Next Article in Journal
Occurrence of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria in Urban Karst Groundwater Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Following the Occurrence and Origin of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles in the Sava River by Single Particle ICP-MS
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bismuth-Chitosan Nanocomposite Sensors for Trace Level Detection of Ni(II) and Co(II) in Water Samples
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/w14060958
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

UV/TiO2 Photocatalysis as an Efficient Livestock Wastewater Quaternary Treatment for Antibiotics Removal

by
Yeji Park
1,
Sanghyeon Kim
2,
Jungyeon Kim
2,
Sanaullah Khan
3,* and
Changseok Han
1,2,*
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, INHA University, Incheon 22212, Korea
2
Program in Environmental & Polymer Engineering, Graduate School of INHA University, INHA University, Incheon 22212, Korea
3
Department of Chemistry, Women University, Swabi 23430, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(6), 958; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060958
Submission received: 28 February 2022 / Revised: 14 March 2022 / Accepted: 16 March 2022 / Published: 18 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Water and Wastewater Monitoring and Treatment Technology 2.0)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Antibiotics are the most common pharmaceutical compounds, and they have been extensively used for the prevention and treatment of bacterial diseases for more than 50 years. However, merely a small fraction of antibiotics is metabolized in the body, while the rest is discharged into the environment through excretion, which can cause potential ecological problems and human health risks. In this study, the elimination of seventeen antibiotics from real livestock wastewater effluents was investigated by UV/TiO2 advanced oxidation process. The effect of process parameters, such as TiO2 loadings, solution pHs, and antibiotic concentrations, on the efficiency of the UV/TiO2 process was assessed. The degradation efficiency was affected by the solution pH, and higher removal efficiency was observed at pH 5.8 and 9.9, while the catalyst loading had no significant effect on the degradation efficiency at these experimental conditions. UV photolysis showed a good removal efficiency of the antibiotics. However, the highest removal efficiency was shown by the UV/photocatalyst system due to their synergistic effects. The results showed that more than 90% of antibiotics were removed by UV/TiO2 system during the 60 min illumination, while the corresponding TOC and COD removal was only 10 and 13%, respectively. The results of the current study indicated that UV/TiO2 advanced oxidation process is a promising method for the elimination of various types of antibiotics from real livestock wastewater effluents.

1. Introduction

The huge increase in the human population in the last several decades in the world has increased the demand for more food resources, which has led to rapid growth in the livestock industry [1,2,3]. However, because livestock animals were likely prone to bacterial infections, it has led to increased antibiotics usage for preventing bacterial infections and promoting the sustainable growth of livestock animals [4,5,6,7]. Approximately 100,000–200,000 tons of antibiotics were annually used all over the world [8]. Furthermore, the production of antibiotics has greatly increased in recent years. For instance, in China alone, the annual antibiotics usage increased by more than 10 times over a decade, i.e., rising from 6000 tons to 78,200 tons during 2003–2013 [9,10]. It is expected that antibiotics consumption will further increase by two-thirds (i.e., 105,600 tons) by 2030. Another study reported that antibiotic consumption from 2017 to 2030 in 41 countries was estimated to be 104,079 tons by 2030 [7]. These situations suggest that antibiotics can be consistently detected in the environment [11]. Livestock wastewater effluents represent one of the most common sources of antibiotics in the environment [12,13]. The concentration of antibiotics detected in the environment varied from ppt (ng/L) to ppb (μg/L) level [14,15,16], but the eco-toxicity was detected at ppm level (mg/L) [17,18].
The physicochemical properties of antibiotics include high molecular weight compounds, various structures and bioavailability depending on hydrophobicity. Because of this, they do not decompose completely in the human or animal body, influencing their transport in the environment [19]. Due to their persistent and non-biodegradable nature, antibiotics may likely accumulate in aquatic systems, plants, and animals [9]. Photocatalyst resistant bacteria may be introduced into the environment, which can directly or indirectly invade the human body [20]. In addition, only a small fraction of antibiotics is absorbed or metabolized in the body, while the rest are released into the environment through excretion [21]. Anthony et al. reported that 10–20% of the antibiotics were metabolized in the body [9], or an average metabolic rate may only be 30% [20]. It was also reported that 25–75% of the taken antibiotics were excreted from the bodies [22]. Antibiotics are non-biodegradable in the environment [23]. Owing to their polar structure, antibiotics are not absorbed on the subsoil [24] and hence persist in the environment for a long time [25]. Consequently, the widespread use of various antibiotics caused different adverse effects in humans, including dermatitis, gastrointestinal symptoms, carcinogenicity, reproductive effects, and teratogenicity [26,27,28]. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that antimicrobial-resistant bacteria caused diseases in more than 2,000,000 people in the US, and about 700,000 deaths were annually caused due to antimicrobial-resistant bacteria all over the world [29]. Therefore, it is of great importance to apply reliable treatment technologies to completely remove antibiotics from livestock wastewater.
Different wastewater treatment processes, including biological and physicochemical methods (i.e., coagulation, adsorption, membrane separation etc.), have been long employed for treating livestock wastewater effluents [2,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Although these treatment processes were usually economic, major disadvantages included longer reaction time (i.e., month) by the biological methods [2]. Some physicochemical treatment processes demonstrated drawbacks, including low efficiency and high operating expenses in terms of plant construction and disposal of the produced sludge [35]. The conventional biological and physicochemical methods can only partially destroy antibiotics [38]. In the case of South Korea, Kim et al. researched the characteristics of influent and effluent wastewater, including four types of antibiotics of monitored concentration with five types of treatment plants such as sequencing batch reactor, liquid-phase flotation, membrane bioreactor, bioreactor plus ultrafiltration (BIOSUF) and bio best bacillus systems. Although the result of this study was obtained removal efficiency of at least 90%, some of them such as chlortetracycline (483.7 µg/L→11.5 µg/L), sulfamethazine (251.2 µg/L→20.8 µg/L) and sulfathiazole (230.8 µg/L→28.2 µg/L) were not completely removed [11]. Therefore, new treatment methods are essentially required to develop reliable technologies for the complete removal of residual antibiotics after the biological process.
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are promising alternatives to conventional wastewater treatment processes that can readily decompose antibiotic molecules or improve their biodegradability [37]. AOPs, such as ozonation, UV/H2O2, Fenton’s reaction, electrochemical processes, photocatalysis etc., have been extensively used in many environmental remediations, especially for treating refractory organic pollutants [39,40,41,42,43]. The AOPs are usually characterized by the generation of reactive oxygen species, such as hydroxyl radicals (•OH) [44], which can attack and transform complex organic compounds, including antibiotics, into eco-friendly end-products, i.e., CO2, H2O etc. [45,46]. The AOPs have shown fast reactivity and high efficiency for the degradation of antibiotics [26,47]. Ozone oxidation has been used for disinfection and oxidation of organic pollutants, and the decomposition rate increases as the pH increases [48]. However, as the ozonation process progresses, the pH decreases, and the generation of •OH decreases, thereby decreasing the process efficiency [37]. Fenton’s oxidation is a metal-catalyzed oxidation reaction in which iron is the catalyst [49], and the main disadvantage is the low pH requirement in order to prevent iron precipitation [34]. The electrochemical process had the disadvantage of a high operation cost [40].
Among the AOPs, TiO2 photocatalysis has gained more attention for the decomposition of recalcitrant organic pollutants in the environment [22]. The TiO2 photocatalyst can be activated by light with energy higher than the band gap energy of TiO2, i.e., 3.2 eV. When TiO2 was irradiated with ultraviolet (UV) light, different reactive oxygen species were generated through reactions of electron (e−)-hole (h+) pair, H2O, and O2 [44]. As a photocatalyst, TiO2 is an inexpensive and non-toxic material [17,50]. Moreover, TiO2 is photochemically stable with no mass transfer restrictions and a commercially approved material [51] that does not generate secondary pollutants [37]. However, it is difficult to remove and regenerate the photocatalyst [17], and several studies have solved the problem by combining other materials such as graphene or LDH with TiO2. There were many studies in the literature about UV/TiO2 photocatalytic degradation of individual antibiotics in water systems [40,48]. However, simultaneous degradation of an extended number of antibiotics (mixture of antibiotics) by UV/TiO2 system, especially in the real livestock wastewater effluents, has not been reported so far.
In this study, the degradation of seventeen antibiotics (i.e., ceftiofur, clopidol, enrofloxacin, erythromycin, florfenicol, lincomycin, oxytetracycline, penicillin-G, penicillin-V, sulfadiazine, sulfamethazine, sulfamethoxazole, sulfathiazole, tetracycline, tiamulin, trimethoprim, and tylosin) in the real livestock wastewater effluents (i.e., Jeollanam-do, Korea), by UV/TiO2 system was investigated. The effects of water quality and process parameters, such as TiO2 loadings, solution pHs, and antibiotic concentrations, on the efficiency of the UV/TiO2 system were assessed. The degradation efficiency of antibiotics by only UV or photocatalyst alone was also investigated for comparison purposes. Moreover, mineralization of the antibiotics in livestock wastewater was determined by measuring the reduction in UV254 absorbance, and COD as well as TOC removal. Although factory-scale testing must also be performed prior to application at the industrial level, this study introduces lab-scale experiments. Since we tried to thoroughly understand aspects of photocatalysis in the treatment of real livestock wastewater effluents, all seventeen antibiotics together were spiked in the wastewater effluent. Moreover, UV/TiO2 photocatalysis as a quaternary treatment process was applied for removing antibiotics in livestock wastewater effluent for the first time. The results of the study are expected to provide useful scientific information on the elimination of antibiotics from real livestock wastewater effluents by using an environmentally friendly UV/TiO2 system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The antibiotics used in this study, i.e., ceftiofur, clopidol, enrofloxacin, erythromycin, florfenicol, lincomycin, oxytetracycline, penicillin-G, penicillin-V, sulfadiazine, sulfamethazine, sulfamethoxazole, sulfathiazole, tetracycline, tiamulin, trimethoprim, and tylosin, were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). The chemical formula and molecular structure of the antibiotics are presented in Table 1. The wastewater was collected from a real livestock wastewater treatment plant in Jeollanam-do, Korea. The characteristics of the wastewater are described in Table 2. The effluent was stored in a refrigerator prior to the degradation experiments or analysis. The TiO2 used as a photocatalyst was Aeroxide P25. The pH of the reaction solution was adjusted by using 1 M NaOH or 1 M HCl solution. All chemicals were used as received.

