Next Article in Journal
Poisoning Effects of Phosphorus, Potassium and Lead on V2O5-WO3/TiO2 Catalysts for Selective Catalytic Reduction with NH3
Next Article in Special Issue
Synthesis of Magnetic Fe3O4/ZnWO4 and Fe3O4/ZnWO4/CeVO4 Nanoparticles: The Photocatalytic Effects on Organic Pollutants upon Irradiation with UV-Vis Light
Previous Article in Journal
Catalysts for Oxidative Destruction of Volatile Organic Compounds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ultrasonication-Assisted Synthesis of ZnxCd1−xS for Enhanced Visible-Light Photocatalytic Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Catalysts
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/catal10030344
catalysts-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

Degradation of Meropenem by Heterogeneous Photocatalysis Using TiO2/Fiberglass Substrates

by
Alejandro Altamirano Briones
1,
Iván Cóndor Guevara
1,
David Mena
2,
Isabel Espinoza
2,
Christian Sandoval-Pauker
3,
Luis Ramos Guerrero
1,4,
Paul Vargas Jentzsch
2,* and
Florinella Muñoz Bisesti
2
1
Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y la Construcción, Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas—ESPE, Av. Gral. Rumiñahui s/n, Sangolquí 171103, Ecuador
2
Departamento de Ciencias Nucleares, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Ladrón de Guevara E11-253, Quito 170525, Ecuador
3
Laboratorio de Fisicoquímica, Departamento de Química, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso 2390123, Chile
4
Centro de Investigación de Alimentos_CIAL, Universidad UTE, Av. Mariscal Sucre y Mariana de Jesús, Quito 170527, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Catalysts 2020, 10(3), 344; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/catal10030344
Submission received: 1 March 2020 / Revised: 11 March 2020 / Accepted: 12 March 2020 / Published: 20 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Photocatalytic Degradation of Organic Wastes in Water)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Meropenem (MER), a carbapenem, is considered a last-resort antibiotic. Its presence in water bodies, together with other antibiotics, has brought about environmental problems related to the destruction of natural microorganisms and the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Herein, the degradation of MER by heterogeneous photocatalysis using TiO2 immobilized on fiberglass substrates is reported. Morphological characterization of the substrates was performed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Three pH values (4.0, 5.7, and 7.9) were tested for the treatment of MER solutions (100 mg/L). The best rate constants and MER removals were obtained at pH 4.0 (0.032 min−1; 83.79%) and 5.7 (0.032 min−1; 83.48%). Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) removals of 25.80% and 29.60% were achieved for the treatment at a pH value of 5.7. The reuse and regeneration of the plates were also tested. The activity of the substrates was maintained until the fourth cycle of reuse, nonetheless, a decrease in MER removal was observed for the 5th cycle. After the fourth cycle of reuse, the activity of the substrates was recovered by a regeneration procedure involving a wash stage of the substrates with a 1% H2O2 solution in an ultrasonic bath.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The occurrence of some contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the environment has been the focus of intense studies in recent years. The massive use of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, pesticides and others used in everyday life has contributed to the release of this type of compounds into the environment [1]. Among CECs, antibiotics are compounds largely applied to control bacterial infections and allow the treatment of many diseases. Indeed, the development of antibiotics has contributed to reducing mortality and morbidity rates [1,2].
In general, it is a well known fact that pharmaceutical compounds are not completely metabolized, are excreted from the human and/or animal body and then released to the environment [1,3,4,5]. Moreover, they are not efficiently removed by conventional wastewater treatment plants [6], mostly due to their chemical structure and antimicrobial characteristics. The presence of antibiotics in the environment has become a public health concern because it has brought environmental effects associated with modifications of the natural microbiota and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria [7,8].
Carbapenems, such as meropenem (MER), are β-lactam antibiotics that are applied against infections caused by gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa) [9,10]. Carbapenems are commonly used as "last-resort antibiotics" when patients are infected by (multi)resistant bacteria or severe infections [11]. Unfortunately, several studies have found bacteria that exhibit resistance also against carbapenems [7,12,13], therefore, proper wastewater treatments for this kind of contaminants are needed to ensure the health safety of future generations.
Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) are a group of treatments that are effective for the removal of persistent organic compounds such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, solvents, textile dyes, among others. AOPs are based on the generation of highly oxidant species, like hydroxyl radicals (•OH), by different chemical and physicochemical strategies [14,15].
There have been some attempts to application AOPs to remove carbapenem antibiotics reported in the scientific literature. For instance, the application of photo-Fenton processes for the removal of MER using ferrous and persulfate ions was studied [16,17]. Furthermore, the removal of imipenem and MER by direct photolysis under solar irradiation was also tested [11]. To the best of our knowledge, there are really few reports of the application of heterogeneous photocatalysis for the removal of this specific type of antibiotics although its application for the removal of other antibiotics (i.e. amoxicillin, ampicillin, dipyrone, isoniazid, sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, among others) was extensively reported in the past [18,19,20,21]. Therefore, it becomes interesting to assess the feasibility of this type of treatment for the degradation and mineralization of these compounds.
Heterogeneous photocatalysis is based on the adsorption of UV/Vis light on a broadband semiconductor such as TiO2 [21,22]. When the catalyst absorbs equal or greater energy than its bandgap, an electron from its valence band is promoted to the conduction band generating an electron/hole pair (e−/h+). These e−/h+ pairs can participate in redox reactions promoting the removal of persistent organic compounds (generally through the formation of •OH radicals) [19]. This process has some advantages over other AOPs since fewer reagents are required and the catalyst can be separated [21,22].
Generally, the solid photocatalyst can be used in suspension. However, this often represents a disadvantage due to difficulties associated with the separation of the photocatalyst (special filtration systems are needed) and the possible release of nanoparticulate material to the environment. For this reason, the immobilization of TiO2 on inert materials such as polymers, paint coat, glass, among others is desirable to reduce operational costs [23,24,25].
Among these materials, fiberglass is a promising support material for metal-based catalysts. Indeed its application as support for platinum and copper-based catalysts has been proven in the past [26,27]. Moreover, the application of this material for the immobilization of TiO2 was explored in recent works [28,29,30]. Fiberglass presents some advantages over other traditional materials such as low cost, easy access and high mechanical and thermal stability (even at high temperatures). In addition, its flexibility allows the production of catalysts with different configurations, an aspect that is convenient from the industrial point of view [28,29].
Herein, we report the degradation and mineralization of MER using heterogeneous photocatalysis. In addition, the use of fiberglass as support of TiO2 is explored. This material support was characterized, and its reuse and regeneration evaluated.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Characterization of the TiO2/Fiberglass Substrates

