Fractionation of levofloxacin and ofloxacin during their transport in NOM-goethite: Batch and column studies

Efficiency of the bank filtration for removing organic priority substances and contaminants of emerging concern: A critical review

With growing concerns regarding the ecological and human risks of organic micropollutants (OMPs) in water, much effort has been devoted worldwide to establishing quality standards and compiling candidate and watch lists. Although bank filtration is recognized as an efficient natural water treatment in the removal of contaminants such as OMPs, the increase in exploitation requires continuous assessment of removal efficiency. This review aims to provide a critical overview of bank filtration (BF) reports on more than a hundred priority substances (PSs) and compounds of emerging concern (CECs) listed in the relevant European Union regulations. Field- and lab-scale studies analyzing the removal efficiency and its variance of individual OMPs and biological indicators using BF and the main influencing factors and their interactions, shortcomings, and future challenges are discussed in this review. The removal efficiency of EU-relevant contaminants by BF has been comprehensively investigated for only a few pollutants listed in the environmental EU regulations: pharmaceutically active compounds, (e.g., the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac, some antibiotics (e.g., sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim)), a few pesticides (e.g., atrazine), and faecal indicators such as Escherichia coli. In many cases, the measured concentrations of PSs and CECs have not been published numerically, which hinders comprehensive statistical analysis. Although BF is one of the most cost-effective and efficient water treatments, present field and lab studies have demonstrated the diversity of site-specific factors affecting its efficiency. Even in the case of substances known to be removed by BF, the efficiency rates can vary with environmental and anthropogenic factors (e.g., hydrogeological parameters and the contamination level of infiltrating water) and abstraction well parameters (e.g., the depth, distance, and pumping volume). The published removal rate variations and influencing factors often reflect the research design (field or lab-scale), which can lead to ambiguities.

Comparison of magnetite, hematite and goethite amendment and capping in control of phosphorus release from sediment

The characteristics and mechanism of phosphate adsorption onto magnetite, hematite and goethite were comparatively studied, and the effects of magnetite, hematite and goethite amendment and capping on endogenous phosphorus (P) liberation from sediment into overlying water (OW) were comparatively investigated. The adsorption of phosphate onto magnetite, hematite and goethite mainly obeyed the inner-sphere complexation mechanism, and the phosphate adsorption capacity decreased in the order of magnetite > goethite > hematite. The magnetite, hematite and goethite amendment all can decrease the risk of endogenous Prelease into OW under anoxic conditions, and the inactivation of diffusion gradients in thin films-labile P in sediment made a great contribution to the restraint of endogenous P release into OW by the magnetite, hematite and goethite amendment. The efficiency of endogenous P release restraint by the iron oxide addition decreased in the order of magnetite > goethite > hematite. The magnetite, hematite and goethite capping all can be effective for the suppression of endogenous P release from sediment into OW under anoxic conditions, and most of P immobilized by the magnetite, hematite and goethite capping layers is relatively or very stable. The results obtained from this work suggest that magnetite is more suitably used a capping/amendment material to prevent P release from sediment than hematite and goethite, and magnetite capping is a promising approach for hindering sedimentary P release into OW.