Removal of organic contaminants from wastewater using the electrodialytic process

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are widely used on a daily basis. After their usage they reach the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). These compounds have different physico-chemical characteristics, which makes them difficult to completely remove in the WWTPs, througth conventional treatments. Currently, there is no legislation regarding PPCPs thresholds in effluent discharge. But, even at vestigial concentrations, these compounds enclose environmental risks due to, e.g., endocrine disruption potential. There is a need of alternative techniques for their removal in WWTPs. The main goal of this work was to assess the use of electrodialytic (ED) process to remove PPCPs from the effluent to be discharged. A two-compartment ED cell was used testing (i) the effluent position in the cell (anode and cathode compartment); (ii) the use of anion (AEM) and cation exchange membrane (CEM); (iii) the treatment period (6, 12 and 24 hours); (iv) effluent recirculation and current steps; (v) the feasibility of sequential treatments. Phosphorus (P) removal from effluent and energetic costs associated to the process were also evaluated. Five PPCPs were studied – caffeine (CAF), bisphenol A (BPA), 17 β-estradiol (E2), ethinyl estradiol (EE2) and oxybenzone (MBPh). The ED process showed to be effective in the removal when effluent is in the anode compartment. Oxidation is suggested to be the main removal process, which was between 88 and 96%, for all the compounds, in 6 hours. Nevertheless, the presence of intermediates and/or by-products was also observed in some cases. Effluent recirculation should have a retention time in the ED cell big enough to promote removal whereas the current steps (effluent in anode compartment) slightly increased removal efficiencies (higher than 80% for all PPCPs). The sequential set of ED treatment (effluent in anode compartment) showed to be effective during both periods with a removal percentage between 80 and 95% and 73 to 88% in the case of AEM and CEM, respectively. Again, the main removal process is strongly suggested to be oxidation in the anode compartment. However, there was an increase of BOD5 and COD, which might be explained by effluent spiking, these parameters limiting the effluent discharge. From these treatments, the use of AEM, enhanced the P removal from effluent to minimize risk of eutrophication. Energetic costs of the best set-up (6 hours) are approximately 0,8€/m3 of wastewater, a value considered low, attending to the prices of other treatment processes.

Materials handling in hospitals: An analysis of how the storage and materials handling system can be improved, using the example of Hospital Santa Maria

A Work Project, presented as part of the requirements for the Award of a Masters Degree in Management from the NOVA – School of Business and Economics