Evidence Hub

Distribution and Removal of Pharmaceuticals in Liquid and Solid Phases in the Unit Processes of Sewage Treatment Plants

Park J, Kim C, Hong Y, Lee W, Chung H, Jeong DH, Kim H

International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020

22 citations

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed 27 pharmaceuticals in liquid and solid phase samples collected from the unit processes of four different sewage treatment plants (STPs) to evaluate their distribution and behavior of the pharmaceuticals. The examination of the relative distributions of various categories of pharmaceuticals in the influent showed that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most dominant. While the relative distribution of antibiotics in the influent was not high (i.e., 3%-5%), it increased to 14%-30% in the effluent. In the four STPs, the mass load of the target pharmaceuticals was reduced by 88%-95% mainly in the biological treatment process, whereas the ratio of pharmaceuticals in waste sludge to those in the influent (w/w) was only 2%. In all the STPs, the removal efficiencies for the stimulant caffeine, NSAIDs (acetaminophen, naproxen, and acetylsalicylic acid), and the antibiotic cefradine were high; they were removed mainly by biological processes. Certain compounds, such as the NSAID ketoprofen, contrast agent iopromide, lipid regulator gemfibrozil, and antibiotic sulfamethoxazole, showed varying removal efficiencies depending on the contribution of biodegradation and sludge sorption. In addition, a quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the pharmaceutical removal efficiencies of the biological treatment processes in the four STPs, which were a membrane bioreactor (MBR) process, sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free