S. Pharmaceutical Wastewater Treatment Technologies: Concepts and Implementation Strategies2021. DOI: 10.2166/9781789061338
Written By
Mohd Salim Mahtab and Izharul Haq Farooqi
Submitted: 12 July 2021Reviewed: 07 September 2021Published: 20 November 2021
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
