Next Article in Journal
Novel Autotaxin Inhibitor ATX-1d Significantly Enhances Potency of Paclitaxel—An In Silico and In Vitro Study
Previous Article in Journal
The Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor and Its Crosstalk: A Chemopreventive Target of Naturally Occurring and Modified Phytochemicals
Previous Article in Special Issue
Significant Differences in the Effects of Nitrogen Doping on Pristine Biochar and Graphene-like Biochar for the Adsorption of Tetracycline
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effective Detoxification of Olive Mill Wastewater Using Multi-Step Surfactant-Based Treatment: Assessment of Environmental and Health Impact

1
Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Yarmouk University, Irbid 21163, Jordan
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Hijjawi Faculty for Engineering Technology, Yarmouk University, Irbid 21163, Jordan
3
Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Yarmouk University, Irbid 21163, Jordan
4
Department of Nutrition and Food Technology, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan
5
Department of Community Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 10219, Riyadh 11433, Saudi Arabia
6
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2024, 29(18), 4284; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29184284
Submission received: 4 August 2024 / Revised: 28 August 2024 / Accepted: 29 August 2024 / Published: 10 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Adsorbents in Treatment of Pollutants)

Abstract

:
Olive mill wastewater (OMW) poses a significant environmental challenge and health concern in olive-producing countries, including Jordan. Surfactant micelles are frequently employed as solubilizing agents to enhance the water solubility of chemical compounds. This study aims to leverage the sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) micelles in a multi-step process to detoxify OMW for agricultural and industrial uses and reduce its impact. The OMW was treated in multiple steps: screening, coagulation with different chemicals, and distillation with different surfactants. The treatment steps were monitored using LC–MS, GC–MS, ICP–MS, chemical oxygen demand contents, and total phenolic compounds. The detoxification of OMW was evaluated using standard germination assays, MTT assays using tissue culture, and toxicity assays using fluorescence bacteria. Following the treatment, the seed growth rate improved significantly from 0% to 100%. The GC–MS revealed a substantial decrease in pollutants. The concentration of polyphenols was reduced to 2.5%, while the COD level decreased to 35%. The toxicity in bacteria was significantly reduced in a time-dependent manner, and the toxicity in human cells decreased by 95%. Additionally, between 50% and 95% of metals in OMW were removed. The multi-step SDS-based approach successfully detoxified the OMW and enhanced water quality, which would pave the road for its direct application in industry and agriculture.

1. Introduction

The Mediterranean countries are known as the primary global producers of olive oil, as they account for 98% of global olive oil production [1]. For instance, Jordan produced more than 20 thousand tons of olive oils in 2022 [2]. Unfortunately, the olive oil extraction process produces large amounts of polluted water as a liquid by-product called olive mill wastewater (OMW) [3], the estimated volume of which is about 30 million m3 per year [4]. Subsequently, thousands of cubic meters of OMW and thousands of tons of solid waste are produced in Jordan [5].
Olive oil mill wastewater (OMW) is a significant environmental challenge due to its high chemical oxygen demand (COD), organic load, and phenolic content, all of which can cause phytotoxicity and impede microbial growth [6,7,8]. Moreover, as OMW is discharged into surface water or spread on the land, it can pollute surface and groundwater bodies, harm agricultural fields and the environment, and harm public health [2,4,9,10,11,12]. Furthermore, researchers have found that OMW is toxic to plants even after 100-fold dilution and affects seed germination [13].
Various methods have been explored to address this problem, such as electro-coagulation [14], electro-Fenton reaction combined with anaerobic digestion [15], and the integration of Fenton’s reaction with anaerobic treatment [16]. Additionally, technologies like reverse osmosis [17], electrochemical oxidation [18], catalytic oxidation [19], and distillation [20] have been investigated for their efficacy in treating OMW. More about the current methods of treatment were discussed in detail previously [2]. However, despite advancements, each treatment approach encounters its own set of challenges and limitations, hindering their widespread adoption and effectiveness [2], such as high operational costs [21], incomplete treatment [22], seasonal variability [23], environmental concerns and safety [24], and limited applicability [25].
The efficiency of conventional treatment methods is limited due to the presence of a large amount of organic matter [22]. Moreover, the presence of substances like tyrosol, hydroxytyrosol, and polyphenols in OMW further complicates the treatment process [26,27]. Therefore, the treatment of OMW is complex and expensive [28,29]. Moreover, the current treatment methods may not fully comply with discharge limits and regulatory standards [30,31]. Thus, a unique, safe, and cost-effective treatment of OMW that produces harmless by-products without harming plants, humans, or microorganisms is required [28].
Micelles have been extensively studied for their ability to enhance the solubility of poorly water-soluble compounds, including drugs. The formation of micelles using surfactants has been shown to significantly improve the water solubility of drugs, leading to enhanced bioavailability, reduced toxicity, improved drug stability, and altered drug distribution [32,33].
Micelles are self-assembling colloidal systems composed of a hydrophobic core surrounded by a hydrophilic corona, which can enhance the solubility of poorly water-soluble compounds [4]. Hence, micelles can effectively capture hydrophobic molecules from water, assisting in the elimination of pollutants [34]. Furthermore, micelles have been investigated for their capacity to eliminate both anionic and neutral pollutants from water [35].
Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) is a strong anionic surfactant with the formula NaC12H25SO4. SDS is often selected for the effective removal of heavy metals in water [36]. Also, SDS was used to extract the phenolic compounds from OMW for industrial uses by a mixture of nonionic/anionic surfactants [36].
Previous applications of surfactants were observed in micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF). The proposed approach involves the introduction of a surfactant into contaminated water at a concentration exceeding the critical micelle concentration (CMC). The micelles should be larger in size to be retained in a membrane with a pore size larger than required for pollutant retention [37]. However, this method has many limitations, such as frequent pore obstruction. This may lead to permeate flux reduction and permeation of surfactant monomers and, subsequently, potential toxicity due to the leakage of the surfactant monomer [38].
In this work, a multi-step method (coagulation–flocculation–sedimentation) along with SDS micelle-distillation was used to reduce the toxicity of OMW, prevent potential secondary toxicity from the surfactant, and collect the polyphenols from OMW. The detoxification steps were monitored using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS), gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS), inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP–MS), high chemical oxygen demand contents, and total phenolic compounds. The detoxification of OMW was evaluated using standard germination assay, MTT assay using tissue culture, and toxicity assay using fluorescence bacteria.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Coagulation–Flocculation–Sedimentation

This step is to manipulate the electrical charges to promote the aggregation of suspended solid materials into larger flocs, which can then settle more readily. This floccule can capture various hazardous compounds and remove them from the liquid [39]. Several chemicals were tested: alum, ferrous sulfate, eggshell, and lime (CaOH2). The best result was achieved using lime (CaOH2) at a concentration of 30 g/L; the volume of sediment was 60% of the total volume, whereas it was less in other agents. This result suits well with the previously published works [39].
Typically, the pH of untreated OMW falls within the acidic range of 4–6 [40]. In this study, the pH of the OMW was measured at 4.5. Upon coagulation, the pH increased significantly, reaching a pH = 12. The significant increase in pH is due to the use of a high concentration of lime [41]. This high alkalinity may facilitate further degradation of compounds that are hard to remove. It is important to mention that the treated water after this step did not neutralize. The neutralization would add an extra step, and it has been reported that electrolytes that may be generated from the neutralization step affect the micelle formation [42].

