The efficacy of three different wastewater treatment configurations, conventional activated sludge (CAS), nitrifying activated sludge (NAS) and biological nutrient removal (BNR) for removal of selected micropollutants from authentic wastewater was investigated. The processes were also characterized based on their proficiency to reduce the estrogenic activity of the influent wastewater using the in vitro recombinant yeast assay. The removal efficiency of trimethoprim improved with the complexity of the three treatment process configurations. Ibuprofen, androstendione, sulfamethoxazole, nonyl-phenol, estrone and bisphenol-A had moderate to high removals (>65%) while carbamazepine and meprobamate remained recalcitrant in the three treatment process configurations. The removal of gemfibrozil was better in the NAS than in BNR and CAS treatment configurations. The yeast estrogen screen (YES) assay analyses showed an improvement in estrogenicity removal in the BNR and NAS treatment configurations as compared to the CAS treatment configuration. Comparing the estrogenic responses from the three treatment configurations, the removal efficiencies followed the order of BNR = NAS > CAS and all were greater than 81%.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
Research Article|
May 05 2015
Impact of activated sludge process configuration on removal of micropollutants and estrogenicity
O. O. Ogunlaja;
1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
E-mail: oogunlaj@uwaterloo.ca
Search for other works by this author on:
W. J. Parker
W. J. Parker
1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
Search for other works by this author on:
Water Sci Technol (2015) 72 (2): 277–283.
Article history
Received:
December 31 2014
Accepted:
April 21 2015
Citation
O. O. Ogunlaja, W. J. Parker; Impact of activated sludge process configuration on removal of micropollutants and estrogenicity. Water Sci Technol 1 July 2015; 72 (2): 277–283. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.213
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Client Account
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Impact Factor 1.915
CiteScore 3.4 • Q2
13 days submission to first
decision
1,439,880 downloads in 2021
227
Views
4
Citations