Advertisement

SN Applied Sciences

, 1:640 | Cite as

Emerging contaminant (triclosan) identification and its treatment: a review

  • Shruti Jagini
  • Srilatha Konda
  • D. BhagawanEmail author
  • V. Himabindu
Review Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. 2. Earth and Environmental Sciences (general)

Abstract

Pollutants from personal care products (PCPs), pharmaceuticals, industrial wastes, food additives, pesticides and fertilisers are classified as emerging contaminants (ECs). These ECs have been given much attention due to their deleterious effects on human life, plants and animals. Triclosan (TCS), a broad spectrum antibiotic, is under the category of emerging contaminants; it is shown to have an eco-toxicity. It is a ubiquitous contaminant due to its wide range of applications in PCPs as an antibacterial agent. Inefficacy in the conventional treatment of wastewater which is being discharged into natural streams has led to the bioaccumulation of TCS. Concentrations of TCS have been detected in several wastewater treatment plants and urinary samples of humans and streams. In surface waters, TCS was detected in Korea, USA, Europe, China, Japan and India. In order to overcome the astringent effects of TCS, there is a need for its treatment. This paper addresses studies conducted on methods of treating TCS, and among all the methods, membrane technology (MT) was found to be effective and this is mainly due to hydrophilic nature of TCS, high log Kow value (4.8), and a removal efficiency > 95% was observed when powdered activated carbon of 100 mg/l was combined with MT.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Personal care products (PCPs) Emerging contaminants (ECs) Triclosan (TCS) Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) 

1 Introduction

Earlier water contamination was primarily due to the presence of organic matter, bacteria, heavy metals and metal salts. Since the past few decades, a new class of contaminants called as ECs has come into light [1]. These ECs include pharmaceuticals, personal care products (PCPs), insecticides, surfactants, pesticides and industrial waste [2]. Of all the emerging contaminants detected in India, 7% of them constitute PCPs [3, 4]. In studies conducted, it was observed that a number of ECs were detected in many countries like India, UK, Japan, USA, China and Germany; ECs > 70 like estrone, propranolol, codeine, diclofenac belonging to therapeutic classes were found in UK environmental waters, and on the other hand, German municipalities have identified about 32 ECs, and about 70 ECs were detected in tone canal in Japan and also a wide range of emerging contaminants like antibacterial agents, antifungal agents, antimicrobials, personal care products were identified in China [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. These are found in urinary samples of pregnant women [10]; the contaminants enter the fresh water supply through means of various sources like pesticides and PCPs as depicted in Fig. 1 [11]. Over the last few decades, personal care products have emerged as ECs, and these contaminants have recently shown to occur widely in water resources and identified as being an endocrine disrupting compounds and have potential environmental and public health risk; although PCPs are detected in the freshwater environment at relatively low concentrations, many of them and their metabolites are biologically active and can impact non-target aquatic organisms [5]. A wide range of ECs from PCPs such as cosmetics, of which a wide range of cosmeceuticals like paraformaldehyde, benzalkonium chloride has shown to pose a threat to human health in terms of cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity oestrogenicity [12], deodorants, fragrances, toothpastes, have been identified [13].
Fig. 1

Origin and flow of emerging contaminants

TCS, a broad spectrum antibiotic depicted in Fig. 2, is one such emerging contaminant. It is a widely found agent in PCPs and antibacterial agents [14]. Properties of TCS are depicted in Table 1 [15]. Concentrations of TCS have been detected in, surface waters in many countries like Korea, USA, Europe, China, Japan and India with reported values varying from 0 to 149 ng/l, 3.5 to 34.9 ng/l, < 0.2 to 285 ng/l, 2.5 to 478 ng/l, 11 to 31 ng/l and 139 to 5160 ng/l, respectively [5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]; its presence has also been identified in tap waters, breast milk and urinary samples [22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Owing to the world scenario, TCS was found to be detected in Germany, USA, Japan, China, India, South Africa, Australia, Korea in surface waters, river sediments, WWTPs, and human bodies; detected concentrations in surface waters, water treatment plants and human bodies are depicted in Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested that permissible limits for TCS would be 1% in antiseptic washes and 0.3% in soaps, toothpastes and body lotions [15]. There is a need for a protected water supply in today’s world and the need to reuse water in order to lead a sustainable life and due to the implications; these contaminants have on human beings, plants and aquatic life and there is a severe need to treat ECs.
Fig. 2

Chemical structure of triclosan

Table 1

Properties of triclosan

Structure of triclosan

Open image in new window

Molecular formulae

C12H7Cl3O2

General classification

Non-prescription compound

Possible use

Antimicrobial, antiseptic and disinfectant

Nature

Hydrophobic

Molecular weight

289.54

Dissociation constant (pKa) (20 °C)

8.14

Octanol–water Partition coefficient (log Kow)

4.76

Solubility

12 mg L−1 (25 °C)

Bioconcentration factor

2.7–90 (aquatic organisms)

Vapour pressure

5.2 × 10 −6 Pa (mm Hg at 20 °C)

Degradation products

Methyltriclosan, dioxins, chlorophenols, chloroform

Table 2

Detected concentration of TCS in surface waters

S. no.

Country

Detected river

Concentration (μg/l)

References

1.

Germany

River Ruhr, Northern Germany

< 3 × 10−3 to 10 × 10−3

Ebele et al. [5]

2.

USA

Michigan Lake

0.5 × 10−3 to 41 × 10−3

Blair et al. [18]

Minnesota River

5.0 × 10−3 to 310 × 10−3

Lyndall et al. [19]

3.

Japan

Tone Canal

11 × 10−3 to 31 × 10−3

Nishi et al. [20]

4.

South Korea

Mankyung River

0 to 149 × 10−3

Lee et al. [17]

5.

Europe

< 0.2 × 10−3 to 285 × 10−3

Lee et al. [17]

6.

India

Vellar Estuary

(21 ± 10.5) × 10−3

Ramaswamy et al. [16]

Tamiraparani River

(16.6 ± 10) × 10−3 to 5160 × 10−3

7.

Australia

75 × 10−3

Ying et al. [21]

Table 3

Detected concentrations of TCS in WWTPs

S. no

Country

Detected area

Influent concentration (μg/l)

Effluent concentration (μg/l)

References

1.

South Africa

Gauteng Province

2.01–17.6

0.99–13

Lehutso et al. [27]

2.

Australia

 

0.573–0.845

0.023–0.434

Ying et al. [21]

3.