2.2. Selection of Surfactant and Determination of Total Phenolic Compounds

According to the results of total phenolic compounds (Table 1), the coagulation step alone with lime (CaOH2) successfully removed 56% of the total polyphenols. Subjecting the coagulated OMW to distillation (without the presence of any surfactant) reduced the polyphenols by 88%. To further remove the polyphenol contaminants, distillation with three different types of surfactants (anionic, cationic, and neutral) was evaluated. The neutral surfactants were used to keep the reaction as environmentally safe as possible. Neutral surfactants, in general, are biodegradable and based on natural fatty acids and sugar alcohol sorbitol [43].
Distillation with sodium lauryl sulfate was the best in removing polyphenolic compounds, as the residual percentage decreased to approximately 2.5%. The results of other surfactants (span 80, span 20, and CTAB) were 14%, 11%, and 11.2%, respectively. Therefore, SDS was solely used in further experiments.
Furthermore, to determine the optimum concentration of SDS, five different concentrations, CMC, CMC*2, CMC*4, CMC/2, and CMC/4, were evaluated. The highest clearance percentage was observed at all concentrations that were either equal to or more than the CMC, or 2.31 g/L or 0.008 mol/L. Micelles form at these concentrations.
Micelles have a hydrophobic core where many types of lipids and lipophilic compounds are entrapped, and the hydrophilic surface can form many interactions with polar compounds [3]. Micelles have been extensively studied for their ability to enhance the solubility of poorly water-soluble compounds, including drugs. The formation of micelles using surfactants has been shown to significantly improve water solubility [32,33]. For instance, the use of micelles has been reported to increase the solubility of drugs like imiquimod, fluocinolone acetonide, docetaxel, paclitaxel, curcumin, and thymoquinone [44,45,46,47,48]. Moreover, the solubility enhancement achieved through micelles has been linked to their ability to form nano-sized structures [49]. The formation of micelles is influenced by factors such as surfactant properties, critical micelle concentration (CMC), and the structure of the micelles themselves [50,51]. These micelles, typically ranging around 80 nm in size, provide a favorable environment for solubilizing poorly soluble compounds [52,53]. The micelle formation process involves interactions between hydrophobic and hydrophilic segments of surfactants, leading to the creation of stable structures that can encapsulate the chemicals or other hydrophobic molecules [54,55].
Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) micelles have been extensively studied for their ability to enhance the solubility of various chemicals [56]. These micelles can interact with different compounds to form micelle–chemical aggregates, improving solubility. For instance, SDS has been used to enhance the solubility and dissolution rate of poorly soluble active pharmaceutical ingredients [53,57], such as cosmetics [58].
Furthermore, the use of SDS micelles has been explored in the removal of lead and mercury from aqueous solutions, showcasing the diverse applications of SDS micelles beyond solubility enhancement [59,60].
OMW contains a high load of organic compounds, including the following organic groups: benzoic acids and derivatives, aromatic conpounds, fatty acids, cinnamic acids, phenyl ethyl alcohols, other phenolic acids, flavonols, flavones, lignans, isochromans, and secoiridoids [61]. It is expected that distillation may remove 90% of the polyphenols and organic compounds. However, OMW contains a high concentration of volatile organic compounds, including organic acids. It has been reported that more than 60 volatile chemical compounds are present in OMW [61], including short-chain fatty acids (six or fewer carbons) [62]. Hence, by distillation, all volatile organic compounds will be concentrated in the distilled product. SDS-micelle will form extra interactions with such compounds; therefore, a large portion of the volatile compounds will be removed.
Different types of bonds are established during the interaction between micelles and the contaminants. For example, fatty acids possessing an extended alkyl chain, such as stearic acid, may establish a hydrophobic interaction with the micelle’s core. Additionally, aromatic compounds such as styrene are also bound to the core. The toxic compound, alcohol tyrosol, is more likely to interact with the head and tail of the micelle in a hydrophilic and hydrophobic manner, respectively (Figure 1).
Several studies have shown the efficacy of micelles in eliminating volatile organic contaminants from water [34,35,63]. Knowing that, along with the results, the addition of SDS micelles to OWM effectively slowed down the release of toxic compounds during the distillation. Hence, micelles can potentially augment the effectiveness of remediation procedures by augmenting the solubility of pollutants, thereby facilitating their removal or degradation.

2.3. Germination Assay

The germination assay was conducted for each treatment, and several parameters were measured (stem length and fungal contamination). Tap water was used as a positive control. Both filtered raw OMW and coagulated did not exhibit any signs of growth, and the mold was observed after a few days (Figure 2; Table 2). On the other hand, there was a significant increase in stem growth and germination percentage when distillation was applied immediately to raw and coagulated OMW; however, this was still 50% less than in the control group. Additionally, after one week, the presence of hazy molds became apparent. Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 2, the lime coagulation has demonstrated its effectiveness in promoting growth in both shoot and root length and preventing mold formation compared to the distilled raw OMW sample.
When SDS was applied at CMC, the outcomes closely resembled those of the control sample (tap water) in terms of the length of roots and shoots and the absence of any fungal development.
The effect on germination has not shown a significant difference in the growth between CMC and concentrations above it (Table 3). Therefore, SDS at CMC concentration was used for further steps.
It has been reported that the seed can germinate in a wide range of pH (5–8) [64]; in this experiment, the pH of treated water after all steps was 9.0. Hence, the effect of basic pH on growth was tested, and the results showed no differences. Subsequently, there was no need to neutralize the pH for any further experiments.
A hypothesis was formulated suggesting that the pollutants could disrupt the earliest stage of germination and cause the death of the embryo. Therefore, the seeds were soaked in tap water for 8 h to initiate germination, followed by moistening with OMW over a week. Based on the results, although the seeds effectively developed stems and roots, their growth was slower, and the growth rate was smaller than that of the positive control. In addition, clouds of fungal contamination were observed.
OMW contains a high concentration of phytotoxic and phenolic compounds that have antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, such as hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, hydroquinone, 4-aminophenol, phenol, gallic acid, caffeic acid, 3,5-di-tert-butylcatechol, quercetin, oleuropein, and catechol [65,66]. It has been reported that OMW can inhibit the growth of several fungi, such as Trichoderma spp., Fusarium spp., and Aspergillus spp. [13].
According to the fungal growth, it appears that only using SDS at CMC and above can stop the fungal growth. So fungal contamination may already be in the OWW, and the contaminants (polyphenols) kill all microorganisms except the fungi, or the Fungai is already on the seeds, and the OMW pollutants facilitate the growth. In both cases, the pollutants that were removed by SDS are responsible for both actions.

2.4. Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis

LC–MS analysis was conducted to determine the compounds present in OMW and to evaluate the efficiency of the detoxification treatment. The list of highest-scoring compounds identified in the OMW at the different treatment steps is shown in Table 4 and the total ion chromatogram (positive and negative ionization modes) is shown in Figure 3.
It has been reported that simple biophenols (tyrosol, hydroxytyrosol, and homovanillic alcohol) and complex biophenols (decarbomethoxy ligstroside aglycone and decarbomethoxy oleuropein aglycone) are the most abundant analytes in OMW [61].
The most suggested compound to have the highest toxicity in OMW is hydroxyl tyrosol, which is thought to be produced from the hydrolysis reaction of oleuropein during the milling step [4]. As shown in Table 4, hydroxy tyrosol was successfully removed via the CMC step while existing in all other steps.
According to the results, there were unexpected compounds such as sunscreens, pesticides, food additives, plasticizers, and pharmaceutical drugs. These chemicals may come from water contaminants during the washing step, preparation steps, or the actual compounds that were not included in the library. To avoid the possibility that the compound is not included, the main olive compounds were used as a standard for identification (Supplement Data S2).
In conclusion, the LC–MS results were inconclusive, so we conducted further instrumental analysis procedures.

2.5. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis

The OMW samples were assessed after the last stage of treatment (SDS) and in their untreated state (raw). Significant variations can be seen in the chromatograms before and after treatment. The CMC-treated OMW showed a considerable reduction in both peak count and intensity, as shown in Figure 4.
For example, the tyrosol peak (Figure 4 and Figure 5A), which was initially observed at 11.6–11.8 min, fell to one-third of its original intensity, and other neighboring peaks vanished. Furthermore, the peaks that were present between 12.5 and 17.5 min have completely disappeared.
The compounds in that area include organic acids like Octanoic acid, Aconitic acid, 4-Coumaric acid, Citric acid, Tranexamic acid, Quininic acid, Labdanolic acid, Fumaric acid, Octadecenoic acid, and Stearic acid. Additionally, there are other Glucosides like Syringaresinol diglucoside, hexopyranoside, Matairesinoside, and a wide variety of compounds like Brefeldin, Triphenylene, Homovanillyl alcohol, Lapachol, Styrene, Rhodamine B cation, Isobenzofuran, Gibban, Trimethoxyflavone, Prostaglandin A3, dimethoxyflavanone, Oxytetracycline. The complete list of identified compounds is in the Supplement Data S3.
It is important to clarify that not all peaks in the chromatogram are chemicals from OWM, as some of them are due to the derivatization process in Figure 5B,C. Both compounds were identified in the area between 15.88 and 15.91 min.

