MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280489818 · doi:10.1016/j.ese.2022.100184

Occurrence and risk assessment of typical PPCPs and biodegradation pathway of ribavirin in wastewater treatment plants

2022· article· en· W4280489818 on OpenAlexaff
Qixin Liu, Xuan Feng, Ning Chen, Fei Shen, Haichuan Zhang, Shuo Wang, Zhiya Sheng, Ji Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science and Ecotechnology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care productsWastewaterChemistryBiodegradationEnvironmental chemistrySewage treatmentActivated sludgePulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large number of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) persist in wastewater, and the consumption of PPCPs for COVID-19 control and prevention has sharply increased during the pandemic. This study investigated the occurrence, removal efficiency, and risk assessment of six typical PPCPs commonly used in China in two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Ribavirin (RBV) is an effective pharmaceutical for severely ill patients with COVID-19, and the possible biodegradation pathway of RBV by activated sludge was discovered. The experimental results showed that PPCPs were detected in two WWTPs with a detection rate of 100% and concentrations ranging between 612 and 2323 ng L−1. The detection frequency and concentrations of RBV were substantially higher, with a maximum concentration of 314 ng L−1. Relatively high pollution loads were found for the following PPCPs from influent: ibuprofen > ranitidine hydrochloride > RBV > ampicillin sodium > clozapine > sulfamethoxazole. The removal efficiency of PPCPs was closely related to adsorption and biodegradation in activated sludge, and the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) had a higher removal capacity than the anoxic-anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (AAAO) process. The removal efficiencies of sulfamethoxazole, ampicillin sodium, ibuprofen, and clozapine ranged from 92.21% to 97.86% in MBBR process and were relatively low, from 61.82% to 97.62% in AAAO process, and the removal of RBV and ranitidine hydrochloride were lower than 42.96% in both MBBR and AAAO processes. The discrepancy in removal efficiency is caused by temperature, hydrophilicity, and hydrophobicity of the compound, and acidity and alkalinity. The transformation products of RBV in activated sludge were detected and identified, and the biodegradation process of RBV could be speculated as follows: first breaks into TCONH2 and an oxygen-containing five-membered heterocyclic ring under the nucleosidase reaction, and then TCONH2 is finally formed into TCOOH through amide hydrolysis. Aquatic ecological risks based on risk quotient (RQ) assessment showed that PPCPs had high and medium risks in the influent, and the RQ values were all reduced after MBBR and AAAO treatment. Ranitidine hydrochloride and clozapine still showed high and medium risks in the effluent, respectively, and thus presented potential risks to the aquatic ecosystem.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science and EcotechnologySame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207