China

Shanghai

0.533–0.744

0.080–0.294

Zhou et al. [28]

4.

Korea

0.148–0.785

0–0.127

Lee et al. [17]

5.

USA

86.2

0.05–5.037

Lee et al. [17]

Table 4

Detected concentrations of TCS in human bodies

S. no

Country

Samples

No of samples collected/no of samples detected

Concentration

References

1.

Sweden

Blood plasma

26/9

0.0004–0.03838 μg/g

Allmyr et al. [25]

Milk

25/9

0.32–0.95 μg/g

2.

USA

Urine

2.4–3790 μg/l

Calafat et al. [26]

Urine

31/31

0.21–819 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

3.

India

Urine

76/76

0.00022–2.75 μg/ml

Xue et al. [24]

Urine

41/36

0.08–898 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

4.

China

Urine

47/45

0.08–1600 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

5.

Japan

Urine

36/31

0.08–287 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

6.

Korea

Urine

26/21

0.08–558 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

7.

Kuwait

Urine

40/40

0.26–2.88 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

8.

Vietnam

Urine

19/15

0.08–27 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

9.

Saudi Arabia

Urine

30/20

0.08–34.4 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

10.

Greece

Urine

30/27

0.08–386 μg/g

Iyer et al. [23]

TCS was detected in surface waters, WWTPs and human bodies; the highest concentration of 5160 ng/l was detected in Indian surface waters at Tamiraparani River. WWTPs in USA showed the highest concentration with an influent and effluent concentration of 86.2 μg/l and 0.05–5.037 μg/l. The highest detected frequency of TCS was found in Kuwait as reported [23], and the highest concentration detected in human urine sample was found in China which was ranging from 0.08 to 1600 μg/g (Tables 13).

2 Necessity for treatment of triclosan

TCS is found to be used in many PCPs [15]. Concentrations of TCS were detected in natural surface waters, WWTPs and tap waters [3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28], due to its adverse effects on human beings, plants and animals [22, 29, 30], due its ability for causing endocrine disruption and due to its high ecotoxic status, i.e. (EC50 < 1 mg/l) as reported by [31] and there is a need to treat TCS; this paper discusses the efficiency and suitability of several methods that were employed so far in its removal.

3 Treatment methods

3.1 Biological process

Activated sludge process (ACS), trickling filters (TF), oxidation ditches (OD) and rotating biological contactors (RBC’s) are some of the biological treatment methods. The settling time plays an important role in adsorption of TCS in biological method; this could be accounted to its hydrophobic nature as its octanol water partition coefficient, (log Kow = 4.8) [32]. It was observed that persistence of anaerobic conditions led to a lower removal efficiency of TCS, only about (25–30%) of removal was reported by in RBCs [33]. But, the removal efficiency of TCS under anaerobic conditions was found to increase when combined with methanogenic conditions, an efficiency of 87% was found to be obtained, but the removal efficiency was still less as compared to aerobic conditions which is about 95% for a concentration up to 10 mg/l in 5 days [34]. The degradation products generated were found to be similar under both the conditions, and also in a study by it was reported that higher removal efficiency was observed under aerobic conditions than under anaerobic conditions even when coupled with weak magnetic field [35]. With variations in the makeup of the wastewater, feed and change in biomass material can lead to an improved efficiency in [33, 36, 37]. ACS serves as a most promising biological method in removal of TCS. With an increase in the hydraulic retention time (HRT) upto 52 h, it has been observed to an increase in the removal efficiency up to 99.9% [38], the acclimation capacity of bacterial feed to the surroundings and has a major role in removal efficiency [37, 38]. In the literature 80% of TCS removal with ACS is attributed to the mineralisation of compound to CO2 and therefore concluded that biological degradation is the main removal mechanism for most of the compound and a removal efficiency of 96% has been observed [39]. Others factors such as temperature, pH, lipid content and protein-to-carbohydrate ratio have shown to influence the removal efficiency because apart from degradation adsorption also contributes in increasing the removal of TCS [40]. Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) have shown to have a negative impact this may be accounted due to the presence of bound TCS; it was observed that the concentration of TCS in OD was found to be high than that of effluent stream [40], but the removal efficiency was increased to 96% by increasing the (HRT). In case of sewage treatment plants, removal rate is not much efficient as the parent compound which was shown to convert into its metabolites or remains as bounded TCS [41]. Although trickling filters showed a decent removal efficiency of about 92% [40] but are not found to be always promising; as a variable and a less removal efficiency as low as 58% was observed [33].

3.2 Activated carbon

AC used for pollutant treatment can be prepared from a variety of organic materials such as bamboo and agricultural waste [42, 43]. Due to its unique properties such as controlled shape, suitable pore size distribution and high specific area [44], activated carbon (AC) can be used in the removal of wide range of emerging pollutants [43, 45]; moreover, different physical and chemical techniques may be used to improve the surface of the AC accordingly. The reason for which activated carbon could be served as an effective adsorbent for TCS can be attributed to the water–octanol partition coefficient of TCS; compounds having (log Kow value > 4) can be adsorbed effectively by AC, a removal efficiency of 98% was observed in TCS by [46]. Factors such as characteristics of adsorbent, dosage, pH, agitation time, contact time and temperature have shown to affect the adsorption of TCS, when AC was prepared by using Cocos nuciefera by [47], it showed a removal efficiency of 80.77% under a dosage of 0.1 g, at 25 °C for a TCS concentration of 90 mg/l, but in the case of charcoal-based granular-activated carbon (GAC), an efficiency of only 31.4% was observed for a dosage of 1 g/l, at 25 °C and for a TCS concentration of 60 mg/l as reported by [43]. Charcoal-based activated carbon with 3 week contact time and 100 mg/l dose had almost same removal efficiency as that of powdered activated carbon with about 4 h contact time with 5 mg/l dose; this may be attributed to the texture of AC [45]. As adsorption of TCS is an exothermic reaction; room temperature of 25 °C is considered to be the most appropriate for carrying out adsorption as studied by [47]. In a study by [48], adsorption of TCS onto activated carbon was observed in the presence of NaCl and CaCl2 salts which is attributed to the salting out effect. Coupling of adsorption systems with additional treatment processes can lead to an increase in removal efficiency [49]. Using AC as a pre-treatment for membranes has served to be an effective method. > 95% removal was seen which could be attributed to the integrated capacity of AC on membranes and electrostatic and steric stabilisation effects.