2.2. Analytical Methods

The degradation analysis of the antibiotics was conducted by using Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS, Agilent 6460, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher ScientificG10S, Thermo, Waltham, MA, USA), described in our previous paper [52].
The total organic carbon (TOC) was measured using a TOC-LCPH/CPN analyzer (SHIMADZU, Tokyo, Japan). Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was analyzed by CODCr analysis [17].

2.3. Characterization of TiO2 Photocatalyst

The morphological characterization of TiO2 photocatalyst was investigated by using a transition electron microscope (TEM, JEM2100F, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM, S-4300 SE, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan). The surface of TiO2 was analyzed by Fourier Transform Infrared Vacuum Spectrometer (FTIR, VERTEX 80V, Bruker, Karlsruhe, Germany) in the wavenumber ranging from 4000 cm−1 to 400 cm−1 with resolution of 4 cm−1. The X-ray Diffractometer patterns of TiO2 were measured by using Multi-purpose X-ray Diffractometer (X’pert Pro MPD, PANalytical, Almelo, Netherland) in the 2θ from 10° to 70° utilizing Cu, Kα radiation (λ = 1.54).

2.4. Photocatalytic Degradation Experiments

The photocatalytic experiments were performed in a batch mode photoreactor, consisting of a 500 mL quartz beaker. Figure 1 shows a schematic of experimental setups for this study. For UV irradiation conditions, two combined UV lamps (254 nm, 20 W, intensity = 16.8 ± 1.5 mW/cm2) were located on both sides of 500 mL beaker. A quartz beaker was used since it is transparent to UV light (λ < 254 nm) rather than soda-lime glass which absorb it [53].
In the dark experiments, the quartz beaker was covered with aluminum foil to block all light. The reactors were cooled with a fan during the experiments to avoid the effect of temperature on the removal of antibiotics. The reaction solution was kept under vigorous stirring using a magnetic stirrer for maintaining homogeneity. To prevent further degradation or any adsorption effect on the sample during sample storage after the sampling, all taken samples were filtered using syringe filters (ADVANTEC® DISMIC®-13CP, 0.20 μm pore size, Tokyo, Japan), kept in glass vials, and stored in a refrigerator until sample analysis. All experiments were performed in duplicate.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characteristics of TiO2 Photocatalyst

As shown in Figure 2a, the TiO2 nanoparticles used in this study were spherical and approximately 20 nm in diameter. XRD analysis in Figure 2b shows the presence of both phases of anatase and rutile in the TiO2-P25 sample. Both phases of anatase and rutile in the sample were confirmed with the measured lattice spacing of 0.35 nm and 0.32, corresponding to the (101) plane of anatase and the (110) plane of rutile, respectively (an insert of Figure 2c). The specific surface area of TiO2 (AEROXIDE P25) was 35~65 m2/g. When UV light irradiates energy greater than the band gap (3.2 eV, [52]) of TiO2 photocatalyst, free electrons (e−) in the valence band (VB) are transferred to the conduction band (CB) of TiO2, and thus, electron holes (h+) formed in the valence band of TiO2 [54]. The reaction mechanism of TiO2 is shown through reactions 1–4 [55] and Figure 3. Reaction 2 shows a reduction process, while reactions 3 and 4 show an oxidation process. The pairs of e− and h+ generated in CB and VB, respectively, produce oxygen-reactive species •OH and O2−, and can remove pollutant compounds by redox reaction on the surface of TiO2. Characterization of TiO2 was also analyzed by FTIR. As shown in Figure 2d, FTIR analysis peaks appeared in the range 400–800 cm−1, 1500–1700 cm−1, and 2800–3600 cm−1, and the main peak was observed at 400–800 cm−1. According to reports, the peaks corresponding to the vibration of Ti-O are confirmed to be in the range 653–550 cm−1 [56], while those related to Ti-O stretching and Ti-O-Ti bridging stretching modes are in the range 400–700 cm−1 [57]. Maulidiyah et al. also confirmed the presence of peaks of TiO2-P25 at 516 cm−1–677 cm−1 [58].
TiO2 + hν → TiO2 (e−) + TiO2 (h+)
TiO2 (e−) + O2 → TiO2 + O2−
TiO2 (h+) + H2O → TiO2 + •OH + H+
TiO2 (h+) + HO− → TiO2 + •OH