2.6. Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Analysis

It has been reported that OMW contains a significant concentration of heavy metals [67,68]. Heavy metal contamination can take place during the handling and processing of olive fruits as well as from the soil [68]. Hence, all possible types of metal were measured, including heavy metals. The mechanism of adsorption of SDS towards heavy metals involves several complex interactions primarily driven by electrostatic forces and hydrophobic interactions. The primary mechanism is through electrostatic attraction. The negatively charged sulfate groups of SDS can bind to positively charged metal ions, such as Pb2⁺, Cd2⁺, and Cu2⁺, leading to the formation of metal–surfactant complexes on the surface of adsorbents [69,70,71]. Moreover, hydrophobic interaction also plays a significant role in the adsorption process. The hydrophobic tail of SDS can interact with organic contaminants, which might be chelated or interact with heavy metals, promoting the aggregation of metal ions within the micellar structure of SDS [72,73].
The initial concentrations of metals in raw OMW are shown in Table 5. There were many variations in metal percentages at the different stages of treatment; however, all of the following heavy metals (Hg, Pb, Cd, As, and Mo) were under the detection limit in all samples (Figure 6). The highest concentration of metals was in the filtered raw sample. After the coagulation step, Ca ions have disappeared completely; it might be due to the precipitation by lime (CaOH2), and there was a sudden increase in Sr concentration. After distillation, K ions approach zero, and metals like Cu and Fe have increased greatly compared to raw samples. This increase in the concentration of these ions can be explained by their transfer to the product container of distillation, accompanied by the decrease in the water volume [74]. At the final SDS-CMC step, the total amount of ions has decreased significantly; Ni, Fe, and Cu approach half of their original amounts in the raw sample due to their interaction with SDS micelles [75]. SDS is already known for its capability for the removal of heavy metal ions [76].

2.7. High Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

The Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) test is utilized to predict the amount of oxygen needed by the effluent. It is employed for the purpose of monitoring and regulating discharges, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of treatment plants [77]. OMW contains high concentrations of chemical oxygen demand (COD), reaching 220 g/L, mainly consisting of phenol, lipids, acids, and sugars [18]. Hence, it has a negative impact on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems upon disposal [78]. Since the chemical composition of olive mill wastewater is highly variable both qualitatively and quantitatively according to the country and method of extraction [2,79], the COD was measured in all treatment stages. According to the data presented in Table 6, the concentration of COD decreases gradually during the treatment process, ultimately achieving a 65% reduction following the SDS-CMC phase.

2.8. Bacteria Toxicity Assay

The presence of OMW in the environment can disrupt microbial consortia and bacterial populations [78]. Moreover, the antimicrobial properties of OMW, particularly in its liquid form, can inhibit the growth of plants and microorganisms, affecting the overall biodiversity of ecosystems [78,80]. Two samples of OMW were analyzed: the first sample was filtered, and the final sample was treated with SDS-CMC. The survival percentage was determined by measuring the luminescence intensity of Vibrio fischeri at various time intervals over a period of 45 min. As shown in Figure 7, extended duration has significantly amplified the toxicity and mortality rates in filtered samples as compared to CMC samples. For instance, the survival rate in the filter sample decreased substantially, reaching 50% after the incubation period, while it remained constant in the SDS-CMC-treated sample. The toxicity develops in a time-dependent manner. As per the kit instructions, the assay can last for a maximum of 45 min before the fluorescence signal fades. The toxicity results of filtered OMW on photobacterium Vibrio fischeri suit well with previously published [81,82].
According to reports, the main cause of toxicity in V. fischeri is the polar portion of OMW. Therefore, it has been recommended that diluting OMW should not be considered a viable remedy for disposing of OMW, as the toxicity remains even at low concentrations [82]. The incubation period with tested bacteria was extended to 45 min to confirm that there was no toxicity, as previous studies have only examined toxicity for a duration of 10 to 15 min.

2.9. MTT Assay

In addition to its phytotoxic and bactericidal effects, OMW also exhibits high toxicity towards human cells, with the polyphenols being the main contributors to this activity [83]. However, multiple studies reported that the polyphenol extracted from OMW (esp. hydroxy tyrosol) has anti-cancer and antioxidant activity and improves the chemotherapy and cytoprotective [84,85,86]. Furthermore, OMW extract also showed a promising ingredient for dermal applications to improve skin health and skin protection [87].
The purification steps were evaluated using a human fibroblast (non-cancer cells), one of the most abundant cell types in the stroma. It has a variety of functions and composes the basic framework for tissues and organs [88]. The survival rate relative to the control sample was quantified following each treatment stage. Figure 8 illustrates that the survival percentage, relative to the control sample of distilled water with equivalent tonicity, was just 3% for filtered OMW. However, it gradually climbed and reached approximately 95% with SDS-CMC.

2.10. Possible Use for Mass Productions

Several factors can affect the feasibility of mass production, including energy consumption, capacity, production rate, and SDS (cost and toxicity). Figure 9 illustrates the process of detoxification, including the by-products and possible solutions. The debris, sludge, and oily waste can serve as fuel for distillation [89]. To decrease the consumption of fossil fuels and reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, it is recommended to utilize vacuum distillation as a means to lower the boiling point and, thus, minimize the requirement for heating during the distillation process. Organic compound distillation has been conducted using vacuum distillation [89]. Moreover, solar energy can be harnessed to produce the electrical energy required for vacuum distillation. In addition, OMW can be preheated before distillation by utilizing an indirect solar water heating system. This technology can raise the temperature of the water to 90 °C. Additionally, the impact of OMW on the efficiency of the system is negligible [90]. Moreover, it is essential to economically recover and recycle the SDS since the surfactant comprises a significant proportion of expenses and to avoid additional contamination of the environment. There are multiple techniques for recovering the surfactant. These include the addition of an excess of multivalent cations (such as Ca+2) beyond the stoichiometric value, which can lead to a significant amount (45–55%) of surfactant precipitation [91]. Another method is to lower the temperature of the SDS solution to 4 °C, which is below the reported Kriff point of SDS (16 °C) [92]. Other techniques include foam fractionation [93], electrochemical treatment [94], and acidification at Ph = 1 [36]. The capacity and rate of detoxification have to be further evaluated.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Chemicals and Materials

Analytical-grade reagents, chemicals, and HPLC-grade solvents were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich and the local market. OMW was freshly collected in 20 L polyethylene containers from the decenter outlet of three-phase olive oil mill processing systems located in Irbid/Jordan during the olive harvesting season and then stored at 4 °C until use in laboratory experiments.
The natural eggshell waste materials (ES) were obtained from local homes and restaurants to serve as coagulant material. The ES was washed with water to remove impurities, dried for 3 h at 60 °C, and crushed mechanically in a mixer. The dried eggshell product was calcined (CES) at 800 °C for 3 h using a muffle furnace (Carbolite, Sheffield-England), sieved in a mesh number (40–60) to obtain grain size diameters ranging from 425–600 μm, and stored in a dry box until use.

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Purification Steps

Pretreatment

Samples were completely stationary for 24 h and divided into two net layers at the macro level, and then the water layer was filtered using locally made fabric mesh to remove large debris and particles.

Coagulation–Flocculation–Sedimentation

The process was conducted as described elsewhere [36] using the optimum concentration of different agents: alum (600 mg/L) [37], ferrous sulfate (300 mg/L) [37], eggshell (6 g/L) [38], and lime (CaOH2) (15 g/L) [36].
The OMW samples were added first into a graduated Imhoff Cone for one hour to allow for any readily settleable solids to settle down by gravity. The supernatant was then taken and treated by coagulation and flocculation using a conventional 6-station Jar test apparatus (Stuart-SW6) supplied by six beakers (1.0 L each). Alum is used as a coagulant material, and the optimum dose for TSS removal was predetermined first. A total of 500 mL of OMW was transferred to each jar-test beaker, and then six different doses of alum (0.5–3.0 at a 0.5 g/L interval) were added into all beakers. All beakers were subjected to rapid mixing initially at 120 rpm for 3 min and slow mixing thereafter at 20 rpm for 30 min. Then, the contents of the beakers were allowed to settle by gravity for 1.0 h. The alum dose corresponded to the least turbidity, and the TSS value was taken as an optimum dose. The predetermined optimum dose of alum was then added to all OMW samples and treated in the same manner using a jar-test apparatus. The supernatant solution was then withdrawn, collected, and used in the next experiments. Part of this supernatant solution was filtered through filter paper (Whattmann 40) and tested for the same parameters tested for raw OMW to assess the effect of coagulation on OMW quality. All the experiments and sample analysis were performed in triplicate at room temperature of 25 ± 1 °C without pH adjustment.