3.3 Carbon nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are allotropes of carbon with a cylindrical nanostructure. Their unique properties such as larger specific area, lower weight and better mechanical and electrical properties make them excellent adsorbents [50]. Usually, carbon nanotubes are defined as single-walled nanotubes (SWNT), multi-walled nanotubes (MWNT). Several operational parameters such as dosage, pH, temperature and ionic strength are shown to influence the adsorption capacity of CNTs [51, 52, 53]. An increase in ionic strength in MWNTs showed an increase in adsorption up to a permissible limit, thereby decreasing the adsorption capacity due to aggregation of MWNTs [51]. Increase in specific surface area (SSA) of CNTs was shown to increase the adsorption of TCS as studied by [52]; therefore, SWNTs had higher adsorption tendency as compared to MWNTs, and moreover, oxidised multi-walled nanotubes (OMWNT) have shown the lowest adsorption capacity because of higher surface oxygen content. Purified MWNTs were used in the treatment of TCS; these were shown to have improved characteristics than ordinary MWNTs, i.e. increase in SSA was seen [53]. Adsorption capacity of MWNT is a function of its structural and physicochemical properties; molecular weight of the compound also has an impact on the adsorption capacity, TCS has shown to have a removal ratio of 0.93 with pristine MWNT, and this was studied by [54]. The fact that CNTs impart toxicity in the environment was tackled by immobilising them; achieved efficiency of TCS removal was up to 99.7% [55]. When compared to other ECs, TCS showed an increased adsorption onto CNTs; this is attributed to its bigger molecules which have greater affinity to adsorb rather than diffusing into the pores of CNTs [56]. Infusing selected properties in MWNT such as synthesising hydroxylated MWNTs (HMWNTs) could lead to change in characteristics like SSA, thereby increasing adsorption efficiency of TCS [54].

3.4 Clay minerals and zeolites

Clay minerals due to their low cost, high surface area and porosity can be used as an economical method in adsorbing emerging pollutants (EPs) [45]. Various minerals such as montmorillonite (Mt), vermiculite (VER), bentonite (B) and kaolinite (K) are studied in adsorption of TCS. In a study by [57], it was reported that a significantly high adsorption of TCS was observed in the case of VER, and this is attributed to the low SSA and the hydrophobic nature of VER and TCS; additionally, it was observed that the sorption capacity of VER is independent of pH which determines its usage in treating water bodies of neutral pH and also higher sorption constants were seen in acidic conditions (Kd = 696) than under neutral conditions (Kd = 609). Treatment of montmorillonite with mineral acids had proven to increase its SSA which will lead to higher adsorption. Moreover, carbonaceous mineral composites of B—(BAlG3%C) had also proven to be promising adsorbent [57]. In a study [58], humic acid (HA) had found to increase the adsorption tendencies of K and M. But, clay minerals as adsorbents are not found to be promising as compared to other adsorbents such as activated carbon. Zeolites were not found to be an effective method in removal of ECs due to their uniform pore size [42]. But, infusing modifications in their properties like synthesising organic zeolites results in hydrophobic nature of surface, thereby causing the hydrophobic TCS to get adsorbed to the surface as studied by [59]; a clays showed a higher removal efficiency of TCS than zeolites.

3.5 Adsorption with biochar

Biochar is one of the charcoal-based materials normally used for soil amendment. Biochar is made by pyrolysis of the biomass [60]. Due to their porous structure and strong affinity for sorption organic compound, biochar has been extensively studied. Studies were conducted by [61] in treatment of ECs using biochar. The removal efficacy of biosolid biochar (BS-B) has shown to be dependent on the flow rate, a low flow rate showed a high removal efficiency, this could be attributed to the longer contact time between the molecules which led to the higher adsorption of TCS; moreover, factors such as techniques for production of feedstock and presence of organic compounds influenced the removal of TCS biochars produced from sewage sludge displayed a high efficacy due to the presence of surface functional groups [62]. In a study was conducted by [63], sludge derived biochar was used in the activation of peroxymonosulphate (PMS) and a removal efficiency of 99.2% was achieved at a pH of 7.2, dosage of 1 g/l and at a PMS concentration of 0.8 mM; this method has found to be highly promising for removal of TCS. Further, studies by [64] were involved in preparation of biochar by using rice straw (RS), corn stalk (CS), coffee grounds (CF) and biosolids (BS) of all BS-biochar had found to be highly promising agent; this may be attributed to the high surface area; moreover, higher pyrolysis temperature of biochar has found to lower the removal efficacy, and this could be accounted for the higher surface area and aromaticity, and also a pH of 7 has shown to enhance adsorption capacity also and removal of TCS was not affected by ionic strength but was altered with HA, which can question its effectiveness in removing ionisable organic compounds.

3.6 Other adsorbents (polymeric resins, metal oxides, rubbers)

Studies on several other adsorbents such as metal oxides and polymeric resins were employed in adsorption of TCS. Adsorption of TCS onto manganese oxide (MnO2) was conducted where an adsorption of 55% was observed; the efficacy of adsorption is attributed to the number of active sites in (MnO2). The presence of organic salts decreased the efficacy of adsorption [65, 66], 55% of TCS was adsorbed to MnO2 at pH 5. Using oxides of manganese, a removal efficiency of 3–100% had been achieved under certain conditions as reported by [66]. Tyre crumb rubber (TCR) is economical and ubiquitous in nature; an adsorption efficiency of 89% is observed in TCR at a pH 3 as studied by [67]. Polymeric adsorbents highly promising in adsorption of triclosan; diaion (SP207) had an adsorption efficiency of 98.8%. Moreover, this efficiency is found to increase in case of waters which have undergone biological treatment; this could be attributed to the competitive adsorption effect between TCS and effluent organic matter [68].

3.7 Membrane technology

Membrane technology (MT) possesses a variety of applications in removal of TCS. A number of ECs have been treated using membrane technology in studies conducted by [69]. Ultra-filtration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO) are types of membrane technologies. UF might not serve to be promising in case of all, but it is highly effective method of treatment in case of TCS, and in a study, an efficiency of over 95% was observed when combined with 100 mg/l of PAC, this was attributed to the hydrophobic nature of TCS [70]. RO filters are effective in removal of EDCs whose molecular weight is ≥ 300 as reported by; this could be suitable for removal of TCS (molecular weight = 289.54) [71]. Modifications in membrane technologies, i.e. use of PAC did not show a significant removal for TCS, UF alone showed the same removal efficiency as that of UF + PAC, i.e. > 90% [70]. In order to avoid rejection of TCS fouling of membrane layers could be done, in study silica fouled NF, NF270 a loose membrane was developed where adsorption of TCS was predominant in membrane and this could be attributed to polarisation phenomenon but, in case of NF90, a tight membrane rejection was observed due to its dense layer and steric hindrance. Moreover, increase in pH showed an increase in rejection of TCS [72]. Studies by [73] reported a removal efficiency of 91% and 87% for TCS by NF and UF, respectively. Membrane bioreactors (where membranes are combined with aerobic conditions) had proven to be highly promising for TCS removal with removal efficiency of 99%; this could be accounted to the adsorption tendency of TCS [32]. In another study which combined UF with flocculation (F) and ACS, it was observed that the additional methods did not have an impact in adsorption efficiency, it was same as that of just with UF, but adsorption through sludge mechanism has proven to be predominant as reported by [74].