3.2. UV/TiO2 Photocatalytic Degradation of Antibiotics in Livestock Wastewater

The degradation of antibiotics in livestock wastewater by UV/TiO2 photocatalysis was investigated, and the results are shown in Figure 4. As can be seen, most of the studied antibiotics ([antibiotics]0 = 20–100 μg/L, [TiO2]0 = 0.1 g/L) were effectively decomposed by TiO2 photocatalysis under UV illumination for 30 min. The degradation of antibiotics in water by UV/TiO2 process was mainly due to •OH produced by UV/TiO2 system (reactions 1–4) [59] and/or direct UV photolysis [60]. The results shown in Figure 4 revealed that the seventeen antibiotics behaved differently towards the UV/TiO2 process, as indicated from their removal efficiencies using the same reaction conditions. For instance, nine antibiotics, including ceftiofur, enrofloxacin, oxytetracycline, penicillin-G, penicillin-V, sulfadiazine, sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole, and tetracycline, were 100% degraded for 30 min of UV illumination. The degradation efficiency of five antibiotics, i.e., clopidol, lincomycin, tiamulin, trimethoprim, and tylosin, by the UV/TiO2 system was around 90%. On the other hand, the remaining three antibiotics, i.e., erythromycin, florfenicol and sulfamethoxazole, showed less than 70% removal efficiency after 30 min of the photocatalysis. The difference in the removal efficiency of the tested antibiotics by the UV/TiO2 process can be explained on the basis of structural differences [61]. Karaolia et al. showed the solar-light/TiO2 photocatalytic degradation efficiency varied among the antibiotics, represented by 87, 10 and 19% removal of sulfamethoxazole, erythromycin, and clarithromycin, respectively, after 60 min illuminations [62]. Elmolla et al. showed that the degradation efficiency of amoxicillin, ampicillin and cloxacillin by UV/ZnO photocatalysis was 44, 60 and 96%, respectively, after 5 h, using 0.2 g/L ZnO [63]. Elmolla and Chaudhuri [51] reported the degradation rate constant (k) by UV/TiO2 photocatalysis varied among the antibiotics, represented by 0.007, 0.003 and 0.029 min−1 for amoxicillin, ampicillin and cloxacillin, respectively.

3.3. Factors Affecting the Efficiency of UV/TiO2 Photocatalysis of Antibiotics

The pH, TiO2 loadings, and antibiotics concentrations have been shown to be among the most important variables during TiO2 photocatalysis [64]. In the succeeding sections, the effects of initial concentrations of antibiotics, solution pHs and catalyst loadings on TiO2 photocatalysis will be discussed.

3.3.1. Effects of Initial Concentration of Antibiotics

The degradation of antibiotics in livestock wastewater by UV/TiO2 process was carried out by using different initial concentrations of the antibiotics (i.e., 20, 50 and 100 μg/L) for 30 min under UV illumination, and the results are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. As seen in Figure 5, the degradation efficiency of nine antibiotics, i.e., ceftiofur, enrofloxacin, oxytetracycline, penicillin-G, penicillin-V, sulfadiazine, sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole, and tetracycline, was the same when using different concentration levels, i.e., represented by 100% degradation after 30 min of UV illumination. The results showed that the removal efficiency of the remaining seven antibiotics (i.e., except sulfamethoxazole) was dependent on their initial concentrations, i.e., the removal efficiency was inversely proportional to the initial concentration of the antibiotics (Figure 6). This result was consistent with the findings of Athanasios et al., showing that the degradation efficiency of sulfamethoxazole by solar-light/TiO2 photocatalysis decreased with the increase in its initial concentrations [65]. Klauson et al. also found the photocatalytic degradation of amoxicillin reduced from 90% to 30% in 6 h by increasing amoxicillin concentration from 10 to 100 mg/L [66]. A possible reason could be the increased competition of antibiotic molecules with the reactive oxidizing species at the high pollutant concentrations [67]. Furthermore, the high concentration of antibiotics may hinder UV light passage through the reaction solution, thereby decreasing the intensity of UV light for the activation of TiO2 photocatalyst [64]. Nevertheless, for sulfamethoxazole, its photocatalytic degradation increased with an increase in its initial concentration. A previous study by Xekoukoulotakis et al. also found that the reaction rate for photocatalytic degradation of sulfamethoxazole increased with increasing its initial concentration in the range of 2.5 to 20 mg/L, consistent with our result [68].

3.3.2. Effects of Solution pHs

To investigate the antibiotic removal efficiency at different solution pHs, three pHs of 3, 5.8, and 9.9 were tested. During the experiment, the photocatalyst concentration was fixed at 0.1 g/L to minimize antibiotic adsorption by the photocatalyst, and the total concentration of antibiotics was 50 μg/L. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the removal of each antibiotic at different solution pHs after 30 min of UV irradiation. As seen in Figure 7, ten antibiotics, i.e., ceftiofur, oxytetracycline, penicillin-G, penicillin-V, sulfadiazine, sulfamethazine, sulfamethoxazole, sulfathiazole, tetracycline, and tylosin were almost completely decomposed at all the studied pHs. However, other antibiotics have their preference of solution pHs for photocatalysis. As can be seen in Figure 8, clopidol, enrofloxacin, erythromycin, and florfenicol demonstrated over 90% removal efficiency under basic conditions, enrofloxacin showed over 90% removal efficiency at pH 5.8, and lincomycin and tiamulin showed the highest removal efficiency at pH 3. In the case of trimethoprim, the highest removal efficiency was achieved at pH 5.8. Furthermore, in the case of trimethoprim, a pKa value of trimethoprim and TiO2 was 7.2 and 6.7, respectively; these have similar charges, and no electrostatic interactions occurred [69]. This explained why trimethoprim showed a higher removal efficiency at pH 5.8 rather than at pH 3 or 9.9.