Micellar Distillation Treatment

Different types of surfactants at the critical micelle concentration (CMC) were evaluated separately: Span 80 at 0.014 g/L, Span 20 at 0.07 mg/L, hexadecyltrimethylammonium (CTAB) at 0.334 g/L, and sodium dodecyl sulfate at 2.3 g/L (Figure 10). Moreover, SDS was tested at different concentrations (above or below CMC: half CMC concentration, quarter CMC concentration, double CMC concentration, and fourfold CMC concentrations). The surfactant was dissolved in 100 mL of OMW and then distilled at 90 °C using standard distillation apparatus and method [39].

3.2.2. Total Phenolic Compounds

The test was conducted as described previously elsewhere [40,41] using Spectrophotometer-UV 1800, Biotech Engineering Management Co., Ltd., Milton Keynes, UK. Briefly, 125 µL of 100-diluted extract was mixed with 500 µL of distilled water and 125 µL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent. Following 3 min of stirring, 1250 µL of 7% sodium carbonate solution was added to the mixture. The mixture was adjusted to 3 mL with ultrapure water and left at room temperature for 90 min in the dark. The results were represented as mg gallic acid per mL of extract.

3.2.3. Germination Assay

The experiment was carried out following the previously described protocol, with some modifications [36]. Ten locally obtained wheat seeds were presoaked in the tested OMWW for 8 h before germinating under the light of a fume hood at room temperature. To prevent drying during germination, 5 mL of treated water was added periodically to the seeds. The entire process of germination lasted around two weeks.

3.2.4. High Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

The COD experiment was performed using the Lovibond COD high-range kit (200–15,000 mg/L) following the manufacturer’s instructions [42]. The samples underwent a 10-fold dilution, and the experiment was conducted using the Lovibond thermal reactor for 120 min at a temperature of 150 °C. The Lovibond Spectro Direct was used at a wavelength of 602 nm (lambda, λ).

3.2.5. Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis (LC–MS)

The unknown sample (0.1 mL) was diluted with 0.9 mL of distilled water. Then, 1.0 mL was transferred to the autosampler, and inject 3.0 µL. The samples were analyzed on a Bruker Daltonik (Bremen, Germany) Impact II ESI-Q-TOF System equipped with Bruker Dalotonik (Bremen, Germany) using direct injection. The instrument was operated using the Ion Source Apollo II ion Funnel electrospray source. The capillary voltage was 2500 V, the nebulizer gas was 2.0 bar, the dry gas (nitrogen) flow was 8 L/min, and the dry temperature was 200 °C. The mass accuracy was ˂1 ppm; the mass resolution was 50,000 FSR (Full Sensitivity Resolution), and the TOF repetition rate was up to 20 kHz. Standards were used for the identification of m/z with high resolution. To evaluate the methods, standards were used (Supplement Data S1).

3.2.6. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis (GC–MS)

The OMWW samples were extracted using ethyl acetate and silylated using BSTFA [43]. The GC–MS analysis was conducted following the procedure described previously [44,45]. Briefly, one µL of the sample was subjected to the GC–MS (Chromatec Crystal GC-MSD, Yoshkar-Ola, Russia) equipped with a CR-5 MS column (5% diphenyl, 95% dimethyl polysiloxane, 30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25-µm film thicknesses). In the MS detector, 70 eV electron ionization was used. MS source temperature was 300 °C, and the transfer line temperature was 230 °C. The temperature column was controlled from 40 °C for 1 min (isothermal) to 280 °C at 3 °C/min, maintaining constant lower and upper temperatures for 3 min. The carrier gas was helium (1.0 mL/min). Estimated compound percentage concentrations were based on relative peak areas. The same chromatographic conditions were used to evaluate a C8–C30 n-alkane standard solution. The chemical constituents were identified by comparing their computed Kovats retention index (KI), matching their mass spectra with the built-in library spectra.

3.2.7. Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Analysis (ICP–MS)

The experiment was conducted at the Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission as previously published [46,47] on the Thermo Scientific™ iCAP™ TQ spectrometer (Bremen, Germany).

3.2.8. Anti-Bacterial Activity

BioTox™ WaterTox™ EVO Kit was used to determine the toxic effect of OMW on the living bacteria Vibrio fischeri. Samples were prepared according to the manufacturer’s protocol and using the kit reagents. The luminescence was measured using a multi-well plate reader (Synergy HTX Multimode Reader, BioTek, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

3.2.9. Cell Culture Assay

The Human Fibroblast (PDL) cell line was obtained as a kind gift from Prof. Khaled Al-Qaoud (Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan). PDL cells were cultured at 37 °C under a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere in DMEM (with high glucose and sodium pyruvate) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 1% penicillin/streptomycin, and 1% NEAA.
Cell viability was evaluated using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assays to assess cell metabolic activities [95]. Exponentially growing PDL cells were washed with PBS, shortly trypsinated, and counted. Then, cells were seeded at a density of 5000 cells/100 µL/well in 96-well plates and cultured overnight. Afterward, the cells were treated for 72 h with 100 µL of the water samples diluted in DMEM (1:2.5 dilutions).
The absorbance of the samples was recorded at 570 nm in a multiwall plate reader (Synergy HTX Multimode Reader, BioTek, USA). Results were plotted as the mean values of duplicates from a representative experiment that was repeated three independent times. Survival is expressed as a percentage of control.

3.2.10. Statistical Analysis

Data were presented as mean ± SD and analyzed using Microsoft Excel with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p < 0.05).

