From Removal to Recovery: An Evaluation of Antibiotics Removal

Techniques from Wastewater

Xilai Ma

BASIS International School Park Lane Harbour, China

Keywords:

Antibiotics Removal, Removal Mechanisms, Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology, Membrane

Bioreactor, Bioelectrochemical System, Constructed Wetland, Microalgae.

Abstract:

Due to the potential risks to human health and ecosystems, antibiotics contamination is an emerging

environmental concern. Currently, numerous technologies have been widely explored for the removal of

antibiotics from wastewater, including membrane bioreactor, biological process, bioelectrochemical system,

constructed wetland and microalgae. In this review, the fundamental mechanisms and removal efficiency of

such technologies were discussed. Besides, current challenges and further direction of the antibiotic removal

are present, in which the recovery of antibiotics was highlighted. Thus, a shift of antibiotics from the

removal to recovery would be a focus in the future for the sustainable development of society.

Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotics are used in farming and medicine to

reduce harmful parasites in crops, and treat diseases

by bacterial infection in domesticated animals and

humans. Since its discovery in 1928 by Alexander

Flemin (K. Gould, 2016), there are now many types

of antibiotics such as sulphonamides, macrolides,

puinolones, cephalosporins and penicillin. Since the

1950s, people are using antibiotics on a massive

scale to treat diseases in poultry and livestock

production (E.K. Silbergeld, 2008). They are used to

promote the growth of the life stocks by being used

as feed additives in reducing the chances of animals

getting sick or kills harmful bacteria during fruit or

vegetable production (E.K. Silbergeld, 2008).

However, the overuse of antibiotics results in the

production of harmful chemicals. It was reported

that from 2000 to 2010, there was a 36% increase in

antibiotics usage in developing countries (Thung,

2016) and this exploitation of antibiotics has caused

the appearance of more potent pests that are resistant

to the antibiotics, causing more expensive medical

treatment, longer treatment period, and increased

death rates (Brown, 2016); (Liu, 2016). In a study, it

shows that there are about 58% of antibiotics left in

1138

Ma, X.

From Removal to Recovery: An Evaluation of Antibiotics Removal Techniques from Wastewater.

DOI: 10.5220/0011379100003443

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Bioinformatics (ICBEB 2022), pages 1138-1144

ISBN: 978-989-758-595-1

the feces and urine of those humans and animals that

had consumed antibiotics (Zhang, 2015). Therefore,

it is crucial to look for a proper way of treating the

wastes, so people can prevent the runoff in the

livestock industry to pollute water and soil (Ma,

2015); (Lukaszewicz, 2017). Currently, the

technologies for removing antibiotics from

wastewater include biological process, adsorption,

membrane filtration, Fenton, redoxreaciton,

photolysis (Martinez, 2013); (Molinos-Senante,

2013). To find out a practical way to remove

antibiotics, the review paper takes a deep look into

the latest technology available for the antibiotics

removal. A comparison among those antibiotics

removal techniques was conducted. Besides, we

propose a possible solution to increase the feasibility

of antibiotics removal system.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of antibiotic delivery chain.

Adopted from Song et al. (X. Song, 2021).

2 BIOLOGICAL PROCESS

In the biological process, it relies on the oxidation

by microbes to effectively decompose antibiotics.

Conventional activated sludge (CAS) is the most

popular method for the removal of antibiotics

through sludge adsorption. However, the method has

unstable performance and its removal efficiency

ranges from 90% to a negative percentage, which

indicates the antibiotics may build up in the reactor.

In CAP, the adsorption capacity depends on the

antibiotic’s hydrophobicity and chemical structure,

and the activated sludge’s property (Suto, 2017).

Compared to the CAS, the sequencing batch reactor

(SBR) is more advantageous due to its high

flexibility and simple structure and operation.

Similar to CAS, the efficiency of SBR depends on

property of antibiotics. Besides, hydraulic retention

time (HRT), sludge retention time (SRT), condition

for redox reaction and temperature can also

influence the removal of antibiotics, where HRT and

SRT are the most crucial factor (Yang, 2011).