3.3.3. Effects of Photocatalyst Loadings

The degradation of antibiotics in livestock wastewater by UV/TiO2 process was carried out at different TiO2 loadings (i.e., 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 g/L) for 60 min of UV illumination, and the results were shown in Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13. All the seventeen antibiotics were spiked in the reactor to achieve a total concentration of 350 μg/L. The results showed 34, 40, 40 and 41% degradation of the antibiotic using TiO2 loadings of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 g/L, respectively, during 5 min UV illumination (Figure 9). After 60 min illumination, more than 90% of the antibiotics were degraded with all TiO2 loadings (Figure 10). The highest degradation efficiency was obtained using 1.0 g/L. Meanwhile, the degradation efficiency of the individual antibiotics under UV/TiO2 process was investigated by using different TiO2 photocatalyst loadings, and the results were shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12. As shown in Figure 11, six antibiotics, i.e., ceftiofur, oxytetracycline, penicillin-V, sulfadiazine, sulfathiazole, and tetracycline, had an insignificant effect by TiO2 loadings, and these antibiotics were completely degraded during 60 min illumination regardless of the photocatalyst loadings. It seemed that these antibiotics might have weak bonds prone to relatively easier decomposition, probably due to effective UV photolysis even though TiO2 loading was low, i.e., 0.1 g/L.
Figure 11 shows that the degradation efficiency of enrofloxacin was 93% at 0.1 to 0.5 g/L, penicillin-G was 91, 93, and 92% at 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 g/L, respectively, and sulfamethazine was 96% at 0.1 to 0.5 g/L TiO2 loading, which reached 100% at 1.0 g/L TiO2 loading, in all cases. The degradation efficiency of four antibiotics, i.e., lincomycin, tiamulin, trimethoprim, and tylosin, was proportional to TiO2 loading and reached more than 90% degradation at 1.0 g/L. In the case of lincomycin, tiamulin, and trimethoprim, the degradation efficiency was around 80% using a lower TiO2 loading of 0.1 g/L.
However, the degradation of four antibiotics, i.e., clopidol, erythromycin, florfenicol, and sulfamethoxazole, was very different from the other antibiotics, since they had a significant effect by TiO2 loadings, as shown in Figure 12. They were not completely degraded by UV/TiO2 photocatalysis, even though the TiO2 loading increased up to 1.0 g/L.
Figure 13 shows the adsorption capacity of the photocatalyst when using different loadings. As the photocatalyst concentration increased from 0.1 to 1.0 g/L, the adsorption efficiency of the antibiotics increased from 0.1 to 1.2, 4.8, and 12.6%, respectively. In the case of TiO2 photocatalysis (Figure 13), as the catalyst concentration increased from 0.1 to 1.0 g/L, the degradation efficiency was also increased from 89.5 to 93.2%. For improving the overall efficiency of antibiotics removal, adsorption is an important parameter. Elmolla and Chaudhuri [51] found the removal efficiency of amoxicillin, ampicillin and cloxacillin by UV/TiO2 photocatalysis after 300 min irradiation increased from 42.3 to 58.7, 33.3 to 52.4 and 46.6 to 60.2, by increasing TiO2 concentrations from 0.5 to 2.0 g/L, respectively.

3.3.4. UV254 Reduction in the Wastewater Samples

The reduction in UV 254 nm absorption by antibiotics in the wastewater samples was measured [70] to confirm the degradation of the antibiotics, which have aromatic contents. According to the Lambert–Beer law [71], light absorbance is directly proportional to pollutants and dissolved natural organic matter concentrations in samples. Using this law, the changes in concentrations of the antibiotics and dissolved natural organic matter were monitored. As can be seen in Figure 14, concentration (C/C0) dramatically reduced when samples were treated with UV/TiO2 photocatalysis. However, there was a plateau of the degradation of dissolved organic compounds by photocatalysis. The reduction in UV254 was associated with the degradation of aromatic compounds and the consequent transformation to smaller molecules, e.g., formic or acetic acids, aldehydes, ketone etc. [52]. The results showed that the degradation of antibiotics by the UV/TiO2 process did not result in full mineralization of antibiotics, probably due to the complex structures and strong bonds of the antibiotics. It might be due to competition among antibiotics and dissolved natural organic matter for the reactive species, during UV/TiO2 photocatalysis. Further mineralization of the antibiotics was studied from the COD and TOC removal efficiency in the next section.

3.4. Mineralization Studies

The mineralization of toxic organic molecules into innocent inorganic compounds, such as H2O and CO2, was studied by using different techniques. The mineralization of the antibiotics was measured from COD and TOC analysis, and the results are shown in Figure 15. The results showed that 13% COD and 10% TOC removal was achieved in 60 min at photocatalyst concentrations of 1.0 g/L. The results showed that the mineralization efficiency (i.e., COD and TOC removal) was far below the degradation efficiency of antibiotics, consistent with the literature studies [64]. A possible reason was the generation of smaller molecules and reaction intermediates during the degradation process, which need extra •OH for their degradation [64]. Elmolla and Chaudhuri [52] found the degradation efficiency of antibiotics in water by UV/TiO2 photocatalysis was 59% in 300 min, while the corresponding mineralization efficiency was only 10%, attributed to the same reasons.
Figure 15 shows the removal of TOC and COD under dark conditions and UV conditions. TOC removal was observed to be only 2, 4, 4, and 3% as photocatalyst concentrations of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 g/L, respectively, under dark conditions (Figure 15A). However, under UV illumination, the TOC removal increased up to 10% at 1.0 g/L of TiO2 (Figure 15B).
As shown in Figure 15C,D, the average COD removal was 3% (minimum 1% and maximum 6%) in dark conditions. However, the average COD removal reached 13% (minimum 10% and maximum 15%) when under UV illumination. The trend of COD removal was very similar to TOC removal, indicating the antibiotic could not be fully decomposed by TiO2 photocatalysis under these experimental conditions. However, Xekoukoulotakis et al. [68] and Abellán et al. [59] observed a nearly complete mineralization of sulfamethoxazole using UVA/TiO2 photocatalysis.

3.5. Comparison of Different AOPs

The degradation of the seventeen antibiotics was carried out for 30 min under illumination ([antibiotics]0 = 20 μg/L) under the following conditions: (i) UV only, (ii) photocatalyst only and (iii) UV/photocatalyst, and the results were shown in Figure 16. As seen, the degradation efficiency of the antibiotics was followed as: UV/photocatalyst (photocatalysis) > Only UV (photolysis) > only photocatalyst (adsorption) (Figure 16). The results were consistent with the literature studies, showing higher degradation efficiency of meropenem antibiotics in water by UV/photocatalyst systems rather than UV photolysis [72]. Shankaraiah et al. [73] reported 45 and 90% degradation of antibiotic norfloxacin in aqueous solution by UV and UV/TiO2 processes, respectively. The results were attributed to the generation of •OH by the UV/TiO2 photocatalyst system (reactions 1–4), which can attack most of the organic molecules in an aqueous solution [74]. On the other hand, the degradation of the antibiotics by only the UV system was attributed to the UV absorbance and photolysis of the double bond contained in the molecules (i.e., antibiotics) [60]. The usually high removal efficiency of antibiotics by UV/TiO2 process rather than only UV might suggest that the studied antibiotics had a strong affinity towards oxidation by •OH.
However, in the case of clopidol, florfenicol, and sulfamethoxazole, the antibiotic degradation efficiency by the only UV system was superior to the UV/photocatalyst or only photocatalyst systems (Figure 17). This result could be attributed to any high UV photon absorption capacity for those antibiotics, whereby the UV photon intensity may decrease in the presence of photocatalyst, thereby retarding the degradation efficiency. Despite the fact that the antibiotics were significantly decomposed even under only the UV conditions, the UV/TiO2 process was more effective in removing all the antibiotics contained in the livestock wastewater effluent. Several research studies reported low removal efficiency of antibiotics by UV, Visible or solar photolysis [63,75]. Elmolla and Chaudhuri [63] reported that UV photolysis resulted in 2.9, 3.8, and 4.9% removal of amoxicillin, ampicillin, and cloxacillin in an aqueous solution, respectively, under 300 min illuminations. Che et al. found that ciprofloxacin (CIP) and tetracycline (TC) were resistant towards the visible light irradiation, represented by less than 5% degradation in 2 h illumination [76]. Meanwhile, Priyaa et al. reported that ampicillin (AMP) and oxytetracycline (OTC) antibiotics were quite stable under solar light irradiation, represented by less than 5% degradation in 2 h illumination [75].

4. Conclusions

The UV/TiO2 photocatalysis was used for the treatment of real livestock wastewater effluents. The degradation efficiency of antibiotics was only slightly affected by the photocatalyst loadings at the experimental conditions. However, the removal efficiency was inversely proportional to the initial concentration of antibiotics. In the case of solution pHs, due to different speciation and UV absorption of antibiotics, there is a pH preference for each antibiotic. However, a high removal efficiency was observed for many antibiotics regardless of solution pHs.
The degradation efficiency of antibiotics by UV/TiO2 photocatalysis was very high, i.e., >90% after 60 min illumination. However, the extent of mineralization was significantly low, as confirmed by the removal of COD and TOC or the reduction in UV254 absorbance. The overall degradation efficiency of the antibiotics followed the order: UV/TiO2 photocatalyst > Only UV > only TiO2 photocatalyst systems. However, it was revealed that low antibiotic concentrations of some studies were completely decomposed by only UV photolysis as well.
Nevertheless, the AOPs may have a disadvantage of high cost in real-life applications, which can be largely minimized by the activation of photocatalyst by sustainable solar light energy, accomplishable through narrowing the band-gape energy by doping of photocatalyst, and it can be investigated in our future studies.
The separation of photocatalyst after use, particularly regeneration of the photocatalyst for reuse, is a desirable quality for practical uses. The suspended TiO2 particles can be separated and/or recovered by filtration, followed by regeneration via calcination. Alternatively, the replacement of powdered TiO2 photocatalysts with fixed-bed continuous columns, or especially with catalyst immobilization on supporting materials (e.g., TiO2 thin film on glass plates, beads etc.), is a more convenient approach compared to other methods, which needs to be investigated in our future studies. Samuel Moles et al. reported reprocessing completely, or an 80% removal of antibiotics from wastewater from pilot-scale plants, and the catalyst was recovered and reused after retreatment [77].
The application of UV/TiO2 system for the simultaneous removal of a vast number of different antibiotics from real livestock wastewater effluents (i.e., one and a half dozen) is a significant contribution towards the real-life application. However, this research is a lab-scale test, and thus, a prototype or plant-scale test should be conducted to industrialize this technology in the livestock wastewater treatment facilities. It was concluded that UV/TiO2 photocatalysis was a promising technology for the treatment of real livestock wastewater effluents.

Author Contributions

Investigation, Y.P., S.K. (Sanghyeon Kim) and J.K.; Writing-original draft preparation, Y.P.; Writing-review and editing, S.K. (Sanghyeon Kim), J.K., S.K. (Sanaullah Khan), C.H.; Experimentation, Y.P.; Supervision, C.H.; Project administration, C.H.; Funding acquisition: C.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1A2C1093183) and INHA University Research Grant (INHA-62979-1).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

CH acknowledges the support of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1A2C1093183) and INHA University Research Grant (INHA-62979-1).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Godber, O.F.; Wall, R. Livestock and food security: Vulnerability to population growth and climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 3092–3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Hu, H.; Li, X.; Wu, S.; Yang, C. Sustainable livestock wastewater treatment via phytoremediation: Current status and future perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 315, 123809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Van Boeckel, T.P.; Brower, C.; Gilbert, M.; Grenfell, B.T.; Levin, S.A.; Robinson, T.P.; Teillant, A.; Laxminarayan, R. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 5649–5654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Zhao, R.; Feng, J.; Liu, J.; Fu, W.; Li, X.; Li, B. Deciphering of microbial community and antibiotic resistance genes in activated sludge reactors under high selective pressure of different antibiotics. Water Res. 2019, 151, 388–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dibner, J.J.; Richards, J.D. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: History and mode of action. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hughes, P.; Heritage, J. Antibiotic Growth-Promoters in Food Animals; FAO Animal Production and Health Paper; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2004; Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Antibiotic-growth-promoters-in-food-animals-Hughes/30ad55d63c84ef91d2239d05e1bd2653ec71d6b9 (accessed on 26 February 2022).
  7. Tiseo, K.; Huber, L.; Gilbert, M.; Robinson, T.P.; Van Boeckel, T.P. Global Trends in Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals from 2017 to 2030. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hou, J.; Chen, Z.; Gao, J.; Xie, Y.; Li, L.; Qin, S.; Wang, Q.; Mao, D.; Luo, Y. Simultaneous removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes from pharmaceutical wastewater using the combinations of up-flow anaerobic sludge bed, anoxic-oxic tank, and advanced oxidation technologies. Water Res. 2019, 159, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Anthony, A.A.F.; Adekunle, C.; Thor, A.S. Residual antibiotics, antibiotic resistant superbugs and antibiotic resistance genes in surface water catchments: Public health impact. Phys. Chem. Earth 2018, 105, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Q.-Q.; Ying, G.-G.; Pan, C.-G.; Liu, Y.-S.; Zhao, J.-L. Comprehensive Evaluation of Antibiotics Emission and Fate in the River Basins of China: Source Analysis, Multimedia Modeling, and Linkage to Bacterial Resistance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 6772–6782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kim, J.-P.; Jin, D.R.; Lee, W.; Chae, M.; Park, J. Occurrence and Removal of Veterinary Antibiotics in Livestock Wastewater Treatment Plants, South Korea. Processes 2020, 8, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sneeringer, S.; MacDonald, J.M.; Key, N.; McBride, W.D.; Mathews, K. Economics of Antibiotic Use in US Livestock Production; Economic Research Report Number 200; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kim, H.; Hong, Y.; Park, J.-E.; Sharma, V.; Cho, S.-I. Sulfonamides and tetracyclines in livestock wastewater. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 888–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gudda, F.O.; Waigi, M.G.; Odinga, E.S.; Yang, B.; Carter, L.; Gao, Y. Antibiotic-contaminated wastewater irrigated vegetables pose resistance selection risks to the gut microbiome. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 264, 114752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Baaloudj, O.; Nasrallah, N.; Kebir, M.; Khezami, L.; Amrane, A.; Assadi, A.A. A comparative study of ceramic nanoparticles synthesized for antibiotic removal: Catalysis characterization and photocatalytic performance modeling. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 13900–13912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Garrido-Cardenas, J.A.; Esteban-García, B.; Agüera, A.; Sánchez-Pérez, J.A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Wastewater Treatment by Advanced Oxidation Process and Their Worldwide Research Trends. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mourid, E.H.; El Mersly, L.; Benaziz, L.; Rafqah, S.; Lakraimi, M. Development of a new recyclable nanocomoposite LDH-TiO2 for the degradation of antibiotic sulfamethoxazole under UVA radiation: An approach towards sunlight. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem. 2020, 396, 112530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Trovó, A.; Nogueira, R.P.; Agüera, A.; Fernandez-Alba, A.R.; Sirtori, C.; Malato, S. Degradation of sulfamethoxazole in water by solar photo-Fenton. Chemical and toxicological evaluation. Water Res. 2009, 43, 3922–3931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Massé, D.I.; Saady, N.M.C.; Gilbert, Y. Potential of Biological Processes to Eliminate Antibiotics in Livestock Manure: An Overview. Animals 2014, 4, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kumar, A.; Pal, D. Antibiotic resistance and wastewater: Correlation, impact and critical human health challenges. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jia, S.; Zhang, X.-X.; Miao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, L.; Li, B.; Zhang, T. Fate of antibiotic resistance genes and their associations with bacterial community in livestock breeding wastewater and its receiving river water. Water Res. 2017, 124, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Phoon, B.L.; Ong, C.C.; Saheed, M.S.M.; Show, P.-L.; Chang, J.-S.; Ling, T.C.; Lam, S.S.; Juan, J.C. Conventional and emerging technologies for removal of antibiotics from wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 400, 122961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reyes, C.; Fernández, J.; Freer, J.; Mondaca, M.; Zaror, C.; Malato, S.; Mansilla, H. Degradation and inactivation of tetracycline by TiO2 photocatalysis. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2006, 184, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Baaloudj, O.; Assadi, I.; Nasrallah, N.; El Jery, A.; Khezami, L.; Assadi, A.A. Simultaneous removal of antibiotics and inactivation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by photocatalysis: A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 42, 102089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Huang, A.; Yan, M.; Lin, J.; Xu, L.; Gong, H.; Gong, H. A Review of Processes for Removing Antibiotics from Breeding Wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bayan, E.; Pustovaya, L.; Volkova, M. Recent advances in TiO2-based materials for photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics in aqueous systems. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, S.; Aga, D.S. Potential Ecological and Human Health Impacts of Antibiotics and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria from Wastewater Treatment Plants. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 2007, 10, 559–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Al-Waili, N.; Salom, K.; Al-Ghamdi, A.; Ansari, M.J. Antibiotic, Pesticide, and Microbial Contaminants of Honey: Human Health Hazards. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 930849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Liu, M.; Ni, H.; Yang, L.; Chen, G.; Yan, X.; Leng, X.; Liu, P.; Li, X. Pretreatment of swine manure containing β-lactam antibiotics with whole-cell biocatalyst to improve biogas production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ben, W.; Qiang, Z.; Pan, X.; Chen, M. Removal of veterinary antibiotics from sequencing batch reactor (SBR) pretreated swine wastewater by Fenton’s reagent. Water Res. 2009, 43, 4392–4402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ming, T.T.; Hyun, K.T.; Myun, J. Characterization of livestock wastewater at various stages of wastewater treatment plant. Malays. J. Anal. Sci. 2007, 11, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  32. Yang, L.; Zhu, L.; Chen, X.; Meng, S.; Xie, Y.; Sheng, M.; Cao, G. The role of nitrification inhibitors on the removal of antibiotics in livestock wastewater by aerobic biodegradation. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lee, H.; Lee, E.; Lee, C.H.; Lee, K. Degradation of chlorotetracycline and bacterial disinfection in livestock waste3water by ozone-based advanced oxidation. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2011, 17, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Michael, I.; Rizzo, L.; McArdell, C.S.; Manaia, C.M.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: A review. Water Res. 2013, 47, 957–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Calvete, M.J.F.; Piccirillo, G.; Vinagreiro, C.S.; Pereira, M.M. Hybrid materials for heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2019, 395, 63–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Crisafully, R.; Milhome, M.A.L.; Cavalcante, R.; Silveira, E.R.; De Keukeleire, D.; Nascimento, R.F. Removal of some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from petrochemical wastewater using low-cost adsorbents of natural origin. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4515–4519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, J.; Zhuan, R. Degradation of antibiotics by advanced oxidation processes: An overview. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 701, 135023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Daghrir, R.; Drogui, P. Tetracycline antibiotics in the environment: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2013, 11, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Deng, Y.; Zhao, R. Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) in Wastewater Treatment. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2015, 1, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Urtiaga, A.; Ortiz, I. Contributions of electrochemical oxidation to waste-water treatment: Fundamentals and review of applications. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 1747–1755. [Google Scholar]
  41. Khan, S.; Sohail, M.; Han, C.; Khan, J.A.; Khan, H.M.; Dionysiou, D.D. Degradation of highly chlorinated pesticide, lindane, in water using UV/persulfate: Kinetics and mechanism, toxicity evaluation, and synergism by H2O2. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 402, 123558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, J.A.; Sayed, M.; Shah, N.S.; Khan, S.; Zhang, Y.; Boczkaj, G.; Dionysiou, D.D. Synthesis of eosin modified TiO2 film with co-exposed {001} and {101} facets for photocatalytic degradation of para-aminobenzoic acid and solar H2 production. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2020, 265, 118557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Khan, J.A.; Sayed, M.; Khan, S.; Shah, N.S.; Dionysiou, D.D.; Boczkaj, G. Advanced oxidation processes for the treatment of contaminants of emerging concern. In Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Water and Wastewater; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 299–365. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jallouli, N.; Pastrana-Martínez, L.M.; Ribeiro, A.R.; Moreira, N.F.; Faria, J.L.; Hentati, O.; Ksibi, M. Heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of ibuprofen in ultrapure water, municipal and pharmaceutical industry wastewaters using a TiO2/UV-LED system. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 334, 976–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Do, T.C.M.V.; Nguyen, D.Q.; Nguyen, T.D.; Le, P.H. Development and Validation of a LC-MS/MS Method for Determination of Multi-Class Antibiotic Residues in Aquaculture and River Waters, and Photocatalytic Degradation of Antibiotics by TiO2 Nanomaterials. Catalysts 2020, 10, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Chollom, M.N.; Rathilal, S.; Swalaha, F.M.; Bakare, B.F. Degradation of veterinary antibiotics from slaughterhouse wastewater using titanium dioxide as a catalyst. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 217, 135–144. [Google Scholar]
  47. DDTTD, S.; Abeysooriya, K.; Vithushana, T. Veterinary pharmaceuticals in aquaculture wastewater as emerging contaminant substances in aquatic environment and potential treatment methods. MOJ Eco. Environ. Sci. 2021, 6, 98–102. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sharma, A.; Ahmad, J.; Flora, S. Application of advanced oxidation processes and toxicity assessment of transformation products. Environ. Res. 2018, 167, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tekin, H.; Bilkay, O.; Ataberk, S.S.; Balta, T.H.; Ceribasi, I.H.; Sanin, F.D.; Dilek, F.B.; Yetis, U. Use of Fenton oxidation to improve the biodegradability of a pharmaceutical wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 136, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zyoud, A.; Jondi, W.; AlDaqqah, N.; Asaad, S.; Qamhieh, N.; Hajamohideen, A.; Hilal, H.S. Self-sensitization of tetracycline degradation with simulated solar light catalyzed by ZnO@ montmorillonite. Solid State Sci. 2017, 74, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Elmolla, E.S.; Chaudhuri, M. Photocatalytic degradation of amoxicillin, ampicillin and cloxacillin antibiotics in aqueous solution using UV/TiO2 and UV/H2O2/TiO2 photocatalysis. Desalination 2010, 252, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khan, W.; Nam, J.-Y.; Byun, S.; Kim, S.; Han, C.; Kim, H.-C. Emerging investigator series: Quaternary treatment with algae-assisted oxidation for antibiotics removal and refractory organics degradation in livestock wastewater effluent. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6, 3262–3275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bai, Z.; He, Q.; Huang, S.; Hu, X.; Chen, H. Preparation of hybrid soda-lime/quartz glass chips with wettability-patterned channels for manipulation of flow profiles in droplet-based analytical systems. Anal. Chim. Acta 2013, 767, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pretali, L.; Maraschi, F.; Cantalupi, A.; Albini, A.; Sturini, M. Water Depollution and Photo-Detoxification by Means of TiO2: Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics as a Case Study. Catalysts 2020, 10, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cuerda-Correa, E.M.; Alexandre-Franco, M.F.; Fernández-González, C. Advanced Oxidation Processes for the Removal of Antibiotics from Water. An Overview. Water 2020, 12, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Sangchay, W.; Sikong, L.; Kooptarnond, K. Comparison of photocatalytic reaction of commercial P25 and synthetic TiO2-AgCl nanoparticles. Procedia Eng. 2012, 32, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Wang, G.; Xu, L.; Zhang, J.; Yin, T.; Han, D. Enhanced Photocatalytic Activity of Powders (P25) via Calcination Treatment. Int. J. Photoenergy 2012, 2012, 265760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Maulidiyah, M.; Wibowo, D.; Hikmawati, H.; Salamba, R.; Nurdin, M. Preparation and Characterization of Activated Carbon from Coconut Shell—Doped Tio2 in Water Solution. Orient. J. Chem. 2015, 31, 2337–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Abellán, M.; Bayarri, B.; Giménez, J.; Costa, J. Photocatalytic degradation of sulfamethoxazole in aqueous suspension of TiO2. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2007, 74, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Do, T.C.M.V.; Nguyen, D.Q.; Nguyen, K.T.; Le, P.H. TiO2 and Au-TiO2 Nanomaterials for Rapid Photocatalytic Degradation of Antibiotic Residues in Aquaculture Wastewater. Materials 2019, 12, 2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Qu, Y.; Xu, X.; Huang, R.; Qi, W.; Su, R.; He, Z. Enhanced photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics in water over functionalized N, S-doped carbon quantum dots embedded ZnO nanoflowers under sunlight irradiation. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 382, 123016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Karaolia, P.; Michael-Kordatou, I.; Hapeshi, E.; Drosou, C.; Bertakis, Y.; Christofilos, D.; Armatas, G.; Sygellou, L.; Schwartz, T.; Xekoukoulotakis, N.; et al. Removal of antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and their associated genes by graphene-based TiO2 composite photocatalysts under solar radiation in urban wastewaters. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2018, 224, 810–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Elmolla, E.S.; Chaudhuri, M. Degradation of amoxicillin, ampicillin and cloxacillin antibiotics in aqueous solution by the UV/ZnO photocatalytic process. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 445–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dimitrakopoulou, D.; Rethemiotake, I.; Frontistis, Z.; Xekoukoulotakis, N.P.; Venieri, D.; Mantzavinos, D. Degradation, mineralization and antibiotic inactivation of amoxicillin by UV-A/TiO2 photocatalysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 98, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Tsiampalis, A.; Frontistis, Z.; Binas, V.; Kiriakidis, G.; Mantzavinos, D. Degradation of Sulfamethoxazole Using Iron-Doped Titania and Simulated Solar Radiation. Catalysts 2019, 9, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Klauson, D.; Babkina, J.; Stepanova, K.; Krichevskaya, M.; Preis, S. Aqueous photocatalytic oxidation of amoxicillin. Catal. Today 2010, 151, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khan, S.; He, X.; Khan, H.M.; Boccelli, D.; Dionysiou, D.D. Efficient degradation of lindane in aqueous solution by iron (II) and/or UV activated peroxymonosulfate. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2016, 316, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Xekoukoulotakis, N.P.; Drosou, C.; Brebou, C.; Chatzisymeon, E.; Hapeshi, E.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; Mantzavinos, D. Kinetics of UV-A/TiO2 photocatalytic degradation and mineralization of the antibiotic sulfamethoxazole in aqueous matrices. Catal. Today 2011, 161, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Grilla, E.; Matthaiou, V.; Frontistis, Z.; Oller, I.; Polo, I.; Malato, S.; Mantzavinos, D. Degradation of antibiotic trimethoprim by the combined action of sunlight, TiO2 and persulfate: A pilot plant study. Catal. Today 2019, 328, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Balcıoğlu, I.A.; Ötker, M. Treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater containing antibiotics by O3 and O3/H2O2 processes. Chemosphere 2003, 50, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mäntele, W.; Deniz, E. UV–VIS Absorption Spectroscopy: Lambert-Beer Reloaded; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  72. Verma, P.; Jatinder, K. Degradation and microbiological validation of Meropenem antibiotic in aqueous solution using UV, UV/H2O2, UV/TiO2 and UV/TiO2/H2O2 processes. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2014, 4, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
  73. Shankaraiah, G.; Poodari, S.; Bhagawan, D.; Himabindu, V.; Vidyavathi, S. Degradation of antibiotic norfloxacin in aqueous solution using advanced oxidation processes (AOPs)—A comparative study. Desalination Water Treat. 2016, 57, 27804–27815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Khan, S.; Han, C.; Sayed, M.; Sohail, M.; Jan, S.; Sultana, S.; Khan, H.M.; Dionysiou, D.D. Exhaustive Photocatalytic Lindane Degradation by Combined Simulated Solar Light-Activated Nanocrystalline TiO2 and Inorganic Oxidants. Catalysts 2019, 9, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Priya, B.; Shandilya, P.; Raizada, P.; Thakur, P.; Singh, N.; Singh, P. Photocatalytic mineralization and degradation kinetics of ampicillin and oxytetracycline antibiotics using graphene sand composite and chitosan supported BiOCl. J. Mol. Catal. A Chem. 2016, 423, 400–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Che, H.; Che, G.; Jiang, E.; Liu, C.; Dong, H.; Li, C. A novel Z-Scheme CdS/Bi3O4Cl heterostructure for photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics: Mineralization activity, degradation pathways and mechanism insight. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2018, 91, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Moles, S.; Mosteo, R.; Gómez, J.; Szpunar, J.; Gozzo, S.; Castillo, J.R.; Ormad, M.P. Towards the Removal of Antibiotics Detected in Wastewaters in the POCTEFA Territory: Occurrence and TiO2 Photocatalytic Pilot-Scale Plant Performance. Water 2020, 12, 1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 14 00958 g001 550
Figure 1. A Schematic of an experimental setup for photocatalytic antibiotics degradation.
Figure 1. A Schematic of an experimental setup for photocatalytic antibiotics degradation.
Water 14 00958 g001
Water 14 00958 g002 550
Figure 2. Characterization of TiO2: (a) SEM analysis, (b) XRD analysis, and (c) TEM analysis (insert: HR-TEM analysis) and (d) FTIR analysis.
Figure 2. Characterization of TiO2: (a) SEM analysis, (b) XRD analysis, and (c) TEM analysis (insert: HR-TEM analysis) and (d) FTIR analysis.
Water 14 00958 g002
Water 14 00958 g003 550
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the photolysis Mechanism of TiO2.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the photolysis Mechanism of TiO2.
Water 14 00958 g003
Water 14 00958 g004 550
Figure 4. Photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics by UV/TiO2 process after 30 min of UV illumination. ([antibiotics]0 = 50 μg/L, [TiO2]0 = 0.1 g/L, pH = 5.8.)
Figure 4. Photocatalytic degradation of antibiotics by UV/TiO2 process after 30 min of UV illumination. ([antibiotics]0 = 50 μg/L, [TiO2]0 = 0.1 g/L, pH = 5.8.)
Water 14 00958 g004
Water 14 00958 g005 550
Figure 5. Effects of antibiotics concentration using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 30 min: Same degradation efficiency at all initial concentration of antibiotics after 30 min illumination.
Figure 5. Effects of antibiotics concentration using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 30 min: Same degradation efficiency at all initial concentration of antibiotics after 30 min illumination.
Water 14 00958 g005
Water 14 00958 g006 550
Figure 6. Effects of antibiotics concentration using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 30 min: High degradation efficiency at low initial concentration of antibiotics.
Figure 6. Effects of antibiotics concentration using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 30 min: High degradation efficiency at low initial concentration of antibiotics.
Water 14 00958 g006
Water 14 00958 g007 550
Figure 7. Degradation efficiency of antibiotics at different solution pH. [antibiotics]0 = 50 μg/L, [TiO2]0 = 0.1 g/L.
Figure 7. Degradation efficiency of antibiotics at different solution pH. [antibiotics]0 = 50 μg/L, [TiO2]0 = 0.1 g/L.
Water 14 00958 g007
Water 14 00958 g008 550
Figure 8. The pH value for 90% degradation efficiency of selected antibiotic by using UV/TiO2. [antibiotics]0 = 50 μg/L, [TiO2]0 = 0.1 g/L.
Figure 8. The pH value for 90% degradation efficiency of selected antibiotic by using UV/TiO2. [antibiotics]0 = 50 μg/L, [TiO2]0 = 0.1 g/L.
Water 14 00958 g008
Water 14 00958 g009 550
Figure 9. The effect of TiO2 loadings on the degradation of total antibiotics after 5 min UV illumination at different TiO2 loadings.
Figure 9. The effect of TiO2 loadings on the degradation of total antibiotics after 5 min UV illumination at different TiO2 loadings.
Water 14 00958 g009
Water 14 00958 g010 550
Figure 10. The effect of TiO2 loadings on the degradation of total antibiotics after 60 min UV illumination at different TiO2 loadings.
Figure 10. The effect of TiO2 loadings on the degradation of total antibiotics after 60 min UV illumination at different TiO2 loadings.
Water 14 00958 g010
Water 14 00958 g011 550
Figure 11. Degradation of target antibiotics using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 60 min at different TiO2 loadings.
Figure 11. Degradation of target antibiotics using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 60 min at different TiO2 loadings.
Water 14 00958 g011
Water 14 00958 g012 550
Figure 12. Degradation of selected antibiotics with varied degradation efficiencies at different photocatalyst loadings using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 60 min.
Figure 12. Degradation of selected antibiotics with varied degradation efficiencies at different photocatalyst loadings using UV/TiO2 photocatalysis for 60 min.
Water 14 00958 g012
Water 14 00958 g013 550
Figure 13. Removal rate of antibiotics of adsorption and photocatalysis according to TiO2 loading.
Figure 13. Removal rate of antibiotics of adsorption and photocatalysis according to TiO2 loading.
Water 14 00958 g013
Water 14 00958 g014 550
Figure 14. Changes of UV absorption by total dissolved organic compounds during UV/TiO2 photocatalysis at different TiO2 loadings: (A) 0.1 g/L, (B) 0.3 g/L, (C) 0.5 g/L, and (D) 1.0 g/L.
Figure 14. Changes of UV absorption by total dissolved organic compounds during UV/TiO2 photocatalysis at different TiO2 loadings: (A) 0.1 g/L, (B) 0.3 g/L, (C) 0.5 g/L, and (D) 1.0 g/L.
Water 14 00958 g014
Water 14 00958 g015 550
Figure 15. TOC removal under (A) dark conditions and (B) UV illumination, and COD removal under (C) dark conditions and (D) UV illumination.
Figure 15. TOC removal under (A) dark conditions and (B) UV illumination, and COD removal under (C) dark conditions and (D) UV illumination.
Water 14 00958 g015
Water 14 00958 g016 550
Figure 16. Antibiotic decomposition by using different AOPs, i.e., (i) only UV (ii) only TiO2 photocatalyst, and UV/TiO2 photocatalyst.
Figure 16. Antibiotic decomposition by using different AOPs, i.e., (i) only UV (ii) only TiO2 photocatalyst, and UV/TiO2 photocatalyst.
Water 14 00958 g016
Water 14 00958 g017 550
Figure 17. Exceptional behavior of the specific antibiotic towards (i) only UV (ii) only TiO2 photocatalyst and UV/TiO2 photocatalyst.
Figure 17. Exceptional behavior of the specific antibiotic towards (i) only UV (ii) only TiO2 photocatalyst and UV/TiO2 photocatalyst.
Water 14 00958 g017
Table
Table 1. Chemical formula and molecular structure of the antibiotics.
Table 1. Chemical formula and molecular structure of the antibiotics.
Antibiotics NameChemicalStructure
Ceftiofur C19H17N5O7S3 Water 14 00958 i001
ClopidolC7H7Cl2NO Water 14 00958 i002
EnrofloxacinC19H22FN3O3 Water 14 00958 i003
ErythromycinC37H67NO13 Water 14 00958 i004
FlorfenicolC12H14Cl2FNO4S Water 14 00958 i005
LincomycinC18H34N2O6S Water 14 00958 i006
OxytetracyclineC22H24N2O9 Water 14 00958 i007
Penicillin-GC16H18N2O4S Water 14 00958 i008
Penicillin-VC16H18N2O5S Water 14 00958 i009
SulfadiazineC10H10N4O2S Water 14 00958 i010
SulfamethazineC12H14N4O2S Water 14 00958 i011
SulfamethoxazoleC10H11N3O3S Water 14 00958 i012
SulfathiazoleC9H9N3O2S2 Water 14 00958 i013
TetracyclineC22H24N2O8 Water 14 00958 i014
TiamulinC28H47NO4S Water 14 00958 i015
TrimethoprimC14H18N4O3 Water 14 00958 i016
TylosinC46H77NO17 Water 14 00958 i017
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of real livestock wastewater, obtained from a livestock wastewater treatment plant in Jeollanam-do, Korea.
Table 2. Characteristics of real livestock wastewater, obtained from a livestock wastewater treatment plant in Jeollanam-do, Korea.
pHConductivity
(mS/cm)		Total Organic Carbon
(mg/L)		Chemical Oxygen Demand
(mg/L)		UV254
(cm−1)		Color
(mg/L Pt-Co)		Total Phosphorus
(mg/L)		Total Nitrogen
(mg/L)
7.1 ± 0.1778 ± 369 ± 1262 ± 20.351 ± 0.00230 ± 20.05 ± 0.015 ± 1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Park, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, J.; Khan, S.; Han, C. UV/TiO2 Photocatalysis as an Efficient Livestock Wastewater Quaternary Treatment for Antibiotics Removal. Water 2022, 14, 958. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060958

AMA Style

Park Y, Kim S, Kim J, Khan S, Han C. UV/TiO2 Photocatalysis as an Efficient Livestock Wastewater Quaternary Treatment for Antibiotics Removal. Water. 2022; 14(6):958. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060958

Chicago/Turabian Style

Park, Yeji, Sanghyeon Kim, Jungyeon Kim, Sanaullah Khan, and Changseok Han. 2022. "UV/TiO2 Photocatalysis as an Efficient Livestock Wastewater Quaternary Treatment for Antibiotics Removal" Water 14, no. 6: 958. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060958

APA Style

Park, Y., Kim, S., Kim, J., Khan, S., & Han, C. (2022). UV/TiO2 Photocatalysis as an Efficient Livestock Wastewater Quaternary Treatment for Antibiotics Removal. Water, 14(6), 958. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060958

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop