- P-ISSN 1225-0163
- E-ISSN 2288-8985
- 권한신청
- P-ISSN1225-0163
- E-ISSN2288-8985
- SCOPUS, ESCI, KCI
논문 상세
Home > 논문 상세
정수처리 공정에서 잔류의약물질 제어 효율 평가
Evaluation on the removal efficiency of pharmaceutical compounds in conventional drinking water treatment processes
분석과학 / Analytical Science and Technology, (P)1225-0163; (E)2288-8985
2016, v.29 no.3, pp.126-135
https://doi.org/10.5806/AST.2016.29.3.126
(광주광역시상수도사업본부수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
(광주광역시 상수도사업본부 수질연구소)
서희정,
박용훈,
강인숙,
명화봉,
송양석,
&
강영주.
(2016). 정수처리 공정에서 잔류의약물질 제어 효율 평가. 분석과학, 29(3), 126-135, https://doi.org/10.5806/AST.2016.29.3.126
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
초록
상수원으로 유출될 가능성이 높은 잔류의약물질 대상으로 정수처리공정의 단위 공정별 잔류의약물질 제어 효율을 평가하였다. 응집 공정에서는 Sulfonamide계 항생제는 22.6~42.1% 제거 되었으며, Naproxen 28.2%, Acetaminophen 20%가 제거되었다. Trimethoprim은 4.4%, Erythromycin은 2.4%로 낮은 제거율을 보여 주었으며, Aspirin은 전혀 제거되지 않았다. 염소처리와 응집 혼합 공정을 적용하였을때, 염소 주입량이 증가할수록 제거율이 증가되었다. 염소주입농도 3 mg/L일 때 Sulfonamide계 항생제, Acetaminophen, Naproxen은 100%, Trimethoprim은 약 98%로 높은 제거 효율을 나타내었으며 Erythromycin 은 약 55 %, Aspirin은 약 10%로 낮은 제거율을 보여 주었다. 분말활성탄 흡착 공정을 적용하였을 때, 분말활성탄 주입 농도가 증가할수록 제거율이 증가되었다. Sulfonamide계 항생제의 경우 1 mg/L에서 약18~50 % 제거율을 보였으며, 25 mg/L에서는 약 80% 이상으로 제거율이 증가하였다. 정수처리 공정에서 잔류의약물질의 효율적인 처리를 위한 염소처리와 흡착, 응집 공정의 적정 주입농도를 평가한 결과염소 3 mg/L, 분말활성탄 10 mg/L, 응집제 15 mg/L을 적용했을 때 약 90% 이상이 제거되었다.
- keywords
- pharmaceutical compound, antibiotics, adsorption, coagulation
Abstract
In the present study, we evaluated the efficiency of the drinking water treatment unit processes controlled by targeting high pharmaceutical compounds that are likely to be released into the water supply. In the coagulation process, the removal rate of sulfonamide, an antibiotic, amounted to 22.6~42.1 %, that of naproxen to 28.2 %, and that of acetaminophen to 20 %. Trimethoprim has demonstrated a low removal rate (4.4 %), while the removal rate of erythromycin was 2.4 %; aspirin was not removed at all. When applying a mixture of chlorination and the coagulation process, the removal rate was increased with increasing the chlorine dosage. When the chlorine injection with the concentration of 3 mg/L was applied, sulfonamide antibiotics, acetaminophen and naproxen, were completely removed. Trimethoprim exhibited a high removal efficiency of ca. 98%, while the removal efficiency of erythromycin was about 55 %; at the same time, aspirin showed a lower removal ratio (ca. 10 %). When applying the powdered activated carbon adsorption process, the removal rate was increased with increase of the concentration of the powder activated carbon injection. Sulfonamide antibiotics showed about 18~50 % removal efficiency in the 1 mg/L, the removal rate was increased by at least 80 % in 25 mg/L. The evaluation results of the titration injection concentration of chlorine treatment and adsorption, coagulation process for the efficient processing of the remaining pharmaceutical compounds in the water treatment process, when applying the chlorine 3 mg/L, powdered activated carbon 10 mg/L and coagulant 15 mg/L were removed more than 90 %.
- keywords
- pharmaceutical compound, antibiotics, adsorption, coagulation
참고문헌
1
1. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, 2015 Food and drug statistical yearbook, 2015.
2
2. National Institute of Environmental Research, Pharmaceuticals in the Environment: sorce and Fate(III), 2010.
3
3. World Health Organization, Pharmaceuticals in Drinking-water, 2011.
4
4. H. J. Son and S. H. Jang, Env. Eng. Res, 33(6), 453-479 (2011).
5
5. F. Baquero, J. L. Martinez and R. Canton, Curr. Opin. Biotech., 19, 260-265 (2008).
6
6. P. E. Stackelberg, E. T. Furlong, M. T. Meyer, S. D. Zaugg, A. K. Henderson and D. B. Reissman, Sci. Total Environ., 329, 99-113 (2004).
7
7. National Institute of Environmental Research, Development of Analytical Method and Study of Exposure of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Produsts in Environment(II), 2007.
8
8. Water Quality Research Institue of Waterworks Gwangju, 2015 Water Quality Reports, 2015.
9
9. J. H. Kim, C. K. Park, M. Y. Kim and S. G. Ahn, J. Kor. Soci. Environ. Anal., 11(2), 109-118 (2008).
10
10. S. W. Nam and K. D. Zoh, J. Environ Health Sci., 39(5), 391-407 (2013).
11
11. N. Vieno, T. Tuhkanen and L. Kronberg, Environ. Tech., 27(2), 183-192 (2006).
12
12. T. A. Ternes, M. Meisenheimer, D. McDowell, F. Sacher, H. J. Brauch, B. Haist-Gulde, B. et al. Environ. Sci. Technol., 36(17), 3855-3863 (2002).
13
13. P. E. Stackelberg, G. Jacob, E. T. Furlong, M. T. Meyer, S. D. Zaugg and R. L. Lippincott, Sci. Total Environ., 377, 255-272 (2007).
14
14. C. Adams, Y. Wang, K. Lofin and M. Meyer, J. Environ Eng., 128(3), 253-260 (2002).
15
15. P. Westerhoff, Y. Yoon, S. Snyder and E. Wert, Envirin. Sci. Technol., 39, 6649-6663 (2005).
권호 내 다른 논문
추천 논문
학술지 홈페이지 이용 환경은 크롬 브라우저 사용을 권장합니다.