3.8 Advanced oxidation process (AOPs)

AOPs refers to a set of chemical treatment method for the removal of organic and inorganic contaminants by oxidation through reactions with hydroxyl radicals (·OH) ozonation serves to be a promising method in removal of TCS. It can be combined with other AOPs such as: radiation UV (O3/UV), catalyst (O3/CAT) or catalyst and ultraviolet light (O3/UV/CAT) [75]. Incorporating the use of ozone in treatment of water started in the 1960s by Langlais et al. [76]. Treatment of TCS using ozone had proven to be promising in both Milli Q and surface waters, where removal efficiency up to 99% for a dose of 1.22 mg/l of ozone in 45 min was observed [77]. The reaction mechanism of TCS with ozone is explained in Fig. 3 [78], and removal of TCS in surface waters was observed to be comparatively less than Milli Q water; this could be attributed to the matrix effects. Moreover, pH played an important role in removal of TCS; a mildly alkaline pH (7.3) is found to be highly effective as reported by [78], pH is also shown to affect the rate of ozonation [79]. The transformation products of ozonation have been tested for genotoxic and cytotoxic effects by [80] 2,4-dichlorophenol, chlorocatechol, mono-hydroxyl TCS and di-hydroxyl TCS are the most commonly found end products in ozonation of TCS; however, studies have proven to be effective in removal of these products by extended ozonation, [78]. Studies were carried out on coupling ozonation with electrochemical mechanism where efficiency of 67% was achieved [81]. A study conducted by [82] involved combining ozone with UV and the removal efficiency had found to be high at a pH of 12; moreover, in this study, establishing an optimum contact time of 90 min had proven to be promising; Fenton’s mechanism is a type of AOP in which OH radicals are the main oxidising agents in removal of TCS. Studies on this showed that the removal efficiency of TCS increased with increase in the concentration of OH radicals; these may be generated by using various mechanisms such as Fe+3 when combined with UV-C irradiation as conducted by [83]. In another study where photon–Fenton oxidation was employed, the increase in concentration of OH radicals and catalysts had led to an increase in the concentration of intermediate products, a removal efficiency of 99.5% was achieved at an optimum dosage of H2O2/Fe(II)/TCS = 50/0.1/10. Cokay and Oztamer [84], however, this did not hinder the generation of intermediate products, In a study using H2O2 as an oxidant and BiFeO3 magnetic nanoparticles (BiFeO3 MNPs) as catalysts has proven to solve the issue of accumulation of intermediate products by modifying the particle surface with EDTA ligands [85], also this facilitated in reducing removal time and increasing removal efficiency of TCS. In a study conducted by [86], photocatalysis was found to be a promising method for abatement of TCS than photolysis, an efficiency up to 82% was achieved; moreover, using OH radical has proven to be effective in eliminating dioxin intermediate, and the mechanism of photolysis and photocatalysis is shown in Fig. 4 [86]. In a study on the types of light sources for photochemical degradation of triclosan, Photon–Fenton reaction serves as the most promising mechanism where removal efficiency up to 100% was achieved and photo catalysis of (TiO2) by LED’s displayed a least efficiency of 53% [87].
Fig. 3

Reaction mechanism of triclosan with ozone

Fig. 4

Photolysis and photocatalysis of triclosan

4 Suggested treatment methods

Nanotechnology serves to be a promising technique in removal of ECs [88]. Due to its unique properties, nanozerovalent iron (nZVI) can be applied for removal of wide range of emerging contaminants [89]; moreover, it has proven to be effective in removal of halogenated hydrocarbons [90], TCS being a halogenated hydrocarbon can, therefore, be treated using (nZVI). A wide range of methods can be employed in the synthesis of nZVI [91]. Due to the limitations of many conventional methods, an environmentally benign method can be implemented in its synthesis. This could be achieved by the tendency of plants extracts to act as natural reducing agents; this can be attributed to the polyphenols present in plants which help them in functioning as reducing agents [92]. Although plant extracts may undergo degradation and prove to be unstable as reducing agents, these extracts may be stabilised in the presence of certain pH and temperature conditions. Cocoa seed extracts and tea leaf extracts have shown to be stable under certain conditions [93, 94]. Therefore, this method could also be implemented for removal of TCS (Table 5).
Table 5

Efficiencies of different methods employed in removal of TCS

S. no

Treatment method

Efficiency/rate constant (R2)

Removal mechanism

External conditions

References

1.

Biological method

1.1

Membrane bioreactors

99%

Sorption onto sludge

Influent con (103–104) ng/L

[32]

1.2

Rotating biological contactors

81%

Sorption

Influent conc: 494–4945 ng/L, effluent conc, 75–322, pH ≪ 8.1, lipid conc 327–670 μg per g dm

[40]

Oxidation ditches

96%

Sorption

Influent conc 710–5115, Effluent conc 4–104, pH ≪ 8.1 lipid conc, 483–783 μg per g dm

1.3

Rotating biological contactors

58–96%

Sorption

Dissolved oxygen levels < 0.3 mg/L

[33]

Trickling filters

86–97%

Sorption

Influent conc: 3.7 μg/L, effluent conc: 0.13 μg/L removal of 96.5%

Activated sludge

95–98%

Sorption

Influent conc 1.1 μg/L, effluent conc 0.027 μg/L, removal of 97.5%: dissolved oxygen levels 1.5–2.0 mg/L

1.4

Degradation under: aerobic conditions

95 ± 1.2%

Degradation in mineral broth and agar media

10 mg/L of TCS degraded in 5 days, phenol, catechol, and 2,4-dichlorophenol are intermediate products

[34]

Anaerobic conditions

87%

Degradation

Methanogenic conditions for 10 days with acetate as co substrate

1.5

Using bacteria

> 60%

Degradation

N. Europaea has degraded TCS > 60% for an initial conc of 0.5–2 mg/L

[36]

1.6

Activated sludge

99.9%

Sorption

Dissolved oxygen = 5000 mg/L, SRT = 2–4 days, HRT = 52 h, removal efficiency varied 92.5%, 95.4%, 99.1%, 99.9% for 18, 24, 48, 52 h

[38]

1.7

Activated sludge

90%

Sorption

Influent conc: 1.1–1.3 μg/L

[41]

1.8

Activated sludge

96%

Sorption

Influent conc: 3.8–16.6 μg/L, effluent conc 0.2–2.7 μg/L, 6 h on aeration basin, HRT = 18 h, TSS < 15 mg/L

[39]

2.

Activated carbon

2.1

Charcoal-based GAC

31.4%

Sorption

TCS conc 60 mg/L, AC dosage 1 g/L, temperature = 25 degrees, pH = 3–10

[43]

2.2

Powdered activated carbon

98%

Sorption

5 mg/L dose of carbon with a contact time of 4 h

[46]

2.3

Carbon derived from biomass

80.77%

Sorption

0.1 g of AC for C0 = 5 mg/L at acidic pH, time of 20 min, at 25 degrees

[47]

2.4

Activated carbon

0.979

Sorption

pH < 7

[48]

3.

Carbon nanotubes

3.1

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes

0.97 for first order and 0.99 for second order

Sorption

At 298 K and at pH < pKa, C0 = 12 mg/L, sorbent dose = 0.05 g/L for MWNTs

[51]

3.2

Single-walled carbon nanotubes

0.99

Sorption

At pH = 7, and 20 degrees, C0 = 50–2500 μg/L

[52]

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes

0.99

  

3.3

Purified multi-walled carbon nanotubes

> 85%

Sorption

0.1 g of MWNTs, at 293 K, pH = 7, 15 g/L of Na2SO4

[53]

3.4

Pristine multi-walled carbon nanotubes

0.93

Sorption

1.0 mg/L of feed conc, TCS conc = 3–120 ng/L

[48]

3.5

Designer carbon nanotubes

99.7%

Sorption

85.6%-enzyme catalysed degradation, 14.1%-adsorption

[55]

4

Clay minerals

4.1

Vermiculite

Sorption constant Kd = 92.9 ± 12.8

 

pH = 3.1

[57]

Acidic modified montmorillonite K10

Kd = 696.6 ± 52

Sorption

pH = 3.9

4.2

Kaolinite

0.99 for Freundlich isotherm and 0.96 for Langmuir isotherm

Sorption

C0 = 60 mg/L, Sorbent dose = 1 g/L, pH at 6 and 9, Humic acid conc = 200 mg C/L

[58]

Montmorillonite

0.99 for Freundlich isotherm and 0.97 for Langmuir isotherm

 

C0 = 60 mg/L, Sorbent dose = 1 g/L, pH at 7, Humic acid conc = 200 mg C/L

5.

Zeolites

5.1

Organic zeolites

0.992 for Langmuir isotherms and 0.984 for Freundlich isotherm

Sorption

For OZ 2.5 zeolite at 298 K, pH = 6.14

[59]

6.

Biochar

6.1

Biosolids derived biochar

0.8

Sorption

At 10.3 gpm/ft2, mass breakthrough bed volume = 450, mass of TCS removed after 2000 bed volumes = 500 μg/g

[62]

6.2

Sludge derived biochar

99.2%

Sorption

pH = 7.2, biochar dosage = 1.0 g/L, PMS conc = 0.8 mM, temperature = 25 degrees, 32.5% removal in 240 min

[62]

6.3

Biosolid biochar

 

Sorption

Sorption was high under humic acid and at pH = 7

[64]

7.

Other adsorbents

7.1

Manganese oxides

55%

Sorption

pH = 5

[65]

7.2

Mn(IV)

3-99%

 

[66]

7.3

Tyre crumb rubber

89%

Adsorption

pH = 3

[67]

Carbon black

95%

Adsorption

Styrene butadiene polymer

92%

Adsorption

7.4

Polymeric adsorbents

98.4%

Adsorption

Adsorbent dosage of 1.2 g/L

[68]

8

Membrane technology

8.1

Ultra-filtration + PAC

> 98%

Adsorption

Influent conc = 2.4 μg/L, conc after UF = 0.03 μg/l, conc after PAC = < 0.025 μg/L, 100 mg/L of PAC

[70]

8.2

Nanofiltration

Adsorption > 15 μg/cm2

Adsorption

pH = 5, polyamide and polysulphone layers

[72]

8.3

Ultra-filtration

87%

Adsorption

 

[46]

Nanofiltration

91%

Adsorption

 

9.

Advanced oxidation process

9.1

Ozonation of: Milli Q water

99%

Oxidation

Spiked with 100–1600 μg/L at PAC dose of 1.25 g/L, contact time of 5 min

[77]

Aerobically treated grey water

> 87%

Oxidation

Ozone dose of 15 mg/L

9.2

Biological treatment + ozonation

Concentrations found to be detected at (340 mM)

Oxidation

 

[79]

9.3

Ozonation in surface waters

99.7%

Oxidation

Ozone dose = 5 mg/L, TCS conc = 3 mg/L

[78]

Ozonation in Milli Q waters

88.1%

Oxidation

Ozone dose = 5 mg/L, pH = 7.3

9.4

Ozonation

99.9%

Oxidation

Molar ratio of 1:5 for TCS: ozone, TCS conc = 1.4 mg/L, residual TCS conc = 0.001 mg/L

[37]

9.5

Ozonation with electrochemical mechanism

67%

Degradation

 

[83]

9.6

TiO2/UV and O3/UV Processes

> 90% in O3/UV

Degradation

pH = 12, molar ratio of ozone: TCS = 5

Contact time > 480 min in TiO2/UV

[82]

9.7

Fenton’s process

Fe+3 combined with UV-C irradiation

> 95% within

Degradation

Contact time of 120 min

[84]

9.8

Photo-fenton oxidation

99.5%

Degradation

Ratio of H2O2/Fe(II)/TCS ratio of 50/2/0.1

[84]

9.9

Enhanced fenton like process

82.7%

Oxidative degradation

Initial conc of TCS = 34.5 μmol/L, H2O2 conc = 10 mmol/L, EDTA conc = 0.5 mmol/L, BiFeO3 load = 0.5 g/L, pH = 6

[85]

9.10

TiO2 only

30%

Degradation

30% removal occurred in 20 min, in dark condition, pH = neutral

[86]

Photolysis

75%

Degradation

UV irradiation is done, light source 245 nm, pH = neutral, TCS conc = 5 mg/L

TiO2 photocatalysis

82%

Degradation

Light source used is UV A range, 365 nm, pH = neutral, TCS conc = 5 mg/L

9.11

Photocatalysis under UV

90%

Degradation

TCS initial conc = 1 mg/L, 90% was removed in 2 h

[87]

Photolysis

78%

Degradation

300–450 nm light, 4–11 mg/L of TCS, 1 g/L of TiO2, 8% removal in 60 min

Photocatalysis

95%

Degradation

245–365 nm light, 9 mg/L of TCS, 95% removal in 6 h

Photocatalysis of TiO2 with LED’s

53%

Degradation

At pH = 7, 53% of removal has occurred in 8 h

5 Conclusions

Although high removal efficiency could be achieved in biological treatment, some constraints could be observed such as EPS, and these have shown to give a negative impact on removal rate. Further, in the case of ACS, a high removal could be achieved only under extended hydraulic retention time (HRT). A consistent removal was not observed in the case of AC and it varied from 31 to 97%, but the removal efficiency was found to improve when it was combined with MT. MT serves to be an extremely promising method for removal of TCS as compared to other ECs due to its hydrophobic nature (log Kow 4.8), for contaminants whose (Log Kow) value is (< 2.6) are unlikely to get adsorbed over the surface due to high hydrophilicity, Moreover, the issue of rejection of TCS in MT could be avoided by fouling of membranes. Unlike AOP, MT does not generate harmful intermediate products. Moreover, unlike CNTs, MT does not impart toxic effects on the environment and is found to be economical as compared to polymeric resins. Therefore, due to the hydrophobic nature of TCS and due to unique properties of membranes, MT could serve as an ideal method for its treatment.

Notes

Acknowledgements

One of the Authors Dr. D Bhagawan would like to thank the University Grants Commission (UGC), Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, for providing with the required fund and encouragement to carry out the research work (order No. F./31-1/2017/PDFSS-2017-18-TEL-14164).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Bedia J, Muelas-Ramos V, Penas-Grzon M, Gomez-Aviles A, Rodriguez JJ, Belver C (2019) A review on the synthesis and characterization of metal organic frameworks for photocatalytic water purification. Catalysts 9(1):52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilal M, Adeel M, Rasheed T, Zhao Y, Iqbal HMN (2019) Emerging contaminants of high concern and their enzyme-assisted biodegradation—a review. Environ Int 124:336–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gani KM, Kazmi AA (2016) Contamination of emerging contaminants in Indian aquatic sources: first overview of the situation. J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste 21:04016026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rasheed T, Bilal M, Nabeel F, Adeel M, Iqbal HMN (2019) Environmentally-related contaminants of high concern: potential sources and analytical modalities for detection, quantification, and treatment. Environ Int 122:52–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ebele AJ, Abdallah MA-E, Harrad S (2016) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the freshwater aquatic environment. Emerg Contam 3:1–16Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrie B, Barden R, Kasprzyk-Hordern B (2015) A review on emerging contaminants in wastewaters and the environment: current knowledge, understudied areas and recommendations for future monitoring. Water Res 72:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakada N, Komori K, Suzuki Y, Konishi C (2007) Occurrence of 70 pharmaceutical and personal care products in Tone River basin in Japan. Water Sci Technol 56:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang G, Fan M, Zhang G (2014) Emerging contaminants in surface waters in China—a short review. Environ Res Lett 9:074018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glassmeyer ST, Furlon ET, Kolpin DW, Batt AL, Benson R (2017) Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States. Sci Total Environ 581–582:909–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu L, Bilal M, Duan X, Iqubal HMN (2019) Mitigation of environmental pollution by genetically engineered bacteria—current challenges and future perspectives. Sci Total Environ 667:444–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korosa A, Mali N (2012) Review of emerging organic pollutants in groundwater in Slovenia. Geologija 55:243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bilal M, Iqbal HMN (2019) An insight into toxicity and human-health-related adverse consequences of cosmeceuticals—a review. Sci Total Environ 670:555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diana M-G, Mary F-A, Wendy M-C (2017) Occurrence of personal care products as emerging chemicals of concern in water resources: a review. Sci Total Environ 595:601–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooney CM (2010) Personal care products: triclosan comes under scrutiny. Environ Sci Technol 118:A242Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dhillon GS, Kaur S, Pulicharla R, Brar SB, Cledón M, Verma M, Rao YS (2015) Triclosan: current Status, occurrence, environmental risks and bioaccumulation potential. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5657–5684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramaswamya BR, Shanmugama G, Velua G, Rengarajana B, Joakim Larssonb DG (2011) GC–MS analysis and eco toxicological risk assessment of triclosan, carbamazepine and parabens in Indian rivers. J Hazard Mater 186:1586–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee DG (2015) Removal of a synthetic broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent, triclosan, in wastewater treatment systems: a short review. Environ Eng Res 20:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blair BD, Crago JP, Hedman CJ, Klaper RD (2013) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products found in the Great Lakes above concentrations of environmental concern. Chemosphere 93:2116–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lyndall J, Barber T, Mahaney W, Bock M, Capdevielle M (2017) Evaluation of triclosan in Minnesota lakes and rivers: part I—ecological risk assessment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 142:578–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nishi I, Kawakami T, Onodera S (2008) Monitoring of triclosan in the surface water of the Tone Canal, Japan. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 80:163–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ying G-G, Kookana RS (2007) Triclosan in wastewaters and biosolids from Australian wastewater treatment plants. Environ Int 33:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olaniyan LW, Mkwetshana N, Okoh AI (2016) Triclosan in water implications for human and environmental health. Springerplus 5:1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iyer AP, Xue J, Honda M, Robinson M, Kumosani TA, Abulnaja K, Kannan K (2018) Urinary levels of triclosan and triclocarban in several Asian countries, Greece and the USA: association with oxidative stress. Environ Res 160:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xue J, Wu Q, Sakthivel S, Pavithran PV, Vasukutty JR, Kannan K (2015) Urinary levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including bisphenols, bisphenol A diglycidyl ethers, enzophenones, parabens, and triclosan in obese and non-obese Indian children. Environ Res 137:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Allmyr M, Adolfsson-Erici M, McLachlan MS, Sandborgh-Englund G (2006) Triclosan in plasma and milk from Swedish nursing mothers and their exposure via personal care products. Sci Total Environ 372:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong L-Y, Reidy JA, Needham LL (2008) Urinary concentrations of triclosan in the U.S. population: 2003–2004. Environ Health Perspect 116:303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lehutso RF, Daso AP, Okonkwo JO (2017) Occurrence and environmental levels of triclosan and triclocarban in selected wastewater treatment plants in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Emerg Contam 3:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou X, Zhang Y, Shi L (2009) Determination of triclosan in wastewater using solid phase extraction and high performance liquid chromatography with ultra-violet detectionGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lei M, Zhang L, Lei J, Zong L, Li J, Wu Z, Wang Z (2015) Overview of emerging contaminants and associated human health effects. BioMed Res Int 404796:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tatarazako N, Ishibashi N, Teshima H, Kenji T, Katsuyuki K, Koji A (2004) Effects of triclosan on various aquatic organisms. Environ Sci Int J Environ Physiol Toxicol 11:133–140Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ortiz de Garcia SA, Pinto PG, Garcia-Encina PA, Irusta-Mata R (2014) Ecotoxicity and environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in aquatic environments and wastewater treatment plants. Ecotoxicology 23:1517–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim M, Shah A, Guerra P, Smyth SA, Parsa M, Alaee M (2014) Removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in a membrane bioreactor wastewater treatment plant. Water Sci Technol 69:2221–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cartmell E, Thompson A, Richard MS (2005) The fate and removal of triclosan during wastewater treatment. Water Environ Res 77:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gangadharan P, Veetil P, Bhaskaran K, Bhasi A, Khan S, Bhaskaran K (2012) Degradation of triclosan under aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic conditions. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 167:1603–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wu Y, Lin L, Suanon F, Hu A, Sun Y-N, Yu Z-M, Yu C-P, Sun Q (2018) Effect of a weak magnetic field on triclosan removal using zero-valent iron under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Chem Eng J 346:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roh H, Subramanya N, Zhao F, Yu C-P, Sandt J, Chu K-H (2009) Biodegradation potential of wastewater micro pollutants by ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. Chemosphere 77:1084–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen X, Zhuang J, Bester K (2018) Degradation of triclosan by environmental microbial consortia and by axenic cultures of microorganisms with concerns to wastewater treatment. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:5403–5417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maaroof M, Uysal Y (2014) Use the extended activated sludge process to remove triclosan (TCS) from wastewater treatment plant KSU. J Sci Eng 17:1–6Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McAvoy DC, Jacob M, Schatowitz B, Hauk A, Eckhoff WS (2002) Measurement of triclosan in wastewater treatment systems. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:1323–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Winkler G, Thompson A, Fischer R, Krebs P, Griffin P, Cartmell E (2007) Mass flow balances of triclosan in small rural wastewater treatment plants and the impact of biomass parameters on the removal. Eng Life Sci 7:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bester K (2003) Triclosan in a sewage treatment process—balances and monitoring data. Water Res 37:3891–3896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rossner A, Snyder SA, Knappec DRU (2009) Removal of emerging contaminants of concern by alternative adsorbents. Water Res 43:3787–3796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jeirani Z, Niu CH, Soltan J (2016) Adsorption of emerging pollutants on activated carbon. Rev Chem Eng 33:491–522Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saha D, Grappe HA (2017) Adsorption properties of activated carbon fibres. Act Carbon Fibre Text 5:143–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grassi M, Kaykioglu G, Belgiorno V, Lofrano G (2012) Removal of emerging contaminants from water and wastewater by adsorption process. Green Chem Sustain 2:15–37Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Westerhoff P, Yoon Y, Snyder S, Wert E (2005) Fate of endocrine-disruptor pharmaceutical, and personal care product chemicals during simulated drinking water treatment processes. Environ Sci Technol 39:6649–6663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Khoriha N, Khori EM, Hadibarata T, Elshikh MS, Ahmed A, Salmiati A-G, Yusop Z (2018) Triclosan removal by adsorption using activated carbon derived from waste biomass: isotherms and kinetic studies. J Chinese Chem Soc 37:1–9Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wang F, Lu X, Peng W, Deng Y, Zhang T, Hu Y, Li X-Y (2017) Sorption behavior of bisphenol A and triclosan by graphene: comparison with activated carbon. ACS Omega 2:5378–5384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Acero JL, Javier Benitez F, Francisco JR, Teva F (2012) Coupling of adsorption, coagulation, and ultrafiltration processes for the removal of emerging contaminants in a secondary effluent. Chem Eng J 210:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mauter MS, Elimelech M (2008) Environmental applications of carbon-based nano materials. Environ Sci Technol 42:5843–5859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhou S, Shao Y, Gao N, Deng J, Tan C (2013) Equilibrium, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies on the adsorption of triclosan onto multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Clean Soil Air Water 41:539–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cho H-H, Huang H, Schwab K (2011) Effects of solution chemistry on the adsorption of ibuprofen and triclosan onto carbon nanotubes. Langmuir 27:12960–12967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hu X, Cheng Z, Sun Z, Zhu H (2017) Adsorption of diclofenac and triclosan in aqueous solution by purified multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Pol J Environ Stud 26:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang Y, Ma J, Zhu J, Ye N, Zhang X, Huang H (2016) Multi-walled carbon nanotubes with selected properties for dynamic filtration of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Water Res 92:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sarkar B, Mandal S, Tsang YF, Kumar P, Kime K-H, Ok YS (2018) Designer carbon nanotubes for contaminant removal in water and wastewater: a critical review. Sci Total Environ 612:561–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jung C, Son A, Her N, Zoh K-D, Cho J, Yoon Y (2015) Removal of endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products in water using carbon nanotubes: a review. J Ind Eng Chem 27:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Styszko K, Nosek K, Motak M, Bester K (2015) Preliminary selection of clay minerals for the removal of pharmaceuticals, bisphenol A and triclosan in acidic and neutral aqueous solutions. C R Chim 18:1134–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Behera SK, Oh SY, Park HS (2010) Sorption of triclosan onto activated carbon, kaolinite and montmorillonite: effects of pH, ionic strength, and humic acid. J Hazard Mater 179:684–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lei C, Hu Y-Y, He M-Z (2013) Adsorption characteristics of triclosan from aqueous solution onto cetylpyridinium bromide (CPB) modified zeolites. Chem Eng J 219:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rodriguez-Narvaez OM, Peralta-Hernandez JM, Goonetilleke A, Bandala ER (2017) Treatment technologies for emerging contaminants in water: a review. Chem Eng J 323:361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Carmalin Sophia A, Lima EC (2017) Removal of emerging contaminants from the environment by adsorption. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 150:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kimbell LK, Tong Y, Mayer BK, McNamara PJ (2017) Bio solids-derived bio char for triclosan removal from wastewater. Environ Eng Sci 35:513–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wang S, Wang J (2018) Activation of peroxymonosulfate by sludge-derived bio char for the degradation of triclosan in water and waste water. Chem Eng J 356:350–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Oh SY, Seo YD (2016) Sorption of halogenated phenols and pharmaceuticals to bio char: affecting factors and mechanisms. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:951–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zhang H, Huang C-H (2003) Oxidative transformation of triclosan and chlorophene by manganese oxides. Environ Sci Technol 37:2421–2430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Liu W, Sutton NB, Huub HM, Rijnaarts HHM, Langenhoff AAM (2017) Pharmaceutical removal from water with iron- or manganese-based technologies: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 46:1584–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Morales L, Perales-Pérez O, Román-Velázquez F (2012) Sorption of triclosan onto tyre crumb rubber. Adsorpt Sci Technol 30:831–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Solak S, Vakondios N, Tzatzimaki I, Diamadopoulos E, Arda M, Kabay N, Yüksel M (2014) A comparative study of removal of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) from treated wastewater using highly cross linked polymeric adsorbents and activated carbon. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 89:819–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nghiem LD, Fujioka T (2016) Removal of emerging contaminants for water reuse by membrane technology. In: Emerging membrane technology for sustainable water treatment. pp 217–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sheng C, Ahwu Nnanna AG, Liu Y, Vargo JD (2016) Removal of trace pharmaceuticals from water using coagulation and powdered activated carbon as pre-treatment to ultrafiltration membrane system. Sci Total Environ 550:1075–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Watanabe Y, Toshima S, Kimura K, Amy G (2004) Rejection of neutral endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceutical active compounds (PhACs) by RO membranes. J Membr Sci 245:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lin YL, Chiou JH, Lee CH (2014) Effect of silica fouling on the removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products by nano filtration and reverse osmosis membranes. J Hazard Mater 277:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yoon Y, Westerhoff P, Snyder SA, Wert EC (2006) Nanofiltration and ultrafiltration of endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. J Membr Sci 270:88–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Melo-Guimarães A, Torner-Morales FJ, Durán-Álvarez JC, Jiménez-Cisneros BE (2013) Removal and fate of emerging contaminants combining biological, flocculation and membrane treatments. Water Sci Technol 67:877–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Souza FS, De Carvalho CB, Féris LA (2017) Comparison of different advanced oxidation processes for the removal of emerging contaminants in aqueous solutions. In: The 14th IWA leading edge conference on water and wastewater technologies. pp 1–3Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Langlais B, Reckhow DA, Brink DR (1991) Ozone in water treatment: application and engineering. Lewis Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hernández-Leal L, Temmink H, Zeeman G, Buisman CJN (2011) Removal of micro pollutants from aerobically treated grey water via ozone and activated carbon. Water Res 45:2887–2896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Orhon KB, Orhon AK, Dilek FB, Yetis U (2017) Triclosan removal from surface water by ozonation—kinetics and by-products formation. J Environ Manag 204:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rosala R, Rodríguez A, Perdigón-Melón JA, Petre A, García-Calvoa E, JoséGómez M, Agüera A, Fernández-Alba AR (2010) Occurrence of emerging pollutants in urban wastewater and their removal through biological treatment followed by ozonation. Water Res 44:578–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chen X, Richard J, Liu Y, Dopp E, Tuerk J, Bester K (2012) Ozonation products of triclosan in advanced wastewater treatment. Water Res 46:2247–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Leon-Condes CD, Barrera-Díaz C, Barrios J, Becerril E, Reyes-Pérez H (2017) A coupled ozonation–electro oxidation treatment for removal of bisphenol A, nonylphenol and triclosan from wastewater sludge. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14:707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Anupama A, Shrihari S (2018) Triclosan, removal from synthetic wastewater by Tio2/UV and O3/UV processes. IOSR J Environ Sci Toxicol Food Technol 12:569–582Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Son H-S, Khim J, Zoh K-D (2010) Degradation of triclosan in the combined reaction of Fe2+ and UV-C: comparison with the fenton and photolytic reactions. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 29:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Cokay E, Oztamer M (2017) Degradation of triclosan by photo-fenton oxidation. J Sci Eng 19:583–598Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Song Z, Wang N, Zhu L, Huang A, Zhao X, Tang H (2012) Efficient oxidative degradation of triclosan by using an enhanced Fenton-like process. Chem Eng J 198–199:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Son H-S, Ko G, Zoh K-D (2009) Kinetics and mechanism of photolysis and TiO2 photocatalysis of triclosan. J Hazard Mater 166:954–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Doutora IA, Espinha da Silveira Professora Auxiliar (2014) Photochemical degradation of triclosan: a comparison between different light sources. Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiasGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Cincinelli A, Martellini T, Katsoyiannis ECA (2015) Nanotechnologies for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products from water and wastewater A review. J Nano Sci Nanotechnol 15:3333–3347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Rychoudhury T, Scheytt TJ (2013) Potential of zero valent iron nanoparticles for remediation of environmental organic contaminants in water: a review. Water Sci Technol 68:1425–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Janda V, Vasek P, Bizova J (2004) Removal of halogenated hydrocarbons from water by zero-valent iron. Chem Listy 98:985–988Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Stefaniuk M, Oleszczuk P, Ok YS (2015) Review on nano zerovalent iron (nZVI): from synthesis to environmental applications. Chem Eng J 287:618–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Tapiero H, Tew KD, Nguyen Ba G, Mathé G (2002) Polyphenols: do they play a role in the prevention of human pathologies. Biomed Pharmacother 56:200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zhu QY, Hammerstone JF, Zarus SA, Schmitz HH, Keen CL (2003) Stabilizing effect of ascorbic acid on flavan-3-ols and dimeric procyanidins from cocoa. J Agric Food Chem 58:828–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Saadeh R, Majida AJ, Abdoh A, Al-Bawab A (2009) Stability study of green tea natural extract in aqueous solutions and its chemical kinetics. Pure Sci 36:62–75Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environment, Institute of Science and TechnologyJawaharlal Nehru Technological University HyderabadKukatpally, HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations