Mechanisms for simultaneous ozonation of sulfamethoxazole and natural organic matters in secondary effluent from sewage treatment plant

Highlights

• SMX was mainly degraded by hydrolysis, isoxazole oxidation and double-bond addition.

• Isoxazole oxidation and bond addition products were formed by direct ozonation.

• Hydroxylated products were produced by indirect oxidation.

• NOM mainly affected the degradation of SMX by consuming ^•OH rather than O₃.

• Inhibitory effect of NOM on SMX removal was related to the components’ aromaticity.

Abstract

Sulfamethoxazole (SMX) is commonly detected in wastewater and cannot be completely decomposed during conventional treatment processes. Ozone (O₃) is often used in water treatment. This study explored the influence of natural organic matters (NOM) in secondary effluent of a sewage treatment plant on the ozonation pathways of SMX. The changes in NOM components during ozonation were also analyzed. SMX was primarily degraded by hydrolysis, isoxazole-ring opening, and double-bond addition, whereas hydroxylation was not the principal route given the low maximum abundances of the hydroxylated products, with m/z of 269 and 287. The hydroxylation process occurred mainly through indirect oxidation because the maximum abundances of the products reduced by about 70% after the radical quencher was added, whereas isoxazole-ring opening and double-bond addition processes mainly depended on direct oxidation, which was unaffected by the quencher. NOM mainly affected the degradation of micropollutants by consuming ^•OH rather than O₃ molecules, resulting in the 63%–85% decrease in indirect oxidation products. The NOM in the effluent were also degraded simultaneously during ozonation, and the components with larger aromaticity were more likely degraded through direct oxidation. The dependences of the three main components of NOM in the effluent on indirect oxidation followed the sequence: humic-like substances>fluvic-like substances>protein-like substances. This study reveals the ozonation mechanism of SMX in secondary effluent and provides a theoretical basis for the control of SMX and its degradation products in actual water treatment.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Sulfamethoxazole / Ozonation / Natural organic matters / Secondary effluent / Degradation mechanism

1

With the fast-evolving global climate change, the energy and carbon neutral municipal wastewater treatment is under the spotlight. Different from the conventional activated sludge process and its variants which are primarily based on the concept of biological oxidation, anaerobic processes have been actively explored for direct COD capture from municipal wastewater, while maximizing the energy recovery and minimizing waste sludge generation (Liu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). However, it should be noted that anaerobic effluent contains considerable amount of dissolved methane whose release into the environment (Liu et al., 2014) would seriously compromise the energy recovery potential and contribute to significant greenhouse gas emission. As such, increasing effort has been devoted to developing dissolved methane recovery methods, e.g. mechanical degassing (Gu et al., 2017), membrane contactors (Li et al., 2019; Rongwong et al., 2018) etc. It should also be aware that the assessments of various recovery methods are primarily motivated by the energy recovery and consumption, without a thorough consideration of their environmental sustainability and economic viability. In this perspective, we intend to offer additional insights into the cost-benefit of dissolved methane recovery against its emission.

Given an anaerobic effluent with dissolved methane concentration of 21 g/m³ (solubility of methane at 25 °C) (Li et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2014), without proper recovery, the dissolved methane will inevitably be released into the environment. In consideration of a short lifetime of methane, its 20-year global warming potential has been recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be 84−87 folds of carbon dioxide. Thus, this amount of dissolved methane will cause a carbon emission of (21 g/m³) × 84=1.76 kg CO₂e/m³ wastewater treated, while compromising the overall energy recovery efficiency. In fact, such a carbon emission is equivalent to the carbon emission from generating (1.76 kg CO₂e/m³)/(0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh)=1.78 kWh/m³ of electricity through coal combustion, with a factor of 0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh of electricity produced from coal (U.S.-Energy-Information-Administration, 2020). It is obvious that dissolved methane in anaerobic effluent is becoming a barrier towards the energy- and carbon-neutral municipal wastewater treatment if a proper measure is not in place for its recovery.

So far, several methods have been developed for dissolved methane recovery. For example, an average dissolved methane concentration of 17.1 g/m³ was observed in an anaerobic effluent at 30 °C, of which nearly 90% could be recovered by means of a mechanical degasser at an energy cost of 0.12 kWh/m³ (Gu et al., 2017). Therefore, the recoverable energy could be calculated to be (15.4 g/m³)/(16 g/mol) × 22.4 L/mol ×37.8 MJ/m³ (methane energy content) × 35% (electricity conversion efficiency)/(3.6 MJ/kWh) = 0.079 kWh/m³ wastewater treated. Thus, the net energy utilized for degassing was estimated to be 0.041 kWh/ m³ wastewater treated, which could lead to a carbon emission by (0.041 kWh/ m³) × (0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh) = 40.6 g CO₂/m³, with coal as the fuel for electrical energy production. On the other hand, the residual dissolved methane after recovery eventually resulted in a direct carbon emission of (1.71 g/m³)×84 =144 g CO₂e/m³. As such, the overall carbon emission associated with dissolved methane after recovery could be determined to be 185 g CO₂e/m³ wastewater treated which was only about 13% of that in the scenario of the business-as-usual (i.e. without dissolved methane recovery: 17.1 g/m³ × 84 =1436 g CO₂e/m³).

In another study by Li et al. (2019), an omniphobic membrane process was proposed for harvesting dissolved methane from anaerobic effluent with a saturated dissolved methane concentration of 16.4 g/m³ at 35°C. Approximately 0.04 MJ/m³ of energy was needed for achieving recovery efficiencies beyond 90%, equivalent to 0.01 kWh/m³, which was close to the theoretical value reported for membrane-based methane recovery (Crone et al., 2017; Velasco et al., 2021). In this case, the energy recovered from dissolved methane could easily offset the processing energy, i.e. a net energy gain of (16.4 g/m³) × 90%/ (16 g/mol) × 22.4 L/mol × 37.8 MJ/m³ × 35%/(3.6 MJ/kWh)–0.01 kWh/m³ = 0.066 kWh/m³, which was equivalent to a carbon offsetting of (0.066 kWh/m³) × (0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh) = 65.3 g CO₂e/m³. However, the residual methane after 90% of recovery could contribute to (1.64 g/m³) × 84 = 138 g CO₂e/m³, suggesting a net methane-associated carbon emission of 72.7 CO₂e/m³ which was only about 5.3% of that in the case where dissolved methane recovery was not practiced (i.e. 16.4 g/m³ × 84 = 1378 g CO₂e/m³). In addition, methane solubility is inversely related to effluent temperature, indicating that the methane recovery would be more necessary at lower temperature.

It should be realized that chemicals are generally required during membrane degassing, e.g. alkaline in the omniphobic membrane process (Li et al., 2019), and the potential increases in the capital and operation costs associated with membrane degassing should also be taken into a serious account in assessing the environmental sustainability and economic viability. In fact, the dissolved methane recovery rate of membrane contactors had been reported to be 0.05 mol methane/(m²·h) (i.e. 0.8 g methane/(m²·h)) at a recovery efficiency of 96% (Velasco et al., 2021). For a middle-sized anaerobic process treating 200,000 m³/d of municipal wastewater with a 21 g/m³ dissolved methane at 25°C, the membranes needed for dissovled methane recovery would be (200,000 m³/d) × (21 g/m³)/(0.8 g/(m²·h))= 218,750 m², indicating a significant increase in the captital investment and maintenance cost. In addition, membrane wetting, fouling and concentration polarization will make the operation of membrane contactors more challenging (Crone et al., 2016). Moreover, the energy required for upgrading and compressing recovered dissolved methane should also be considered, which had been reported to be about 0.011 kWh/m³ (Crone et al, 2016). Obviously, without the consideration of these factors, the energy-based assessment as currently reported in the literature, to a great extent, is misleading.

As illustrated in Fig.1, a multiple-dimensional assessment framework of techniques for dissolved methane recovery should be exercised. For example, compared to membrane contactors, mechanical degasser would not reach the energy-neutral recovery of dissolved methane, but it has the advantages of chemical-free, simple structure, very low capital investment and operation cost with a smaller footprint. Lastly, it should be noted that the dissolved methane recovery technologies are still at the infant stage, further research is needed to make them more technologically feasible, economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

Fig.1 Multi-dimensional assessment of techniques for dissolved methane recovery methods.

Full size|PPT slide

References

[1] Augugliaro V, Bellardita M, Loddo V, Palmisano G, Palmisano L, Yurdakal S (2012). Overview on oxidation mechanisms of organic compounds by TiO₂ in heterogeneous photocatalysis. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology C, Photochemistry Reviews, 13(3): 224–245

[2] Bader H, Hoigné J (1981). Determination of ozone in water by the indigo method. Water Research, 15(4): 449–456

[3] Buxton G V, Greenstock C L, Helman W P, Ross A B (1988). Critical review of rate constants for reactions of hydrated electrons, hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals (·OH/·O⁻) in aqueous solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2): 513

[4] Chen S, Blaney L, Chen P, Deng S, Hopanna M, Bao Y, Yu G (2019). Ozonation of the 5-fluorouracil anticancer drug and its prodrug capecitabine: Reaction kinetics, oxidation mechanisms, and residual toxicity. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 13(4): 59

[5] Chen W, Westerhoff P, Leenheer J A, Booksh K (2003). Fluorescence excitation-emission matrix regional integration to quantify spectra for dissolved organic matter. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(24): 5701–5710

[6] Coble P G (1996). Characterization of marine and terrestrial DOM in seawater using excitation-emission matrix spectroscopy. Marine Chemistry, 51(4): 325–346

[7] Długosz M, Zmudzki P, Kwiecien A, Szczubialka K, Krzek J, Nowakowska M (2015). Photocatalytic degradation of sulfamethoxazole in aqueous solution using a floating TiO₂-expanded perlite photocatalyst. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 298: 146–153

[8] Du J, Guo W, Wang H, Yin R, Zheng H, Feng X, Che D, Ren N (2018). Hydroxyl radical dominated degradation of aquatic sulfamethoxazole by Fe⁰/bisulfite/O₂: Kinetics, mechanisms, and pathways. Water Research, 138: 323–332

[9] Gómez-Ramos M del MMezcua M, Aguera A, Fernandez-Alba A R, Gonzalo S, Rodriguez A, Rosal R (2011). Chemical and toxicological evolution of the antibiotic sulfamethoxazole under ozone treatment in water solution. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 192(1): 18–25

[10] Graça C A L, Lima R B, Pereira M F R, Silva A M T, Ferreira A (2020). Intensification of the ozone-water mass transfer in an oscillatory flow reactor with innovative design of periodic constrictions: Optimization and application in ozonation water treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal, 389: 124412

[11] Guo W Q, Yin R L, Zhou X J, Du J S, Cao H O, Yang S S, Ren N Q (2015). Sulfamethoxazole degradation by ultrasound/ozone oxidation process in water: Kinetics, mechanisms, and pathways. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 22: 182–187

[12] Hai H, Xing X, Li S, Xia S, Xia J (2020). Electrochemical oxidation of sulfamethoxazole in BDD anode system: Degradation kinetics, mechanisms and toxicity evaluation. Science of the Total Environment, 738: 139909

[13] Ho L, Newcombe G, Croué J P (2002). Influence of the character of NOM on the ozonation of MIB and geosmin. Water Research, 36(3): 511–518

[14] Ioannidi A, Oulego P, Collado S, Petala A, Arniella V, Frontistis Z, Angelopoulos G N, Diaz M, Mantzavinos D (2020). Persulfate activation by modified red mud for the oxidation of antibiotic sulfamethoxazole in water. Journal of Environmental Management, 270: 110820

[15] Jiao Y, Zhao Y, Chen Y, Wu G, Liu W, Tian X, Zheng Y (2018). Characterizing the interaction of sulfamethazine and macrophytes-derived dissolved organic matter by fluorescence spectroscopy. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(3): 8–14

[16] Khan A H, Khan N A, Ahmed S, Dhingra A, Singh C P, Khan S U, Mohammadi A A, Changani F, Yousefi M, Alam S, Vambol S, Vambol V, Khursheed A, Ali I (2020a). Application of advanced oxidation processes followed by different treatment technologies for hospital wastewater treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269: 122411

[17] Khan N A, Ahmed S, Farooqi I H, Ali I, Vambol V, Changani F, Yousefi M, Vambol S, Khan S U, Khan A H (2020b). Occurrence, sources and conventional treatment techniques for various antibiotics present in hospital wastewaters: A critical review. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 129: 115921

[18] Khan N A, Khan S U, Ahmed S, Farooqi I H, Yousefi M, Mohammadi A A, Changani F (2020c). Recent trends in disposal and treatment technologies of emerging-pollutants-A critical review. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 122: 115744

[19] Kong S, Zhao Y G, Guo L, Gao M, Jin C, She Z (2020). Transcriptomics of Planococcus kocurii O516 reveals the degrading metabolism of sulfamethoxazole in marine aquaculture wastewater. Environmental Pollution, 265: 114939

[20] Lai L, Yan J, Li J, Lai B (2018). Co/Al₂O₃-EPM as peroxymonosulfate activator for sulfamethoxazole removal: Performance, biotoxicity, degradation pathways and mechanism. Chemical Engineering Journal, 343: 676–688

[21] Lee C Y, Lee Y (2007). Impact of water quality on the formation of bromate and formaldehyde during water ozonation. Korean Journal of Environmental Health, 33(5): 441–450

[22] Li H, Li T, He S, Zhou J, Wang T, Zhu L (2020a). Efficient degradation of antibiotics by non-thermal discharge plasma: Highlight the impacts of molecular structures and degradation pathways. Chemical Engineering Journal, 395: 125091

[23] Li S, Hu J (2018). Transformation products formation of ciprofloxacin in UVA/LED and UVA/LED/TiO₂ systems: Impact of natural organic matter characteristics. Water Research, 132: 320–330

[24] Li Y, Li J, Pan Y, Xiong Z, Yao G, Xie R, Lai B (2020b). Peroxymonosulfate activation on FeCo₂S₄ modified g-C₃N₄ (FeCo₂S₄-CN): Mechanism of singlet oxygen evolution for nonradical efficient degradation of sulfamethoxazole. Chemical Engineering Journal, 384: 123361

[25] Li Y, Zhao X, Yan Y, Yan J, Pan Y, Zhang Y, Lai B (2019). Enhanced sulfamethoxazole degradation by peroxymonosulfate activation with sulfide-modified microscale zero-valent iron (S-mFe⁰): Performance, mechanisms, and the role of sulfur species. Chemical Engineering Journal, 376: 121302

[26] Liu F, Zhou H, Pan Z, Liu Y, Yao G, Guo Y, Lai B (2020). Degradation of sulfamethoxazole by cobalt-nickel powder composite catalyst coupled with peroxymonosulfate: Performance, degradation pathways and mechanistic consideration. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 400: 123322

[27] Liu X, Garoma T, Chen Z, Wang L, Wu Y (2012). SMX degradation by ozonation and UV radiation: a kinetic study. Chemosphere, 87(10): 1134–1140

[28] Mao Y, Dong H, Liu S, Zhang L, Qiang Z (2020). Accelerated oxidation of iopamidol by ozone/peroxymonosulfate (O₃/PMS) process: Kinetics, mechanism, and simultaneous reduction of iodinated disinfection by-product formation potential. Water Research, 173: 115615

[29] McKnight D M, Andrews E D, Spaulding S A, Aiken G R (1994). Aquatic fulvic acids in algal-rich antarctic ponds. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(8): 1972–1979

[30] Milh H, Schoenaers B, Stesmans A, Cabooter D, Dewil R (2020). Degradation of sulfamethoxazole by heat-activated persulfate oxidation: Elucidation of the degradation mechanism and influence of process parameters. Chemical Engineering Journal, 379: 122234

[31] Milori D M B P, Martin-Neto L, Bayer C, Mielniczuk J, Bagnato V S (2002). Humification degree of soil humic acids determined by fluorescence spectroscopy. Soil Science, 167(11): 739–749

[32] Ninwiwek N, Hongsawat P, Punyapalakul P, Prarat P (2019). Removal of the antibiotic sulfamethoxazole from environmental water by mesoporous silica-magnetic graphene oxide nanocomposite technology: Adsorption characteristics, coadsorption and uptake mechanism. Colloids and Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 580: 123716

[33] Niu J, Zhang L, Li Y, Zhao J, Lv S, Xiao K (2013). Effects of environmental factors on sulfamethoxazole photodegradation under simulated sunlight irradiation: Kinetics and mechanism. Journal of Environmental Sciences-China, 25(6): 1098–1106

[34] Qian Y, Liu X, Li K, Gao P, Chen J, Liu Z, Zhou X, Zhang Y, Chen H, Li X, Xue G (2020). Enhanced degradation of cephalosporin antibiotics by matrix components during thermally activated persulfate oxidation process. Chemical Engineering Journal, 384: 123332

[35] Ren M, Drosos M, Frimmel F H (2018). Inhibitory effect of NOM in photocatalysis process: Explanation and resolution. Chemical Engineering Journal, 334: 968–975

[36] Senesi N, D’orazio V, Ricca G (2003). Humic acids in the first generation of EUROSOILS. Geoderma, 116(3–4): 325–344

[37] Shahmahdi N, Dehghanzadeh R, Aslani H, Bakht Shokouhi S (2020). Performance evaluation of waste iron shavings (Fe⁰) for catalytic ozonation in removal of sulfamethoxazole from municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent in a batch mode pilot plant. Chemical Engineering Journal, 383: 123093

[38] Trovó A G, Nogueira R F, Aguera A, Fernandez-Alba A R, Sirtori C, Malato S (2009). Degradation of sulfamethoxazole in water by solar photo-Fenton. Chemical and toxicological evaluation. Water Research, 43(16): 3922–3931

[39] Wang H, Mustafa M, Yu G, Ostman M, Cheng Y, Wang Y, Tysklind M (2019). Oxidation of emerging biocides and antibiotics in wastewater by ozonation and the electro-peroxone process. Chemosphere, 235: 575–585

[40] Wang J, Chu L (2016). Irradiation treatment of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) in water and wastewater: An overview. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 125: 56–64

[41] Wang J, Zhuan R (2020). Degradation of antibiotics by advanced oxidation processes: An overview. Science of the Total Environment, 701: 135023 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135023

[42] Westerhoff P, Aiken G, Amy G, Debroux J (1999). Relationships between the structure of natural organic matter and its reactivity towards molecular ozone and hydroxyl radicals. Water Research, 33(10): 2265–2276

[43] Willach S, Lutze H V, Eckey K, Loppenberg K, Luling M, Terhalle J, Wolbert J B, Jochmann M A, Karst U, Schmidt T C (2017). Degradation of sulfamethoxazole using ozone and chlorine dioxide- Compound-specific stable isotope analysis, transformation product analysis and mechanistic aspects. Water Research, 122: 280–289

[44] Xiao K, Yu J, Wang S, Du J, Tan J, Xue K, Wang Y, Huang X (2020). Relationship between fluorescence excitation-emission matrix properties and the relative degree of DOM hydrophobicity in wastewater treatment effluents. Chemosphere, 254: 126830

[45] Yang C C, Huang C L, Cheng T C, Lai H T (2015). Inhibitory effect of salinity on the photocatalytic degradation of three sulfonamide antibiotics. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 102: 116–125

[46] Ye B, Chen Z, Li X, Liu J, Wu Q, Yang C, Hu H, Wang R (2019). Inhibition of bromate formation by reduced graphene oxide supported cerium dioxide during ozonation of bromide-containing water. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 13 (6): 86

[47] Yu H, Qu F, Zhang X, Shao S, Rong H, Liang H, Bai L, Ma J (2019). Development of correlation spectroscopy (COS) method for analyzing fluorescence excitation emission matrix (EEM): A case study of effluent organic matter (EfOM) ozonation. Chemosphere, 228: 35–43

[48] Yuan R, Zhu Y, Zhou B, Hu J (2019). Photocatalytic oxidation of sulfamethoxazole in the presence of TiO₂: Effect of matrix in aqueous solution on decomposition mechanisms. Chemical Engineering Journal, 359: 1527–1536

[49] Zhang H, Wang Z, Li R, Guo J, Li Y, Zhu J, Xie X (2017a). TiO₂ supported on reed straw biochar as an adsorptive and photocatalytic composite for the efficient degradation of sulfamethoxazole in aqueous matrices. Chemosphere, 185: 351–360

[50] Zhang S, Yu G, Chen J, Zhao Q, Zhang X, Wang B, Huang J, Deng S, Wang Y (2017b). Elucidating ozonation mechanisms of organic micropollutants based on DFT calculations: Taking sulfamethoxazole as a case. Environmental Pollution, 220: 971–980

[51] Zhang T, Tao Y Z, Yang H W, Chen Z, Wang X M, Xie Y F (2020). Study on the removal of aesthetic indicators by ozone during advanced treatment of water reuse. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 36: 101381

[52] Zhao X, Wu Y, Zhang X, Tong X, Yu T, Wang Y, Ikuno N, Ishii K, Hu H (2019). Ozonation as an efficient pretreatment method to alleviate reverse osmosis membrane fouling caused by complexes of humic acid and calcium ion. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 13(4): 55

[53] Zhou J, Wang J J, Baudon A, Chow A T (2013). Improved fluorescence excitation-emission matrix regional integration to quantify spectra for fluorescent dissolved organic matter. Journal of Environmental Quality, 42(3): 925–930

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project (No. 2019YFD1100204). The experimental supporting by National Environmental and Energy Base for International Science & Technology Cooperation was greatly appreciated.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1367-1 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2020 Higher Education Press