4. Conclusions

The multi-step SDS-based approach successfully detoxified Olive Mill Wastewater (OMW) and significantly improved water quality, making it suitable for direct use in industry and agriculture.
  • The treatment process, involving screening, coagulation with various chemicals, and distillation with different surfactants, effectively reduced the environmental and health impacts of OMW.
  • Monitoring via LC–MS, GC–MS, ICP–MS, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total phenolic compounds confirmed the efficacy of the process.
  • GC–MS and LC–MS show that the total number of contaminants was reduced significantly.
  • The chemical oxygen demand in treated OMW was reduced by 66%.
  • The polyphenol contents were reduced by 98%.
  • The treatment process interfered with the metals, resulting in the following reductions: Cu (45%), Ni (57%), Fe and Ba (70%), Na (80%), Zn, Mg, K, Ca, Mn, and Sr (more than 95%). All other heavy metals (Hg, Pb, Cd, As, and Mo) were under the detection limit in the raw samples.
  • The toxicity of treated OMW was successfully improved: 100% in germination assay, 100% elimination of mold growth, 95% on human cells, and 100% on fluorescence bacteria.
  • The potential use on a large scale was also discussed, and solutions were offered.
  • The overall reduction in pollutants and toxicity highlights the potential of using SDS micelles for OMW detoxification, offering a viable solution for environmental management in olive-producing regions.
  • Future work may focus on mass production.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules29184284/s1, S1: The list of standards used to validate the LC-MS method, S2: The olive oil compounds used for the identification in the LC-MS method, S3: The complete list of identified compounds using the GC-MS method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.A., M.Z. and A.J.; methodology, I.A., A.J., M.Z., T.R., A.H. and Y.A.; software, Y.A. and I.A.; validation, Y.A., A.H, M.Z. and A.J.; formal analysis, Y.A., M.Z., I.A. and A.J.; investigation, Y.A., M.Z., A.H, I.A. and A.J.; resources, M.Z. and A.A.; data curation, Y.A., M.Z., T.R., A.H. and I.A.; writing—original draft preparation, I.A., A.J., A.H. and Y.A.; writing—review and editing, H.A., A.A. and N.A.-R.; visualization, Y.A.; supervision, Y.A.; project administration, Y.A., M.Z. and A.J.; funding acquisition, M.Z. and A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2024R502), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for further funding this project. Moreover, the authors would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive advice.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yangui, A.; Abderrabba, M.; Sayari, A. Amine-modified mesoporous silica for quantitative adsorption and release of hydroxytyrosol and other phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2017, 70, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jamrah, A.; Al-Zghoul, T.M.; Darwish, M.M. A comprehensive review of combined processes for olive mill wastewater treatments. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2023, 8, 100493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Raiti, J.; Hafidi, A. Mixed micelles-mediated dephenolisation of table olive processing’s wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 72, 2132–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bazoti, F.N.; Gikas, E.; Skaltsounis, A.L.; Tsarbopoulos, A. Development of a liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC–ESI MS/MS) method for the quantification of bioactive substances present in olive oil mill wastewaters. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 573, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Al-Qodah, Z.; Al-Shannag, M.; Bani-Melhem, K.; Assirey, E.; Alananbeh, K.; Bouqellah, N. Biodegradation of olive mills wastewater using thermophilic bacteria. Desalination Water Treat. 2015, 56, 1908–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sarris, D.; Rapti, A.; Papafotis, N.; Koutinas, A.A.; Papanikolaou, S. Production of added-value chemical compounds through bioconversions of olive-mill wastewaters blended with crude glycerol by a Yarrowia lipolytica strain. Molecules 2019, 24, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Neffa, M.; Hanine, H.; Lekhlif, B.; Taourirt, M.; Habbari, K. Treatment of wastewaters olive mill by electrocoagulation and biological process. Linnaeus Eco-Tech 2010, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Roig, A.; Cayuela, M.L.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A. An overview on olive mill wastes and their valorisation methods. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 960–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khdair, I.A.; Abu-Rumman, G. Evaluation of the environmental pollution from olive mills wastewater. Fresenius Environ. Bull 2017, 26, 2537–2540. [Google Scholar]
  10. da Silva, A.N. Treatment of Wastewater from the Olive Pomace Oil Extraction Industry by Fenton; Federal University of Technology: Paraná, Brazil, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jakobek, L. Interactions of polyphenols with carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. Food Chem. 2015, 175, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Souilem, S.; El-Abbassi, A.; Kiai, H.; Hafidi, A.; Sayadi, S.; Galanakis, C.M. Olive oil production sector: Environmental effects and sustainability challenges. In Olive Mill Waste; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cibelli, F.; Bevilacqua, A.; Raimondo, M.L.; Campaniello, D.; Carlucci, A.; Ciccarone, C.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Evaluation of fungal growth on olive-mill wastewaters treated at high temperature and by high-pressure homogenization. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Inan, H.; Dimoglo, A.; Şimşek, H.; Karpuzcu, M. Olive oil mill wastewater treatment by means of electro-coagulation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2004, 36, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khoufi, S.; Aloui, F.; Sayadi, S. Treatment of olive oil mill wastewater by combined process electro-Fenton reaction and anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 2006, 40, 2007–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. El-Gohary, F.A.; Badawy, M.I.; El-Khateeb, M.A.; El-Kalliny, A.S. Integrated treatment of olive mill wastewater (OMW) by the combination of Fenton’s reaction and anaerobic treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 162, 1536–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ochando-Pulido, J.M.; Hodaifa, G.; Victor-Ortega, M.D.; Martinez-Ferez, A. Performance modeling and cost analysis of a pilot-scale reverse osmosis process for the final purification of olive mill wastewater. Membranes 2013, 3, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gotsi, M.; Kalogerakis, N.; Psillakis, E.; Samaras, P.; Mantzavinos, D. Electrochemical oxidation of olive oil mill wastewaters. Water Res. 2005, 39, 4177–4187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rocha, K.O.; Brandão, F.; átia Mendes, C.; Carvalho, M.G.V.S.; Mazierski, P.; Zaleska-Medynska, A.; Gomes, J.; Martins, R.C.; Domingues, E. Olive mill waste bio-based catalyst application in advanced oxidation processes for wastewater treatment. Catal. Today 2024, 432, 114618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jaradat, A.Q.; Gharaibeh, S.; Abu Irjei, M. The application of solar distillation technique as a mean for olive mill wastewater management. Water Environ. J. 2018, 32, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ioannou-Ttofa, L.; Michael-Kordatou, I.; Fattas, S.C.; Eusebio, A.; Ribeiro, B.; Rusan, M.; Amer, A.R.B.; Zuraiqi, S.; Waismand, M.; Linder, C.; et al. Treatment efficiency and economic feasibility of biological oxidation, membrane filtration and separation processes, and advanced oxidation for the purification and valorization of olive mill wastewater. Water Res. 2017, 114, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Amor, C.; Lucas, M.S.; García, J.; Dominguez, J.R.; De Heredia, J.B.; Peres, J.A. Combined treatment of olive mill wastewater by Fenton’s reagent and anaerobic biological process. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2015, 50, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zorpas, A.A.; Inglezakis, V.J. Intergraded applied methodology for the treatment of heavy polluted waste waters from olive oil industries. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2011, 2011, 537814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aboutaleb, E.; Kamel, G.; Hellal, M. Investigation of effective treatment techniques for olive mill wastewater. Egypt. J. Chem. 2018, 61, 415–422. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yassine, W.; Zyade, S.; Akazdam, S.; Essadki, A.; Gourich, B.; Left, D.B. A study of olive mill waste water removal by a biosorbent prepared by olive stones. Mediterr. J. Chem. 2019, 8, 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sygouni, V.; Pantziaros, A.G.; Iakovides, I.C.; Sfetsa, E.; Bogdou, P.I.; Christoforou, E.A.; Paraskeva, C.A. Treatment of two-phase olive mill wastewater and recovery of phenolic compounds using membrane technology. Membranes 2019, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Agalias, A.; Magiatis, P.; Skaltsounis, A.-L.; Mikros, E.; Tsarbopoulos, A.; Gikas, E.; Spanos, I.; Manios, T. A new process for the management of olive oil mill waste water and recovery of natural antioxidants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 2671–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rusan, M.J.; Albalasmeh, A.A.; Zuraiqi, S.; Bashabsheh, M. Evaluation of phytotoxicity effect of olive mill wastewater treated by different technologies on seed germination of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 9127–9135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Duarte, K.R.; Freitas, A.C.; Pereira, R.; Pinheiro, J.C.; Gonçalves, F.; Azaari, H.; El Azzouzi, M.; Zrineh, A.; Zaydoun, S.; Duarte, A.C.; et al. Treatment of olive oil mill wastewater by silica–Alginate–Fungi biocomposites. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 4307–4318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Arvaniti, E.C.; Zagklis, D.P.; Papadakis, V.G.; Paraskeva, C.A. High-added value materials production from OMW: A technical and economical optimization. Int. J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 2012, 607219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Paraskeva, C.A.; Arvaniti, E.C.; Papadakis, V.G. Fundamentals and Technoeconomical Analysis of Exploitation of Olive Mill Wastewater to Highadded Vale By-Products. Linnaeus Eco-Tech 2010, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Maddiboyina, B.; Ramaiah; Nakkala, R.K.; Roy, H. Perspectives on cutting-edge nanoparticulate drug delivery technologies based on lipids and their applications. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2023, 102, 377–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ramyasree, J.; Hindustan, A.A.; Chinthaguinjala, H.; Reshma, T.C.; Venkata, H.V.Y.; Bharath, K. Solubility enhancement of drugs with aid of surfactants: Research done since last two decades. Int. J. Pharma Bio. Sci. 2020, 10, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gokhale, D.; Chen, I.; Doyle, P.S. Micelle-Laden Hydrogel Microparticles for the Removal of Hydrophobic Micropollutants From Water. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2022, 4, 746–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Polubesova, T.; Nir, S.; Zadaka, D.; Rabinovitz, O.; Serban, C.; Groisman, L.; Rubin, B. Water Purification From Organic Pollutants by Optimized Micelle−Clay Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 2343–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, J.; Qi, F.; Zeng, G.; Shi, L.; Li, X.; Gu, Y.; Shi, Y. Repeating recovery and reuse of SDS micelles from MEUF retentate containing Cd2+ by acidification UF. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2017, 520, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moreno, M.; Mazur, L.P.; Weschenfelder, S.E.; Regis, R.J.; de Souza, R.A.F.; Marinho, B.A.; da Silva, A.; de Souza, S.M.A.G.U.; de Souza, A.A.U. Water and wastewater treatment by micellar enhanced ultrafiltration—A critical review. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 46, 102574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Welch, J.; Wallace, J.; Lansley, A.B.; Roper, C. Evaluation of the toxicity of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) in the MucilAir™ human airway model in vitro. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021, 125, 105022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Elayadi, F.; El Adlouni, C.; El Herradi, M.A.E.; El Krati, M.; Tahiri, S.; Naman, M.N.F. Effects of raw and treated olive mill wastewater (OMW) by coagulation-flocculation, on the germination and the growth of three plant species (wheat, white beans, lettuce). Moroc. J. Chem. 2019, 7, 111–122. [Google Scholar]
  40. Issa, A.; El Riachy, M.; Bou-Mitri, C.; Doumit, J.; Skaff, W.; Karam, L. Influence of geographical origin, harvesting time and processing system on the characteristics of olive-mill wastewater: A step toward reducing the environmental impact of the olive oil sector. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2023, 32, 103365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Muhammad, G.; Marri, A.; Sami, H.A. Chemical Analysis of Reinforced Stabilized Soil. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bahri, M.A.; Hoebeke, M.; Grammenos, A.; Delanaye, L.; Vandewalle, N.; Seret, A. Investigation of SDS, DTAB and CTAB micelle microviscosities by electron spin resonance. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2006, 290, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nagtode, V.S.; Cardoza, C.; Yasin, H.K.A.; Mali, S.N.; Tambe, S.M.; Roy, P.; Singh, K.; Goel, A.; Amin, P.D.; Thorat, B.R.; et al. Green surfactants (biosurfactants): A petroleum-free substitute for Sustainability─ Comparison, applications, market, and future prospects. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11674–11699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ghezzi, M.; Pescina, S.; Delledonne, A.; Ferraboschi, I.; Sissa, C.; Terenziani, F.; Remiro, P.D.F.R.; Santi, P.; Nicoli, S. Improvement of imiquimod solubilization and skin retention via TPGS micelles: Exploiting the co-solubilizing effect of oleic acid. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Limsitthichaikoon, S.; Soontaranon, S.; Hanpramukkun, N.; Thumanu, K.; Priprem, A. Polymeric Micelles Enhance Mucosal Contact Time and Deposition of Fluocinolone Acetonide. Polymers 2022, 14, 2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Yang, Y.-N.; Cheng, J.-J.; He, J.; Lu, W.-G. Novel Docetaxel-Loaded Micelles Based on all-trans-Retinoic Acid: Preparation and Pharmacokinetic Study in Rats. Pharm. Front. 2022, 4, e188–e196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dantas Lopes dos Santos, D.; Besegato, J.F.; de Melo, P.B.G.; Oshiro Junior, J.A.; Chorilli, M.; Deng, D.; Bagnato, V.S.; de Souza Rastelli, A.N. Curcumin-loaded Pluronic® F-127 micelles as a drug delivery system for curcumin-mediated photodynamic therapy for oral application. Photochem. Photobiol. 2021, 97, 1072–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bergonzi, M.C.; Vasarri, M.; Marroncini, G.; Barletta, E.; Degl’Innocenti, D. Thymoquinone-loaded Soluplus®-Solutol® HS15 mixed micelles: Preparation, in vitro characterization, and effect on the SH-SY5Y cell migration. Molecules 2020, 25, 4707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fang, J.; Chen, Z.; Song, J.; Li, J.; Han, Y.; Hou, W.; Wang, W.; Ruan, B.H. Biodegradable self-assembly micelles significantly enhanced the solubility, biological stability and in vivo antitumor efficacy of Hexylselen. RSC Chem. Biol. 2021, 2, 1669–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Juhász, Á.; Seres, L.; Varga, N.; Ungor, D.; Wojnicki, M.; Csapó, E. Detailed calorimetric analysis of mixed micelle formation from aqueous binary surfactants for design of nanoscale drug carriers. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 3288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bhowmik, S.; Pham, T.T.; Takahashi, R.; Kim, D.; Matsuoka, H.; Ishihara, K.; Yusa, S.-i. Preparation of Water-Soluble Polyion Complex (PIC) Micelles with Random Copolymers Containing Pendant Quaternary Ammonium and Sulfonate Groups. Langmuir 2023, 39, 8120–8129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Katona, G.; Sipos, B.; Ambrus, R.; Csóka, I.; Szabó-Révész, P. Characterizing the drug-release enhancement effect of surfactants on Megestrol-acetate-loaded granules. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Aswal, V.K.; Chatterjee, S.; Bhattacharyya, J. In vitro solubilization of antibiotic drug sulfamethazine: An investigation on drug–micelle aggregate formation by spectroscopic and scattering techniques. J. Surfactants Deterg. 2021, 25, 331–339. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhan, X.; Wu, Z.; Chen, Z.; Cui, X. Mechanism of the micellar solubilization of curcumin by mixed surfactants of SDS and Brij35 via NMR spectroscopy. Molecules 2022, 27, 5032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Aliabadi, A.; Hasannia, M.; Vakili-Azghandi, M.; Araste, F.; Abnous, K.; Taghdisi, S.M.; Ramezani, M.; Alibolandi, M. Synthesis approaches of amphiphilic copolymers for spherical micelles preparation: Application in drug delivery. J. Mater. Chem. B 2023, 11, 9325–9368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Correia, E.L.; Brown, N.; Ervin, A.; Papavassiliou, D.V.; Razavi, S. Contamination in sodium dodecyl sulfate solutions: Insights from the measurements of surface tension and surface rheology. Langmuir 2022, 38, 7179–7189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mai, N.N.S.; Otsuka, Y.; Kawano, Y.; Hanawa, T. Preparation and characterization of solid dispersions composed of curcumin, hydroxypropyl cellulose and/or sodium dodecyl sulfate by grinding with vibrational ball milling. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shoaib, T.; Ha, J.-M.; Han, Y.; Chen, W.-R.; Do, C. SANS characterization of time dependent, slow molecular exchange in an SDS micellar system. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2022, 24, 16988–16996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Na, M.; Kim, K.; Oh, K.; Choi, H.J.; Ha, C.; Chang, S. Sodium Cholate-Based Active Delipidation for Rapid and Efficient Clearing and Immunostaining of Deep Biological Samples. Small Methods 2022, 6, 2100943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Cedillo-Cruz, E.; Garcia-Ramos, D.; Dominguez, H. Lead and mercury removal from aqueous solution using Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate micelles: A molecular dynamics study. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2021, 767, 138340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Poerschmann, J.; Weiner, B.; Baskyr, I. Organic compounds in olive mill wastewater and in solutions resulting from hydrothermal carbonization of the wastewater. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 1472–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yarimtepe, C.C.; Oz, N.A.; Ince, O. Volatile fatty acid production dynamics during the acidification of pretreated olive mill wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 241, 936–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Deriszadeh, A.; Husein, M.M.; Harding, T.G. Produced Water Treatment by Micellar-Enhanced Ultrafiltration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 1767–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mandić, V.; Simić, A.; Petričević, M.; Gogić, M.; Brankov, M.; Stanojković, A. Effect of pH on germination and seedling growth of maize. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 2023, 39, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vougogiannopoulou, K.; Angelopoulou, M.T.; Pratsinis, H.; Grougnet, R.; Halabalaki, M.; Kletsas, D.; Deguin, B.; Skaltsounis, L.A. Chemical and biological investigation of Olive Mill Waste Water–OMWW secoiridoid lactones. Planta Med. 2015, 81, 1205–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Delisi, R.; Saiano, F.; Pagliaro, M.; Ciriminna, R. Quick assessment of the economic value of olive mill waste water. Chem. Cent. J. 2016, 10, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mekersi, N.; Kadi, K.; Hackenberger, D.K.; Casini, S.; Addad, D.; Thangaraj, R.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, C.; Yuvaraj, A. Accumulation of heavy metals from single and combined olive mill wastewater and pomace in soil and bioaccumulation in tissues of two earthworm species: Endogeic (Aporrectodea trapezoides) and Epigeic (Eisenia fetida). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Khalil, J.; Jaafar, A.A.K.; Habib, H.; Bouguerra, S.; Nogueira, V.; Rodríguez-Seijo, A. The impact of olive mill wastewater on soil properties, nutrient and heavy metal availability–A study case from Syrian vertisols. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 351, 119861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chavez-Martinez, E.H.; Cedillo-Cruz, E.; Dominguez, H. Adsorption of metallic ions from aqueous solution on surfactant aggregates: A molecular dynamics study. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2106.13141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chen, S.B.; Ma, Y.B.; Chen, L.; Xian, K. Adsorption of aqueous Cd2+, Pb2+, Cu2+ ions by nano-hydroxyapatite: Single-and multi-metal competitive adsorption study. Geochem. J. 2010, 44, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Furukawa, M.; Tateishi, I.; Katsumata, H.; Kaneco, S. Application of sodium dodecyl sulfate/activated carbon onto the preconcentration of cadmium ions in solid-phase extraction flow system. ChemEngineering 2019, 3, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ohfuchi, M. Ab Initio Study on Electronic Sorting of Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes Using Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate. J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 4691–4697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, X.; Qi, F.; Xiong, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, G.; Afzal, S.; Gu, X.; Li, Q.; Luo, S.; Mo, H. Synthesis of a Novel Dithiocarbamate Surfactant Derivative Adsorbent for Efficient Removal of Heavy Metal Ions. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 41512–41522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Qu, D.; Liu, X. Grey correlation analysis of corrosion on oil atmospheric distillation equipment. In Proceedings of the 2008 Fifth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), Shandong, China, 18–20 October 2008; Volume 5, pp. 13–17. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kim, H.; Baek, K.; Lee, J.; Iqbal, J.; Yang, J.-W. Comparison of separation methods of heavy metal from surfactant micellar solutions for the recovery of surfactant. Desalination 2006, 191, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wołowicz, A.; Staszak, K. Study of surface properties of aqueous solutions of sodium dodecyl sulfate in the presence of hydrochloric acid and heavy metal ions. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 299, 112170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mekki, A.; Dhouib, A.; Aloui, F.; Sayadi, S. Olive wastewater as an ecological fertiliser. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 26, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ntougias, S.; Bourtzis, K.; Tsiamis, G. The microbiology of olive mill wastes. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 784591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Khdair, A.I.; Abu-Rumman, G.; Khdair, S.I. Pollution estimation from olive mills wastewater in Jordan. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hachicha, S.; Chtourou, M.; Medhioub, K.; Ammar, E. Compost of poultry manure and olive mill wastes as an alternative fertilizer. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 26, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Charistou, A.; Kyriakopoulou, K.; Anastasiadou, P.; Fokialakis, N.; Skaltsounis, A.L.; Machera, K. Acute toxicity of Olive Mill Wastewater on rats, Vibrio fischeri and Artemia fransiscana. Hell. Plant Prot. J. 2010, 3, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  82. Babić, S.; Malev, O.; Pflieger, M.; Lebedev, A.T.; Mazur, D.M.; Kužić, A.; Čož-Rakovac, R.; Trebše, P. Toxicity evaluation of olive oil mill wastewater and its polar fraction using multiple whole-organism bioassays. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 686, 903–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gallazzi, M.; Festa, M.; Corradino, P.; Sansone, C.; Albini, A.; Noonan, D.M. An Extract of Olive Mill Wastewater Downregulates Growth, Adhesion and Invasion Pathways in Lung Cancer Cells: Involvement of CXCR4. Nutrients 2020, 12, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Schaffer, S.; Müller, W.E.; Eckert, G.P. Cytoprotective effects of olive mill wastewater extract and its main constituent hydroxytyrosol in PC12 cells. Pharmacol. Res. 2010, 62, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Benedetto, N.; Calabrone, L.; Gutmańska, K.; Macrì, N.; Cerrito, M.G.; Ricotta, R.; Pelosi, G.; Bruno, A.; Noonan, D.M.; Albini, A. An Olive Oil Mill Wastewater Extract Improves Chemotherapeutic Activity Against Breast Cancer Cells While Protecting from Cardiotoxicity. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 867867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Posadino, A.M.; Cossu, A.; Giordo, R.; Piscopo, A.; Abdel-Rahman, W.M.; Piga, A.; Pintus, G. Antioxidant properties of olive mill wastewater polyphenolic extracts on human endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells. Foods 2021, 10, 800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Schlupp, P.; Schmidts, T.M.; Pössl, A.; Wildenhain, S.; Lo Franco, G.; Lo Franco, A.; Lo Franco, B. Effects of a phenol-enriched purified extract from olive mill wastewater on skin cells. Cosmetics 2019, 6, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dick, M.K.; Miao, J.H.; Limaiem, F. Histology, Fibroblast; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  89. Nkuna, S.G.; Olwal, T.O.; Chowdhury, S.P.D.; Ndambuki, J.M. A review of wastewater sludge-to-energy generation focused on thermochemical technologies: An improved technological, economical and socio-environmental aspect. Clean. Waste Syst. 2024, 7, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kumar, L.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Rahim, N.A. Global advancement of solar thermal energy technologies for industrial process heat and its future prospects: A review. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 195, 885–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Juang, R.-S.; Xu, Y.-Y.; Chen, C.-L. Separation and removal of metal ions from dilute solutions using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 2003, 218, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Geanta, R.M.; Olga Ruiz, M.; Escudero, I. Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for the recovery of lactic acid and citric acid from beet molasses with sodium dodecyl sulphate. J. Membr. Sci. 2013, 430, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Qu, Y.-H.; Zeng, G.-M.; Huang, J.-H.; Xu, K.; Fang, Y.-Y.; Li, X.; Liu, H.-L. Recovery of surfactant SDS and Cd2+ from permeate in MEUF using a continuous foam fractionator. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 155, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gómez, J.; Alcántara, M.T.; Pazos, M.; Sanromán, M.A. Remediation of polluted soil by a two-stage treatment system: Desorption of phenanthrene in soil and electrochemical treatment to recover the extraction agent. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 794–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mosmann, T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J. Immunol. Methods 1983, 65, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Possible site of interaction between micelle and some OMW, where the site of interactions differs according to hydrophobicity and the tendency of hydrogen bond. The rectangle is stearic acid, the triangle is tyrosol, and the circle is styrene.
Figure 1. Possible site of interaction between micelle and some OMW, where the site of interactions differs according to hydrophobicity and the tendency of hydrogen bond. The rectangle is stearic acid, the triangle is tyrosol, and the circle is styrene.
Molecules 29 04284 g001
Figure 2. Germination assay for treatment steps.
Figure 2. Germination assay for treatment steps.
Molecules 29 04284 g002
Figure 3. The LC–MS chromatogram SDS-treated OMW. (A) The positive ion mode. (B) The negative ion mode. The red color represents the total ion chromatogram and the green color represents the elective ion chromatogram.
Figure 3. The LC–MS chromatogram SDS-treated OMW. (A) The positive ion mode. (B) The negative ion mode. The red color represents the total ion chromatogram and the green color represents the elective ion chromatogram.
Molecules 29 04284 g003
Figure 4. The GC–MS total ion chromatogram. (A) Untreated OMW. (B) OMW after SDS treatment.
Figure 4. The GC–MS total ion chromatogram. (A) Untreated OMW. (B) OMW after SDS treatment.
Molecules 29 04284 g004
Figure 5. Mass spectrum of (A) the TMS derivative of tyrosol. (B,C) are examples of by-products of the derivatization process.
Figure 5. Mass spectrum of (A) the TMS derivative of tyrosol. (B,C) are examples of by-products of the derivatization process.
Molecules 29 04284 g005
Figure 6. Percentage of metal in OMW samples at different stages.
Figure 6. Percentage of metal in OMW samples at different stages.
Molecules 29 04284 g006
Figure 7. Toxicity assay using fluorescence bacteria over a 45 min period. Experiments were conducted in triplicates, and the error bars represent the means ± standard deviation.
Figure 7. Toxicity assay using fluorescence bacteria over a 45 min period. Experiments were conducted in triplicates, and the error bars represent the means ± standard deviation.
Molecules 29 04284 g007
Figure 8. Toxicity assay of OMW treatment steps using human fibroblast and MTT assay. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the error bars represent the means ± standard deviation.
Figure 8. Toxicity assay of OMW treatment steps using human fibroblast and MTT assay. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the error bars represent the means ± standard deviation.
Molecules 29 04284 g008
Figure 9. Diagram showing the detoxification steps of OMW, by-products, and possible solutions. The percent represents the percentage of treated water after each step compared to the initial volume.
Figure 9. Diagram showing the detoxification steps of OMW, by-products, and possible solutions. The percent represents the percentage of treated water after each step compared to the initial volume.
Molecules 29 04284 g009
Figure 10. Surfactants (A) SDS, (B) CTAB, (C) Span 20, (D) Span 80.
Figure 10. Surfactants (A) SDS, (B) CTAB, (C) Span 20, (D) Span 80.
Molecules 29 04284 g010
Table 1. The effect of different surfactants on the residual polyphenol contents. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the error represents the means ± standard deviation.
Table 1. The effect of different surfactants on the residual polyphenol contents. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the error represents the means ± standard deviation.
Treatment StepResidual Phenols %
Coagulation43 ± 7.1
Distillation of coagulated OMW11.9 ± 2.2
Distillation of coagulated OMW + SDS2.5 ± 0.6
Distillation of coagulated OMW + span 8014 ± 2.1
Distillation of coagulated OMW + span 2011 ± 1.6
Distillation of coagulated OMW + CTAB11.2 ± 2.4
Table 2. Germination assay parameters for all treatment steps.
Table 2. Germination assay parameters for all treatment steps.
Sample NameGermination %Stem Length %Fungi Growth %
Control tap water100100
Raw OMW--+
Distilled Raw OMW4050+++
Coagulated OMW--+++
Distilled Coagulated OMW5080+
CMC Distillation100100
CMC: Critical micelle concentration. Experiments were conducted in triplicate. The (+) sign represents the presence and severity of fungal growth, the (−) sign represents the absence of the growth.
Table 3. Germination assay parameters for different concentrations of SDS.
Table 3. Germination assay parameters for different concentrations of SDS.
Sample NameGermination %Stem Length %Fungi Growth %
CMC/46040+++
CMC/26040+
CMC100100
CMC*2100100
CMC*4100100
CMC: Critical micelle concentration. Experiments were conducted in triplicate.
Table 4. The highest-score compounds were identified in the OMW using LC–MS at the different treatment steps.
Table 4. The highest-score compounds were identified in the OMW using LC–MS at the different treatment steps.
Compound NameRaw-DistilledRaw-Coagulated-DistilledRaw-Coagulated-Distilled- CMCSourceAromaticToxicity
ScopoletinYesYesNoNaturalYesNo
CapsaicinYesYesYesNaturalYesNo
HumuloneYesNoNoNatural NoNo
Caffeic AcidYesNoNoNaturalYesNo
UmbelliferoneYesYesYesNaturalYesNo
4-Tert-butyl 2-methylphenolYesYesNoSyntheticYesNo
TetramethrinYesYesYesSynthetic—potent insecticideNoYes
Eusolex 6007YesYesNoSynthetic—Essential component in sunscreensYesYes
Isopentyl-4-methoxycinnamateYesYesNoSynthetic—sunscreening agent.YesYes
DodecylphenolYesNoNoSynthetic—used in the manufacturing of epoxy resinsYesYes
4-Hydroxybenzoic acid n-butyl esterYesYesNoSynthetic—bactericidal/fungicidal additives in cosmetics.YesYes
4-n-PropylphenolYesNoNoSynthetic—Food additiveYesNo
DibutylphthalateYesYesYesSynthetic—plasticizerYesYes
OctocryleneYesYesNoSynthetic—sunscreens and cosmeticsYesYes
HydrocortisoneYesYesYesSynthetic—Anti-inflammatory agentNoNo
(4 or 7) Hydroxy-Coumarin Plus HydrateYesYesNoSynthetic—InsecticidesYesYes
Trans-nonachlorYesYesNoSynthetic—InsecticidesNoNo
3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropene carboxylic acidYesYesNoSynthetic—PesticideNoYes
4-hydroxybenzoic acid propyl esterYesYesYesNaturalYesNo
4-NonylphenolYesYesYesSyntheticYesYes
CyprodinilYesYes NoSynthetic FungicideYesYes
2-ethylhexyl 3-(methoxyphenyl)-2-propenoateYesYesYesSynthetwunscreenYesYes
Ethyl-4-aminobenzoateYesYesYesSynthetic Local anestheticYesYes
3-Hydroxy-4-methoxycinnamic acid (isoferulic acid)YesYesYesNatural YesNo
Hydroxyl tyrosolYesYesNoNaturalyesyes
Table 5. The concentrations of metals in raw OMW. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the error represents the means ± standard deviation.
Table 5. The concentrations of metals in raw OMW. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the error represents the means ± standard deviation.
Treatment Stepmg/LTypical OMW Values [70]
Ni0.29 ± 0.05-
Cu0.25 ± 0.030.0021 (%)
Zn0.575 ± 0.090.0057 (%)
Mg376.036 ± 11.5100–400 mg/L
K1343.48 ± 23.542700–7200 mg/L
Ca690.40 ± 12.4120–750 mg/L
Mn0.88 ± 0.200.0015 (%)
Fe0.636 ± 0.08-
Sr6.789 ± 1.4-
Ba0.739 ± 0.17-
Li0.013 ± 0.006-
Na40.09 ± 2.440–900 mg/L
HgBDL
PbBDL-
CdBDL-
AsBDL-
CoBDL-
MoBDL-
BDL: below detection limits.
Table 6. The concentration of COD and the percentage of removal for each treatment step. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the bars represent the means ± standard deviation.
Table 6. The concentration of COD and the percentage of removal for each treatment step. Experiments were conducted in triplicate, and the bars represent the means ± standard deviation.
Treatment StepCOD (g/L)% Removal
Filtered OMW124.6 ± 15.30
Coagulated OMW108.0 ± 9.713.3
Distilled OMW86.58 ± 7.530.5
CMC step44.14 ± 4.365.6
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akkam, Y.; Zaitoun, M.; Aljarrah, I.; Jaradat, A.; Hmedat, A.; Alhmoud, H.; Rababah, T.; Almajwal, A.; Al-Rayyan, N. Effective Detoxification of Olive Mill Wastewater Using Multi-Step Surfactant-Based Treatment: Assessment of Environmental and Health Impact. Molecules 2024, 29, 4284. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29184284

AMA Style

Akkam Y, Zaitoun M, Aljarrah I, Jaradat A, Hmedat A, Alhmoud H, Rababah T, Almajwal A, Al-Rayyan N. Effective Detoxification of Olive Mill Wastewater Using Multi-Step Surfactant-Based Treatment: Assessment of Environmental and Health Impact. Molecules. 2024; 29(18):4284. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29184284

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akkam, Yazan, Mohammad Zaitoun, Islam Aljarrah, Aiman Jaradat, Ali Hmedat, Hassan Alhmoud, Taha Rababah, Ali Almajwal, and Numan Al-Rayyan. 2024. "Effective Detoxification of Olive Mill Wastewater Using Multi-Step Surfactant-Based Treatment: Assessment of Environmental and Health Impact" Molecules 29, no. 18: 4284. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29184284

APA Style

Akkam, Y., Zaitoun, M., Aljarrah, I., Jaradat, A., Hmedat, A., Alhmoud, H., Rababah, T., Almajwal, A., & Al-Rayyan, N. (2024). Effective Detoxification of Olive Mill Wastewater Using Multi-Step Surfactant-Based Treatment: Assessment of Environmental and Health Impact. Molecules, 29(18), 4284. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29184284

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop