Absorbtion of Sulfamethoxazole an Organic Pollutant

By: Juan Martinez

Raised in Texas Pearsall High School

College Credit Summer Prep Track Basketball

Texas A&M University Kingsville Basketball Track AAEE

Background

The summer pre freshmen engineering program (PREP) molded my brain and in my 4th year the focus of the program was water management and treatment.

PREP took the 4th year students on a tour to San Antonio Water Systems (SAWS) we saw the water management and treatment systems.

Motivation

The research objective was to remove pharmaceuticals from waste water and storm water. The removal of pharmaceuticals would

protect fish populations and prevent undetermined long term health effects on humans

Objective

Need for a low-cost sorbent Wastewater emerging

contaminants Pharmaceuticals and

personal care products Indirect water reuse

Improve drinking water source quality

Remove natural organic matter (NOM) DBP precursorsIncreasing loads of synthetic organics, such as pesticides in developing countries

So there is a need for removal but there is still yet a demand to remove these compounds Sulfamethoxazole was used in the study

It is used to treat urinary tract infections Removal of compounds by adsorption to a solid

material (adsorbent) Bio Chars can become to answer to a problem

that we know about, but refuse to look at.

adsorption

Important Materials

Chars Bio solids (BS) Forced Draft Pine

(FD) Natural Draft Pine

(ND) Powder Activated

Carbon (PAC) Eucalyptus Low

Temperature (LOW)

Waters Big Elk Meadow

(BEM) Deionized (DI) Stormwater (SW) Waste Water (WW)

brick beehive kilnRoyal Thai Forestry DepartmentWood Energy Research CentreSaraburi Province, Thailand

Procedure

Muffled Glass and Filters 500 degrees C 3 hours for Glass 2 hours for filters

Procedure

Jar tester Initial speed 250 RPM

for 1 min Constant Speed 70

RPM Test times

10min 30min 60min

Procedure

Procedure

4 ml of treated water 2 pumps of the

cocktail set to 8ml Cocktail

Solvent Surfactant Fluors or Scintillators

Results

BEM Ranking1. PAC2. FD3. BS 4. ND5. LOW

DI Ranking1. PAC2. FD3. BS4. ND5. Low

FD and PAC

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PAC DI

10 min10 min30 min30 min60 min60 min14 days7 days

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120FD DI

10 min30 min60 min10 min30 min60 min14 days7 days

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

Results Waste Water

0 50 100 150 200 250 3000

20

40

60

80

100

120

PAC WW

10 min30 min60 min

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

Results Waste Water

0 50 100 150 200 250 3000

20

40

60

80

100

120

FD WW

10 min30 min60 min

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

Results Waste Water

0 50 100 150 200 250 3000

20

40

60

80

100

120

WW

10 min30 min60 min10 min30 min60 min

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

Results Storm Water

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4000

20

40

60

80

100

120

FD SW

10 min30 min60 min

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

Results Storm Water

0 50 100 150 200 2500

20

40

60

80

100

120

PAC SW

10 min30 min60 min

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

Results Storm Water

0 50 100 150 200 2500

20

40

60

80

100

120

SW

10 min30 min60 min10 min30 min60 min

Dose

Perc

ent

Rem

aini

ng

PAC was the best performing char used but there is still data proving other options are available

The experiment has room for improvement and expansion

Future test many look at the other chars not searched here

Future test may have a mixture of chars The field of biochar had the potential to solve the

growing issue with pharmaceuticals in the water

Conclusion

Ryan B Mahoney  Kyle Shimabuku

Dr. Lupita Montoya

Dr. Scott Summers

Acknowledgments

QUESTIONS?

PREGUNTAS?