Neyestani et al. (Neyestani, 2017) found that the

removal efficiency of trimethoprim (TMP) increased

from 19% to 71% as the SRT increased from 2 days

to 20 days.

Apart from this, anaerobic digestion (AD) is the

most efficient way to remove the antibiotics from

wastewater due to low energy input and the absence

of human intervention. Moreover, the temperature is

the most crucial factor affecting the removal

efficiency in the anaerobic digestion; for example,

Liu et al. (Liu, 2018) reported that the removal

efficiencies of tetracyclines (TCs) and

fluoroquinolones (FQs) from pig farms were higher

in summer than that in winter. It should be noted

here that the concentration of antibiotics in the AD

system may negatively affect its performance such

as hindering the production of CH4 and COD

removal. It was reported that the biogas production

was reduced by 10% due to the presence of 130mg/L

of tylosin, which is attributed to the inhibition of

oxidizing bacteria that produce methane by

antibiotics (Mitchell, 2013).

3 MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR

(MBR)

Membrane bioreactor (MBR) is a more high-quality

method for the removal of the antibiotic than

biological process due to its long SRT, higher cell

concentration, less sludge production and more

stable environment for microbial growth, which

integrates biological process with micro-filtration

(MF) or ultrafiltration (UF) (Cecconet, 2017). The

biodegradation of antibiotics can be enhanced by

higher microbial concentration and diversity. In

MBR, the removal efficiency of antibiotics can be

over 90%, including erythromycin, ofloxacin, TC,

ciprofloxacin (CIP), and chlortetracycline

(Cecconet, 2017); (Tiwari, 2017). For example, Xiao

et al. (Xiao, 2017) found that the anaerobic MBR

can achieve 94.2 ± 5.5% of TMP and 67.8 ± 13.9%

of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) being removed. It

should be noted that higher SRT favors the removal

of the antibiotic because this facilitates the growth of

slow-growing microorganisms and raises the

biodiversity of the microbial community, which has

positive impacts on the biodegradation of antibiotics.

From Removal to Recovery: An Evaluation of Antibiotics Removal Techniques from Wastewater

1139

4 BIOELECTROCHEMICAL

SYSTEM

For bioelectrochemical system (BES), it can not

only effectively remove antibiotics from wastewater,

but also generate electricity through redox reactions

performed by anaerobic bacteria at the anode

(Logan, 2009) and aerobic bacteria in the cathode by

the cellular respiration (Kumar, 2017); (Logan,

2012). The cellular respiration by anaerobic bacteria

at the anode chamber produces protons and

electrons, in which the proton can diffuse through a

proton exchange membrane to the cathode whilst

electrons can transfer by the external circuit to react

with the electron acceptor at the cathode for the

electricity generation. Microbial electrolysis cells

(MECs) and microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are the two

typical types of BESs which can achieve effective

removal of antibiotics with simultaneous energy

recovery.

The MFC has high antibiotic removal rate due to

its high activity of microbes. It was reported that

98% of β-Lactam antibiotics can be removed in

single-chambered MFC while two-chambered MFC

achieved over 80 % of TCs, quinolones,

chloramphenicol, sulfonamides and nitroimidazoles

being removed (Zhang, 2017); (Guo, 2016); (Zhou,

2018). In contrast to the MFC, additional power can

be applied in MEC, which facilitates the removal of

antibiotics. Increasing the applied voltage from 0 to

0.9 V resulted in enhanced removal of sulfadiazine

(SDZ) (Yang, 2018), which is attributed to the

improved biofilm formation and increased microbial

activity (Liu, 2015). Guo et al. (Guo, 2017) argued

that the microbial community can be manipulated by

additional power to make the system more suitable

for a certain kind of antibiotics. Furthermore,

biocathode are more effective at removing

antibiotics than abiotic cathode since the microbes at

the biocathode can gain electrons to boost the

electrochemical process (Liang, 2013). Excessive

concentration of antibiotics may also detrimentally

affect their removal efficiency in BES (Song, 2013);

for instance, Wang et al. (Wang, 2015) found that

increasing the concentration of SMX from 20 to 200

mg/L, its half-life increased from 1 to 3 d in the

MFC reactor.

5 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND

The removal of antibiotics by constructed wetland

(CW) relies on plants, microorganisms and

substrates which work together through

photodegradation absorption, microbial

decomposition and plant uptake (García, 2020);

(Gorito, 2017). Microbial decomposition plays a

crucial role in the removal of antibiotics in CW,

which depends on many different microbes, such as

the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria,

protozoan, and funguis (e.g., yeast, basidiomycetes)

(Liu, 2019). Biotransformation processes in treating

antibiotics heavily depend on their physio-chemical

properties, where antibiotics that have more similar

properties to naturally occurring organic molecules

can be fairly quickly decomposed and then

consumed by bacteria (Li, 2014). Besides,

antibiotics can be also destroyed directly through

photolysis, in which the radiation from light breaks

the bond cleavage, making the molecule no longer

harmful. Light intensity is an important factor

determining the rate of photodegradation while other

influencing factors include light frequency and the

chemical property of the surrounding water such as

pH and water hardness (Batchu, 2014).

Photosensitizers such as dissolved organic matter

(DOM), nitrate and nitrite can also indirectly

influence the photolysis of antibiotics (Jiang, 2010);

(Lin, 2005). The presence of DOM may inhibit the

removal of CIP via photodegradation, but have

positive impacts on the decomposition for

chlortetracycline, roxarsone, and SMX (Mangalgiri,

2017). The removal of antibiotics by substrate

adsorption is important, in which the antibiotics can

be adsorbed to the substrate such as sludge or the

surface of biofilm (Liu, 2020). In addition, some

antibiotics in CW can be taken up by plants with the

help of some specific xenobiotic transporters in the

plant cells (Liu, 2013); (Wu, 2015). According to the

difference in water flow, there are several types of

CW, including free water surface (FWS) flow

wetland, verticle subsurface flow (VSSF) wetland,

and horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF) wetland (L.

Liu, 2013).

6 MICROALGAE

Microalgae can effectively remove antibiotics by

bioadsorption, bioaccumulation, biodegradation,

volatilization and photodegradation (SHena, 2021);

(Leng, 2020); (Sutherland, 2019). Microalgae

integrated systems generally include closed

photobioreactors (PBRs) and open ponds (Hena,

2021), where suspension-based microalgae

cultivation is always involved. The classes and

concentrations of antibiotics highly affect the

ICBEB 2022 - The International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Bioinformatics

1140

antibiotic removal by microalgae integrated system.

When the concentrations of antibiotics are higher or

close to tolerable level of microalgae, the microalgae

growth may be inhibited by antibiotics, thus

negatively affecting the antibiotic removal (Sun,

2017). However, increasing the antibiotic

concentration within the tolerable level of

microalgae may have insignificant impacts on the

antibiotic removal (Leng, 2020). Li et al. (Li, 2015)

argued that the tolerable concentration of

amoxicillin for C. pyrenoidosa ranges from 300 to

400 mg/L. Besides, microalgae C. pyrenoidosa can

achieve 83–100% of amoxicillin and 7–23% of

cefradine being removed while the two antibiotics

are at the same level (Li, 2015). This indicates that

microalgae may have different removal efficiency

for the different antibiotic kinds even they are at the

same level (Leng, 2020). Apart from this, the

microalgae growth is influenced by microalgae

growth inhibitors, dissolved oxygen, design of the

photobioreactor, salinity, CO2 concentration,

temperature, illumination, solution pH and nutrient

concentration, which in turn affects the antibiotic

removal by microalgae (Norvill, 2016). The increase

in the nutrient concentration is beneficial for the

microalgae growth metabolisms, which also has

positive impacts on the antibiotic removal; for

instance, the removal efficiency of CIP can be

increased by over 3 times while adding 4 g/L sodium

acetate to Chlamydomonas Mexicana cultures

(Xiong, 2017). Moreover, the solution pH is a

crucial factor affecting the antibiotic removal in the

microalgae integrated system since it may determine

the hydrolysis of some ionic antibiotics. Norvill et

al. (Norvill, 2017) found that alkaline pH favors the

removal of TC by microalgae while the pH ranging

from 6.3-8.0 may have negligible effects on the

removal of 7-ACA (Guo, 2016). The removal of

antibiotics can be also enhanced by strong light

irradiation, where reactive oxygen species can be

generated (Norvill, 2017).

7 FUTURE PERSPECTIVE

Currently, the risks of antibiotics have been widely

explored and many technologies have been

developed for their effective removal. Even though

bio-based processes could achieve effective

antibiotic removal, the stability and reliability of

bacteria are still a big challenge for their full-scale

applications. Therefore, the selection of appropriate

bacteria for biodegrading certain kinds of antibiotics

may be a possible solution to increasing the removal

performance of bio-based processes. For the MBR

and BES, membrane fouling is a big barrier to

maintain their performance. This is despite the fact

that anaerobic MBR and MFC can recover energy

through biogas and electricity production. Thus,

further development should focus on improving the

properties of membranes with low synthesis costs.

The antibiotic removal by CW and microalgae is

achieved by multiple mechanisms, so it is essential

to identify the specific removal mechanism for

certain kinds of antibiotics. Overall, the antibiotic

removal requires substantial input of energy and

chemicals. Compared to the antibiotic removal from

wastewater, the antibiotic recovery is more

promising and can create a circular economy

because the recovered antibiotics can be reused in

animal feed. As shown in Table 1, Pan et al. (Pan,

2015) utilized forward osmosis (FO) process with

thin film composite membrane for the recovery of

TC. In this scenario, more than 97% TC can be

rejected in the feed side of the FO process, which

produces the TC-rich streams for further use.

Similarly, Li et al. (Li, 2017) employed eggshell

membrane (ESM)-derived MgFe2O4 to adsorb

doxycycline (DC) with the maximal adsorption

capacity of 308 mg/g, after which acid treatment and

magnetic separation were conducted for the

adsorbent regeneration and DC concentration.

However, the technologies mentioned above for the

antibiotic recovery may not achieve high-quality

stream with rich antibiotics due to the presence of

other foreign substances, which may negatively

affect the further application of recovered

antibiotics. Thus, future research should aim to

develop technologies for recovering antibiotics with

high-quality products.

From Removal to Recovery: An Evaluation of Antibiotics Removal Techniques from Wastewater

1141

Table 1: Summary of technologies for antibiotic recovery from wastewater t-SNPs: thiol functionalized silica nanoparticles.

Technology Wastewater Antibiotic Efficiency Reference

Foam separation with t-snps Pharmaceutical

wastewater

streptomycin

sulfate

recovery rate at

90.1 ± 4.5%

Shu et al. (T.

Shu, 2018)

Forward osmosis process Synthetic wastewater TC 99% of TC being

concentrated

Pan et al. (S.-F.

Pan, 2015)

Membrane (RO-UF) filtration Oxytetracycline waste

liquo

oxytetracycline recovery rate over 60% Li et al. (S.-z.

Li, 2004)

gradient elution preparative

chromatography

Crystallization

mother-liquor streams

ertapenem 0.6·kg·ertapenem/d·kg·s

tationary phase

Sajonz et al. (P.

Sajonz, 2006)

Electrodialysis with

ultrafiltration membrane

Synthetic wastewater penicillin G− 20.3% of penicillin

G− concentrated

Lu et al. (H. Lu,

2016)

8 CONCLUSION

The review paper demonstrated the effectiveness of

several technologies for the antibiotic removal, in

which bio-based processes have been widely used

for the antibiotic removal. However, there are still

some challenges that need to be solved to further

improve the removal efficiency, such as how to

maintain the microbial community in the removal

processes. Besides, the antibiotic recovery is

preferred compared to the antibiotic removal, but

more research are needed to make it feasibly viable.

REFERENCES

A.M. Gorito, A.R. Ribeiro, C.M.R. Almeida, A.M.T.

Silva, A review on the application of constructed

wetlands for the removal of priority substances and

contaminants of emerging concern listed in recently

launched EU legislation, Environmental Pollution, 227

(2017) 428-443.

A.Y.C. Lin, M. Reinhard, Photodegradation of common

environmental pharmaceuticals and estrogens in river

water, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24

(2005) 1303-1309.

Brown, Eric, D., Wright, Gerard, D., Antibacterial drug

discovery in the resistance era, Nature, 529 (2016)

336-343.

B. Tiwari, B. Sellamuthu, Y. Ouarda, P. Drogui, R.D.

Tyagi, G. Buelna, Review on fate and mechanism of

removal of pharmaceutical pollutants from wastewater

using biological approach, Bioresource Technology,

224 (2017) 1-12.

B.E. Logan, Conversion of Wastes into Bioelectricity and

Chemicals by Using Microbial Electrochemical

Technologies, Science, 337 (2012) 686-690.

B. Liang, H.Y. Cheng, D.Y. Kong, S.H. Gao, D.J. Lee,

Accelerated Reduction of Chlorinated Nitroaromatic

Antibiotic Chloramphenicol by Biocathode,

Environmental Science & Technology, 47 (2013).

D. Cecconet, D. Molognoni, A. Callegari, A.G.

Capodaglio, Biological combination processes for

efficient removal of pharmaceutically active

compounds from wastewater: A review and future

perspectives, Journal of Environmental Chemical

Engineering, 5 (2017) 3590-3603.

D.L. Sutherland, P.J. Ralph, Microalgal bioremediation of

emerging contaminants - Opportunities and

challenges, Water Research, 164 (2019) 114921.

E.K. Silbergeld, J. Graham, L.B. Price, Industrial food

animal production, antimicrobial resistance, and

human health, Annual Review Of Public Health, 29

(2008) 151-169.

F. Martinez, M.J. Lopez-Munoz, J. Aguado, J.A. Melero,

J. Arsuaga, A. Sotto, R. Molina, Y. Segura, M.I.

Pariente, A. Revilla, L. Cerro, G. Carenas, Coupling

membrane separation and photocatalytic oxidation

processes for the degradation of pharmaceutical

pollutants, Water Research, 47 (2013) 5647-5658.

H. Liu, C. Pu, X. Yu, Y. Sun, J. Chen, Removal of

tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and quinolones by

industrial-scale composting and anaerobic digestion

processes, Environmental Science And Pollution

Research, 25 (2018) 35835-35844.

H. Li, Y. Pan, Z. Wang, S. Chen, R. Guo, J. Chen, An

algal process treatment combined with the Fenton

reaction for high concentrations of amoxicillin and

cefradine, RSC Advances, 5 (2015) 100775-100782.

H. Lu, W. Zou, P. Chai, J. Wang, L. Bazinet, Feasibility of

antibiotic and sulfate ions separation from wastewater

using electrodialysis with ultrafiltration membrane,

Journal of Cleaner Production, 112 (2016) 3097-3105.

H. Song, G. Wei, M. Liu, J. Sun, Performance of

microbial fuel cells on removal of metronidazole,

Water Science & Technology, 68 (2013) 2599-2604.

ICBEB 2022 - The International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Bioinformatics

1142

I. Thung, H. Aramin, V. Vavinskaya, S. Gupta, J.Y. Park,

S.E. Crowe, M.A. Valasek, Review article: the global

emergence of Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance,

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 43 (2016)

514-533.

