2013 Volume 7 Issue 3
Article Contents
Abstract
References
Previous Article Next Article

Wu Yinghai, Fang Jiande, Han Rui, Fang Xiaohang, Wu Yanyang, Zhang Yukui. Factors influencing removal of sulfamethazine in two substrates[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2013, 7(3): 969-974.
Citation: Wu Yinghai, Fang Jiande, Han Rui, Fang Xiaohang, Wu Yanyang, Zhang Yukui. Factors influencing removal of sulfamethazine in two substrates[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2013, 7(3): 969-974.
shu

Factors influencing removal of sulfamethazine in two substrates

  • 1.

    South China Institute of Environmental Science, Ministry of Environment Protection, Guangzhou 510655, China

  • 2.

    School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

  • 3.

    School of Environmental Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China

  • Received Date: 13/01/2013
    Accepted Date: 12/11/2012
    Available Online: 18/03/2013
    Fund Project:
  • The concentrations of sulfamethazine(SM2) in meadow soil(MS) and lateritic red soil(LRS) were monitored and their removal dynamics were studied. The influences of microorganism, ions, pH value in each substrate on removal of SM2 and their mechanisms were studied too. Shaking culture tests were carried on under three groups of experimental conditions: (a) unsterilized and sterilized substrates, (b) different types and concentrations of metal cations added substrates, (c) different pH substrates. The experimental results showed that more SM2 was removed in MS(85.4%) than in LRS(70.0%) by the 30th day. The removal rates in sterilized MS and LRS reached 37.5% and 32.5%, respectively by the 30th days. The removal rates of SM2 grew down when more ions and highly charged ions were added in two substrates. After contacted reaction sustained for 24 hours, the highest removal rates of SM2 were found at pH 5 in two substrates. The removal rates decreased rapidly at pH＞7, and were down by 13.7% and 12.1% in MS and LRS respectively at pH 9 compared with those at pH 5.
  • [1] Lamshöft M., Sukul P., Zühlke S., et al. Metabolism of 14C-labelled and non-labelled sulfadiazine after administration to pigs. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2007, 388(8): 1733-1745

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [2] Thomas L. ter Laak, Wouter A. Gebbink, Johannes Tolls. The effect of pH and ionic strength on the sorption of sulfachloropyridazine, tylosin, and oxytetracycline to soil. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2006, 25 (4): 904-911

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [3] 张雨葵, 吴英海, 张龙江, 等. 人工河岸湿地对面源污染的处理效果研究. 环境污染与防治, 2010, 32(2): 29-32Zhang Yukui, Wu Yinghai, Zhang Longjiang, et al. The treatment efficiency of constructed riparian wetland on non-point source pollution. Environmental Pollution & Control, 2010, 32(2):29-32(in Chinese)

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [4] 刘娜娜, 伍钧, 郑丹, 等. 人工湿地基质的筛选及其对猪场废水厌氧消化液中氨氮吸附性能研究. 环境工程学报, 2011, 5(4): 783-788Liu Nana, Wu Jun, Zheng Dan, et al. Study on constructed wetlands packings selection and its adsorption properties for ammonia nitrogen in digested piggery wastewater. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2011, 5(4): 783-788(in Chinese)

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [5] 徐德福, 李映雪. 不同人工湿地基质对污水总有机碳去除能力初探. 环境工程学报, 2010, 4(12): 2740-2744Xu Defu, Li Yingxue. Preliminary investigation on effect of different constructed wetland substrates on capacity of removal of TOC in wastewater. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2010, 4(12): 2740-2744(in Chinese)

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [6] Hijosa-Valsero M., Fink G., Schlüsener M.P., et al. Removal of antibiotics from urban wastewater by constructed wetland optimization. Chemosphere, 2011, 83(5): 713-719

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [7] Llorens E., Matamoros V., Domingo V., et al. Water quality improvement in a full-scale tertiary constructed wetland: Effects on conventional and specific organic contaminants. Science of the Total Environment, 2009, 407(8): 2517-2524

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [8] Lin A.Y.C., Tsai Y.T. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals in Taiwan’s surface waters: Impact of waste streams from hospitals and pharmaceutical production facilities. Science of the Total Environment, 2009, 407(12): 3793-3802

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [9] Kim Y.K., Lim S.J., Han M.H., et al. Sorption characteristics of oxytetracycline, amoxicillin, and sulfathiazole in two different soil types. Geoderma, 2012, 185-186(9): 97-101

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [10] Thiele-Bruhn S. Adsorption of the antibiotic pharmaceutical compound sulfapyridine by a long-term differently fertilized loess Chernozem. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2000, 163(6): 589-594

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [11] Thiele-Bruhn S. Pharmaceutical antibiotic compounds in soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2003, 166(2): 145-167

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [12] Kay P., Blackwell P.A., Boxall A.B. Fate of veterinary antibiotics in a macroporous tile drained clay soil. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2004, 23(5): 1136-1144

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [13] Beausse J. Selected drugs in solid matrices: A review of environmental determination, occurrence and properties of principal substances. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 2004, 23(10-11): 753-761

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [14] Boxall A.B.A., Blackwell P., Cavallo R., et al. The sorption and transport of a sulphonamide antibiotic in soil systems. Toxicology Letters, 2002, 131(1-2): 19-28

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [15] Tolls J. Sorption of veterinary pharmaceuticals in soils: A review. Environmental Science and Technology, 2001, 35(17): 3397-3406

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [16] Plosz B.G., Leknes H.K., Thomas V. Impacts of competitive inhibition, parent compound formation and partitioning behavior on the removal of antibiotics in municipal wastewater treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 2010, 44(2): 734-742

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [17] Ingerslev F., Halling-Sørensen B. Biodegradation properties of sulfonamides in activated sludge. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2000, 19(10): 2467-2473

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [18] Yang S.F., Lin C.F., Wu C.J., et al. Fate of sulfonamide antibiotics in contact with activated sludge-sorption and biodegradation. Water Research, 2012, 46(4): 1301-1308

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [19] Le-Minh N., Khan S.J., Drewes J.E., et al. Fate of antibiotics during municipal water recycling treatment processes. Water Research, 2010, 44(15): 4295-4323

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [20] Zielezny Y., Groeneweg J., Vereecken H., et al. Impact of sulfadiazine and chlorotetracycline on soil bacterial community structure and respiratory activity. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2006, 38(8): 2372-2380

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [21] Marshall A.J.H., Piddock L.J.V. Interaction of divalent cations, quinolones and bacteria. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 1994, 34(4): 465-483

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [22] Esiobu N., Armenta L., Ike J. Antibiotic resistance in soil and water environments. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 2002, 12(2): 133-144

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [23] Krieg N.R., Holt J.G. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1984

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [24] Schauss K., Focks A., Heuer H., et al. Analysis, fate and effects of the antibiotic sulfadiazine in soil ecosystems. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 2009, 28(5): 612-618

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [25] Thiele-Bruhn S., Beck I.C. Effects of sulfonamide and tetracycline antibiotics on soil microbial activity and microbial biomass. Chemosphere, 2005, 59(4): 457-465

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [26] Biak-Bielińska A., Maszkowska J., Mrozik W., et al. Sulfadimethoxine and sulfaguanidine: Their sorption potential on natural soils. Chemosphere, 2012, 86(10): 1059-1065

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [27] Gao J., Pedersen J.A. Adsorption of sulfonamide antimicrobial agents to clay minerals. Environmental Science and Technology, 2005, 39(24): 9509-9516

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [28] Zhou J.L. Sorption and remobilization behavior of 4-tert-octylphenol in aquatic systems. Environmental Science and Technology, 2006, 40(7): 2225-2234

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [29] Yang W.B., Zheng F.F., Xue X.X., et al. Investigation into adsorption mechanisms of sulfonamides onto porous adsorbents. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2011, 362 (2): 503-509

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [30] Sukul P., Lamshöft M., Zühlke S., et al. Sorption and desorption of sulfadiazine in soil and soil-manure systems. Chemosphere, 2008, 73(8): 1344-1350

    Google Scholar Pub Med

    [31] Kurwadkar S.T., Adams C.D., Meyer M.T., et al. Effects of sorbate speciation on sorption of selected sulfonamides in three loamy soils. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2007, 55(4): 1370-1376

    Google Scholar Pub Med

  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
Export Citation
PDF
XML

Article Metrics

Article views(1854) PDF downloads(1216) Cited by(0)

Access History

Factors influencing removal of sulfamethazine in two substrates

  • Received Date: 13/01/2013
  • Accepted Date: 12/11/2012
  • Available Online: 18/03/2013
Fund Project:

Abstract: The concentrations of sulfamethazine(SM2) in meadow soil(MS) and lateritic red soil(LRS) were monitored and their removal dynamics were studied. The influences of microorganism, ions, pH value in each substrate on removal of SM2 and their mechanisms were studied too. Shaking culture tests were carried on under three groups of experimental conditions: (a) unsterilized and sterilized substrates, (b) different types and concentrations of metal cations added substrates, (c) different pH substrates. The experimental results showed that more SM2 was removed in MS(85.4%) than in LRS(70.0%) by the 30th day. The removal rates in sterilized MS and LRS reached 37.5% and 32.5%, respectively by the 30th days. The removal rates of SM2 grew down when more ions and highly charged ions were added in two substrates. After contacted reaction sustained for 24 hours, the highest removal rates of SM2 were found at pH 5 in two substrates. The removal rates decreased rapidly at pH＞7, and were down by 13.7% and 12.1% in MS and LRS respectively at pH 9 compared with those at pH 5.

    HTML

Reference (31)

Catalog

  • HTML

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return

All rights reserved: Reesearch Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences,Chinese Academy of Sciences Copyright © 1997-2016

Address:  Postcode: 100085 Phone: 010-62941074 E-mail: cjee@rcees.ac.cn

Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd  Technical support: info@rhhz.net