J. García, M.J. García-Galán, J.W. Day, R. Boopathy, J.R.

White, S. Wallace, R.G. Hunter, A review of emerging

organic contaminants (EOCs), antibiotic resistant

bacteria (ARB), and antibiotic resistance genes

(ARGs) in the environment: Increasing removal with

wetlands and reducing environmental impacts,

Bioresource Technology, 307 (2020) 123228.

J.-Q. Xiong, M.B. Kurade, J.R. Kim, H.-S. Roh, B.-H.

Jeon, Ciprofloxacin toxicity and its co-metabolic

removal by a freshwater microalga Chlamydomonas

mexicana, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 323 (2017)

212-219.

J. Li, D.H.L. Ng, R. Ma, M. Zuo, P. Song, Eggshell

membrane-derived MgFe2O4 for pharmaceutical

antibiotics removal and recovery from water,

Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 126

(2017) 123-133.

K. Gould, Antibiotics: from prehistory to the present day,

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 71 (2016)

572-575.

K.P. Mangalgiri, L. Blaney, Elucidating the Stimulatory

and Inhibitory Effects of Dissolved Organic Matter

from Poultry Litter on Photodegradation of

Antibiotics, Environmental Science and Technology,

51 (2017) 12310-12320.

Logan, E. Bruce, Exoelectrogenic bacteria that power

microbial fuel cells, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 7

(2009) 375-381.

L. Liu, Y.-h. Liu, C.-x. Liu, Z. Wang, J. Dong, G.-f. Zhu,

X. Huang, Potential effect and accumulation of

veterinary antibiotics in Phragmites australis under

hydroponic conditions, Ecological Engineering, 53

(2013) 138-143.

L. Leng, L. Wei, Q. Xiong, S. Xu, W. Li, S. Lv, Q. Lu, L.

Wan, Z. Wen, W. Zhou, Use of microalgae based

technology for the removal of antibiotics from

wastewater: A review, Chemosphere, 238 (2020)

124680.

L. Liu, C. Liu, J. Zheng, X. Huang, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, G.

Zhu, Elimination of veterinary antibiotics and

antibiotic resistance genes from swine wastewater in

the vertical flow constructed wetlands, Chemosphere,

91 (2013) 1088-1093.

M. Molinos-Senante, R. Reif, M. Garrido-Baserba, F.

Hernandez-Sancho, F. Omil, M. Poch, R.

Sala-Garrido, Economic valuation of environmental

benefits of removing pharmaceutical and personal care

products from WWTP effluents by ozonation, Science

Of the Total Environment, 461 (2013) 409-415.

M. Neyestani, E. Dickenson, J. McLain, E. Robleto, C.

Rock, D. Gerrity, Impacts of solids retention time on

trace organic compound attenuation and bacterial

resistance to trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole,

Chemosphere, 182 (2017) 149-158.

M. Jiang, L. Wang, R. Ji, Biotic and abiotic degradation of

four cephalosporin antibiotics in a lake surface water

and sediment, Chemosphere, 80 (2010) 1399-1405.

M. Sun, H. Lin, W. Guo, F. Zhao, J. Li, Bioaccumulation

and biodegradation of sulfamethazine in Chlorella

pyrenoidosa, Journal of Ocean University of China, 16

(2017) 1167-1174.

N. Guo, Y. Wang, L. Yan, X. Wang, M. Wang, H. Xu, S.

Wang, Effect of bio-electrochemical system on the

fate and proliferation of chloramphenicol resistance

genes during the treatment of chloramphenicol

wastewater, Water Research, 117 (2017) 95-101.

P. Lukaszewicz, J. Kumirska, A. Bialk-Bielinska, J.

Dolzonek, P. Stepnowski, Assessment of soils

contamination with veterinary antibiotic residues in

Northern Poland using developed

MAE-SPE-LC/MS/MS methods, Environmental

Science And Pollution Research, 24 (2017)

21233-21247.

P. Sajonz, A. Vailaya, O. Sudah, L. McPherson, V.

Capodanno, T.K. Natishan, R. Helmy, F.D. Antia,

Development of a gradient elution preparative high

performance liquid chromatography method for the

recovery of the antibiotic ertapenem from

crystallization process streams, Journal of

Chromatography A, 1126 (2006) 365-372.

Q.-Q. Zhang, G.-G. Ying, C.-G. Pan, Y.-S. Liu, J.-L.

Zhao, Comprehensive Evaluation of Antibiotics

Emission and Fate in the River Basins of China:

Source Analysis, Multimedia Modeling, and Linkage

to Bacterial Resistance, Environmental Science &

Technology, 49 (2015) 6772-6782.

Q. Zhang, Y. Zhang, D. Li, Cometabolic degradation of

chloramphenicol via a meta-cleavage pathway in a

microbial fuel cell and its microbial community,

Bioresource Technology, 229 (2017) 104-110.

R. Suto, C. Ishimoto, M. Chikyu, Y. Aihara, T.

Matsumoto, H. Uenishi, T. Yasuda, Y. Fukumoto, M.

Waki, Anammox biofilm in activated sludge swine

wastewater treatment plants, Chemosphere, 167

(2017) 300-307.

R. Kumar, L. Singh, A.W. Zularisam, F.I. Hai, Microbial

fuel cell is emerging as a versatile technology: a

review on its possible applications, challenges and

strategies to improve the performances, International

Journal of Energy Research, (2017).

S.-F. Yang, C.-F. Lin, A.Y.-C. Lin, P.-K.A. Hong,

Sorption and biodegradation of sulfonamide

antibiotics by activated sludge: Experimental

assessment using batch data obtained under aerobic

conditions, Water Research, 45 (2011) 3389-3397.

S.M. Mitchell, J.L. Ullman, A.L. Teel, R.J. Watts, C.

Frear, The effects of the antibiotics ampicillin,

florfenicol, sulfamethazine, and tylosin on biogas

production and their degradation efficiency during

anaerobic digestion, Bioresource Technology, 149

(2013) 244-252.

S. Liu, H. Song, S. Wei, Q. Liu, X. Li, X. Qian, Effect of

direct electrical stimulation on decolorization and

degradation of azo dye reactive brilliant red X-3B in

From Removal to Recovery: An Evaluation of Antibiotics Removal Techniques from Wastewater

1143

biofilm-electrode reactors, Biochemical Engineering

Journal, 93 (2015) 294-302.

S. Hena, L. Gutierrez, J.-P. Croué, Removal of

pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs)

from wastewater using microalgae: A review, Journal

of Hazardous Materials, 403 (2021) 124041.

S.-F. Pan, M.-P. Zhu, J.P. Chen, Z.-H. Yuan, L.-B. Zhong,

Y.-M. Zheng, Separation of tetracycline from

wastewater using forward osmosis process with thin

film composite membrane – Implications for

antibiotics recovery, Separation and Purification

Technology, 153 (2015) 76-83.

S.-z. Li, X.-y. Li, D.-z. Wang, Membrane (RO-UF)

filtration for antibiotic wastewater treatment and

recovery of antibiotics, Separation and Purification

Technology, 34 (2004) 109-114.

S.R. Batchu, V.R. Panditi, K.E. O'Shea, P.R. Gardinali,

Photodegradation of antibiotics under simulated solar

radiation: Implications for their environmental fate,

Science of The Total Environment, 470-471 (2014)

299-310.

T. Shu, N. Hu, Y. Xu, N. Li, Z. Wu, W. Liu, C. Yang, R.

Di, K. Lu, Enhancing antibiotic recovery from its

wastewater using thiol-functionalized SNPs as a

collector and a novel foam separation column,

Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process

Intensification, 132 (2018) 48-55.

W. Guo, Removal of Chloramphenicol and Simultaneous

Electricity Generation by Using Microbial Fuel Cell

Technology, International Journal of Electrochemical

Science, 11 (2016) 5128-5139.

Wang, Yicheng, Zheng, Lidan, Zhao, Feng, Efficient

degradation of sulfamethoxazole and the response of

microbial communities in microbial fuel cells, RSC

Advances, 5 (2015) 56430-56437.

W.-Q. Guo, H.-S. Zheng, S. Li, J.-S. Du, X.-C. Feng,

R.-L. Yin, Q.-L. Wu, N.-Q. Ren, J.-S. Chang,

Removal of cephalosporin antibiotics 7-ACA from

wastewater during the cultivation of

lipid-accumulating microalgae, Bioresource

Technology, 221 (2016) 284-290.

X. Song, C. Jo, L. Han, M. Zhou, Recent advance in

microbial fuel cells reactor configuration and coupling

technologies for removal of antibiotic pollutants,

Current Opinion in Electrochemistry, (2021) 100833.

Y. Xiao, H. Yaohari, C. De Araujo, C.C. Sze, D.C.

Stuckey, Removal of selected pharmaceuticals in an

anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR)

with/without powdered activated carbon (PAC),

Chemical Engineering Journal, 321 (2017) 335-345.

X. Liu, X. Guo, Y. Liu, S. Lu, B. Xi, J. Zhang, Z. Wang,

B. Bi, A review on removing antibiotics and antibiotic

resistance genes from wastewater by constructed

wetlands: Performance and microbial response,

Environmental Pollution, 254 (2019) 112996.

X. Wu, L.K. Dodgen, J.L. Conkle, J. Gan, Plant uptake of

pharmaceutical and personal care products from

recycled water and biosolids: a review, Science of The

Total Environment, 536 (2015) 655-666.

Y.-Y. Liu, Y. Wang, T.R. Walsh, L.-X. Yi, R. Zhang, J.

Spencer, Y. Doi, G. Tian, B. Dong, X. Huang, L.-F.

Yu, D. Gu, H. Ren, X. Chen, L. Lv, D. He, H. Zhou,

Z. Liang, J.-H. Liu, J. Shen, Emergence of

plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism

MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: a

microbiological and molecular biological study,

Lancet Infectious Diseases, 16 (2016) 161-168.

Y. Ma, M. Li, M. Wu, Z. Li, X. Liu, Occurrences and

regional distributions of 20 antibiotics in water bodies

during groundwater recharge, Science Of the Total

Environment, 518 (2015) 498-506.

Y. Zhou, N. Zhu, W. Guo, Y. Wang, X. Huang, P. Wu, Z.

Dang, X. Zhang, J. Xian, Simultaneous electricity

production and antibiotics removal by microbial fuel

cells, Journal of Environmental Management, 217

(2018) 565-572.

Yang, Xiao-Li, Zhang, Shuai, Hua, Li-Min, Song,

Hai-Liang, Wang, Ya-Wen, Effects of voltage on

sulfadiazine degradation and the response of sul genes

and microbial communities in biofilm-electrode

reactors, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety,

151 (2018) 272-278.

Y. Li, G. Zhu, W.J. Ng, S.K. Tan, A review on removing

pharmaceutical contaminants from wastewater by

constructed wetlands: Design, performance and

mechanism, Science of The Total Environment,

468-469 (2014) 908-932.

Y. Liu, X. Liu, S. Lu, B. Zhao, Z. Wang, B. Xi, W. Guo,

Adsorption and biodegradation of sulfamethoxazole

and ofloxacin on zeolite: Influence of particle diameter

and redox potential, Chemical Engineering Journal,

384 (2020) 123346.

Z.N. Norvill, A. Shilton, B. Guieysse, Emerging

contaminant degradation and removal in algal

wastewater treatment ponds: Identifying the research

gaps, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 313 (2016)

291-309.

Z.N. Norvill, A. Toledo-Cervantes, S. Blanco, A. Shilton,

B. Guieysse, R. Muñoz, Photodegradation and

sorption govern tetracycline removal during

wastewater treatment in algal ponds, Bioresource

Technology, 232 (2017) 35-43.

ICBEB 2022 - The International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Bioinformatics

1144