In Figure S1 (Supplementary material) are depicted photos of the fiberglass disc before and after the immobilization of TiO2. The quantity of TiO2 immobilized on the substrates was determined by gravimetric analysis (see Table S1—Supplementary material). On average, 2.1578 ± 0.3319 mg/cm2 of TiO2 were supported on each substrate. It is important to remark that, probably, not all the TiO2 particles were available for the photocatalysis since a portion of them could be encapsulated by silicone. However, considering that this method of immobilization allowed a stronger retention of particles on the supporting material (fiberglass) compared to other methods (e.g., dip coating), the loss of activity due to the encapsulation of TiO2 nanoparticles is a minor disadvantage.
SEM images of the TiO2/fiberglass substrates were obtained to determine the morphological structure of the catalyst (Figure 1). The images showed that TiO2 was homogeneously distributed over the fiberglass matrix. A certain degree of agglomeration of the catalyst was observed. These agglomerates presented sizes between 200 and 400 nm approximately (see Figure S2—Supplementary material).
The determined point of zero charge (PZC) of the substrate is 5.7 (see the plot in Figure S3—Supplementary material) which is close to PZC values reported in other studies for anatase TiO2 (5.8 to 6.0) [31,32,33]. The PZC value represents the pH at which the surface of the catalysts has the same number of positive and negative charges. This parameter is used to assess the charge of the catalyst surface and infer whether or not the adsorption can be favored by the pH of the solution. When the pH value is below the PZC, the surface is positively charged, whereas when the pH value is above the PZC, it is negatively charged. In the case of TiO2, this behavior can be explained with Equations (1) and (2) [24,31]:
TiOH + H+ → TiOH2+ (pH < PZC),
TiOH + HO− → TiO− + H2O (pH > PZC),

2.2. Photocatalytic Removal of Meropenem

The variation of the MER concentration due to the heterogeneous photocatalytic process with TiO2/fiberglass substrates is depicted in Figure 2. This process was evaluated at three pH values: 4.0, 5.7 and 7.9. The degradation of MER followed a pseudo-first order kinetics according to the coefficients of determination, R2 (0.933–0.976).
The pseudo-first order rate constants of the MER photocatalytic degradation calculated for the different pH values tested are depicted in Table 1. A statistical analysis was carried out to determine the effect of the pH value on the removal of MER (Figure S4—Supplementary material) and the results showed that no significant differences between the rate constants at pH 4.0 and 5.7 can be observed. Moreover, a decrease in the rate constant was observed at pH 7.9. The removals of MER attained after 60 min of photocatalytic reaction were 83.79%, 83.48% and 81.05% when the process was carried out at pH 4.0, 5.7 and 7.9, respectively.
The decrement in the rate constant at a pH value of 7.9 could be explained in terms of the PZC of the substrate and the pKa values of MER. MER has two pKa values, the first one (2.9–3.1) is associated with the carbonyl group while the second one (7.4–7.5) is associated with the pyrrolidone group [34]. As mentioned before, the charge of catalyst surface at a specific pH value can be predicted based on the PZC of the material. In this case, when the pH value is above 5.7 (PZC of the material) the adsorption of MER on the substrate is not favored because of the repulsive electrostatic forces between the surface and MER (both are negatively charged). Considering that the adsorption phenomenon is an important step for the photocatalytic degradation of the pollutants [35], a decrease of the adsorption capacity of the material could also affect the photocatalytic performance of the catalyst.
The direct photolysis of MER under UV irradiation was tested. Figure 3 shows the variation of the MER concentration due to the direct photolysis and heterogeneous photocatalysis at pH 5.7. This pH value was selected by considering the results of the photocatalytic degradation of MER. Taking into consideration that no significant differences between the treatments carried out at pH 4.0 and 5.7 were observed, a pH value of 5.7 was selected for the treatment since it implies a lower operational costs at an industrial scale (less acid is required to adjust the pH). The photolysis experiments showed that MER can be degraded by direct photolysis, as reported previously [11]. Indeed, a MER removal of 66.44% was achieved after 60 min of reaction. Nevertheless, when the substrate was employed, an improvement on the degradation of MER was observed. For comparative purposes, the degradation of MER by direct photolysis was adjusted to pseudo-first order kinetics (k = 0.0189 min−1 and R2 = 0.992).
The adsorption of MER over the TiO2/fiberglass substrates at pH = 5.7 was also studied. According to the results, the time required to attain the adsorption equilibria was 10 min. Moreover, Langmuir and Freundlich isotherm models were applied to describe the adsorption data. Based on the coefficients of determination a better fit was found with the Langmuir model (R2 = 0.925). The maximum adsorption capacity (qmax) and the Langmuir constant (KL) calculated for the MER adsorption were 0.052 mg/g and 0.073 L/mg, respectively.

2.3. Mineralization and Biodegradability Studies

The mineralization of MER by the photocatalytic treatment was studied in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC). These experiments were conducted with an initial MER concentration of 100 mg/L, a pH value of 5.7 and 60 min of reaction. COD and TOC removals of 25.80% and 29.60% were achieved, respectively. These results suggest that the treatment could trigger the formation of less complex species. Nevertheless, the low COD and TOC removals in comparison to the removal of MER (83.79%) may be explained by the presence of different reaction intermediates which do not easily degraded in comparison with MER molecules [17,36].

2.4. Reuse and Regeneration of the Material

One of the main drawbacks of the application of heterogeneous photocatalysis is the deactivation of the catalysts generally due to the adsorption of the pollutant and/or its degradation products. For industrial purposes, it is desirable that the photocatalysts can be reused and/or regenerated. in this sense, the recyclability of the substrates was studied. The substrates were reused for five subsequent cycles of MER degradation. Figure 4 shows the MER photocatalytic degradation kinetics for each cycle. The activity of the substrates was slightly affected until the fourth cycle of reuse. However, a decrease in MER removal was observed during the fifth cycle (see Figure S5—Supplementary material). Other studies have also reported the progressive fouling of TiO2 after several uses [37,38,39,40].
After the fifth cycle of reuse, a simple regeneration method for the substrates was tested. This regeneration process consisted of washing the substrates with a 1% H2O2 solution in an ultrasonic bath for 15 min and drying them at 80 °C for 5 h. Then, the regenerated substrate was employed for another MER degradation cycle. The results demonstrate that this simple procedure can restore the activity of the substrates (see Figure S5—Supplementary material). The regeneration of the catalyst could not only be explained by the removal of the substances adsorbed on the surface of the substrate by washing. Perhaps, the combined action of ultrasound irradiation and H2O2 (which is a well-known advanced oxidation process) can generate •OH radicals which could oxidize the adsorbed pollutants and thus facilitate their desorption. Other works have also proven the capacity of H2O2 to aid in the regeneration process of photocatalysts [40]. The reuse and regeneration of the substrates make them suitable for industrial wastewater applications by reducing the cost of the treatment and the amount of the spent catalyst discarded to the environment.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Reagents

Meropenem trihydrate was purchased from Chongqing Pharmaceutical (71.6% meropenem; impurities were 7.1% NaCl, 100 ppm acetone, 500 ppm ethanol, 1000 ppm isopropanol, <10 ppm metals, and water). Nanosized titanium dioxide (TiO2) was provided by Nanostructured and Amorphous Materials Inc. (size of grain 15 nm, 99% anatase). Moreover, tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (20%), acetonitrile (LiChrosolv®) and methanol (LiChrosolv®) were bought from Merck. Phosphoric acid (85%) was obtained from Fisher. The structure of Meropenem (MER) is provided in Figure 5.

3.2. Preparation of TiO2/Fiberglass Substrates

TiO2 was immobilized on a fiberglass disc with an inner and outer diameter of 20 and 80 mm, respectively. Before the immobilization, the discs were washed with ethanol (50% v/v) and sonicated for 5 min. Subsequently, they were dried at 100 °C for 24 h. To guarantee a homogeneous weight distribution, only the discs with a mass of 1.8 ± 0.2 g were selected as support for the photocatalyst. For the immobilization of TiO2, 0.75 g of liquid silicone was mixed with 15 mL of ethanol (96% v/v) at constant stirring. Once dissolved, 0.25 g of TiO2 were added and stirred for 5 min. Then, the TiO2 suspension was carefully spilled onto the fiberglass discs, spread to achieve a uniform distribution and then dried at 80 °C for 24 h. The amount of catalyst present in the prepared substrates was determined by gravimetric analysis using an analytical balance (CX220 Citizen).
The point of zero charge (PZC) of the TiO2/fiberglass substrates was determined using a methodology previously described [31,41]. For the morphological characterization, the prepared substrates were analyzed by a Scanning Electron Microscope (JEOL, Model: JSM-IT300).

3.3. Photocatalytic Degradation of Meropenem

Photocatalytic assays were carried out with solutions of MER (100 mg/L). The solutions were treated in a batch lab-scale system which consisted of a stirred reaction vessel, two UV lamps (8 W) and a cooling system to maintain the temperature at approximately 20 °C. The TiO2/fiberglass substrates were submerged into 25 mL of MER solutions. Then, the solutions were stirred for 35 min in the darkness (to ensure the adsorption equilibria). After the pre-equilibration step, the lamp was turned on to start the photocatalytic reaction. The tests were performed at different times of reaction (0, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 60 min) and three pH values (4.0, 5.7 and 7.9). A clean substrate was employed for each assay. The pH value that allowed the highest MER removal was chosen for further experiments. Moreover, to measure the degree in which MER can be degraded due to photolysis, MER solutions (100 mg/L) were irradiated without the substrates.
After each run, the remaining MER in the solutions (concentration) was measured by HPLC (Agilent Technologies 1120 compact LC) equipped with a variable wavelength UV-Vis detector and a Zorbax Eclipse Plus C-18 column from Agilent Technologies (4.6 mm × 150 mm; 5 μm particle size). The mobile phase consisted of a mixture of methanol, acetonitrile, and a buffer solution of tetrabutylammonium hydroxide adjusted to a pH of 7.0 with phosphoric acid (volume ratio 10:15:75). The flow rate of the mobile phase was set to 1.5 mL/min with an isocratic regime. The detection was carried out at 300 nm.
In addition, the adsorption of MER on the TiO2/fiberglass substrates was evaluated. The equilibrium time of adsorption was first determined. The substrates were submerged in 25 mL of MER solutions (20 mg/L) with stirring at 200 rpm in the absence of light. The assays were carried out at different times (5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 min). For each assay, the remaining MER in the solutions was measured by HPLC.
Once the equilibrium time was determined, the adsorption isotherm of MER on the substrates was obtained at room temperature (~18 °C). For this, the TiO2/fiberglass substrates were submerged in 25 mL of MER solutions (40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 mg/L) with stirring at 200 rpm in the absence of light until the adsorption equilibrium was reached. The concentration of MER after the tests was measured by HPLC. The resulting adsorption isotherm was adjusted to the linear form of Langmuir and Freundlich models which are presented in Equations (3) and (4), respectively [42].
Ce/qe = 1/(KL · qmax) + Ce/qmax
ln(qe) = 1/n · ln(Ce) + ln(KF)
where Ce is the equilibrium concentration (mg/L), qe is the equilibrium amount of MER adsorbed on the substrate (mg/g), qmax is the maximum adsorption capacity of the substrate (mg/g), KL (L/mg) is the Langmuir constant, KF (mg1−n·Ln·g−1) is the Freundlich constant, and 1/n is a constant related to the intensity of the adsorption in the Freundlich model.

3.4. Mineralization of MER

The mineralization of MER was studied in terms of the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC). For this, MER solutions (100 mg/L) were treated using the TiO2/fiberglass substrate. After 60 min of treatment, COD and TOC were measured according to the standard methods 5220 D and 5310 B, respectively [43].

3.5. Reuse and Regeneration of the TiO2/Fiberglass Substrates

The reuse and regeneration of the TiO2/fiberglass substrates were studied. Five subsequent cycles of (re)use were carried out using the same substrate. For these assays, portions of 25 mL of MER solutions (100 mg/L) were treated for 60 min. After the treatment, the used substrate was separated and dried at room temperature before its reuse in another treatment (this procedure was repeated four times). Additionally, after the fifth cycle, the substrates were regenerated and employed for an additional degradation run. The regeneration process consisted of washing the substrates with a 1% H2O2 solution in an ultrasonic bath for 15 min and then drying them at 80 °C for 5 h.

4. Conclusions

The degradation and mineralization of MER using TiO2/fiberglass substrates as heterogeneous photocatalysts were studied. The photocatalysts were prepared by immobilizing TiO2 on a fiberglass matrix. The morphology of the substrates was characterized by Scanning Electron Microscopy. A homogeneous distribution of TiO2 over the fiberglass matrix was observed by SEM. The quantity of TiO2 immobilized on the plates was on average 2.1578 ± 0.3319 mg/cm2. The photocatalytic degradation of MER was carried out at three pH values (4.0, 5.7 and 7.9). The statistical analysis showed that there were no significant statistical differences between the rate constants at pH 4.0 and 5.7 (0.032 min−1 in both cases). Nevertheless, a decrease in the rate constant was observed at pH 7.9 (0.028 min−1). The direct photolysis of MER with UV light was also tested. The rate constant for the photolysis of MER was 0.0189 min−1 which was lower than the rate constant of the photocatalysis. Thus, the addition of the substrates had a positive effect on the removal of this compound. The adsorption isotherm of MER on the substrates was adjusted to the Langmuir model with a maximum adsorption capacity (qmax) and Langmuir constant (KL) of 0.052 mg/g and 0.073 L/mg, respectively. To provide insight into the mineralization of MER by the treatment, COD and TOC parameters were measured. COD and TOC removals were 25.80% and 29.60%, respectively. These values suggest that the treatment could trigger the formation of a less complex species. Moreover, the reuse and regeneration of the substrates were studied. For this, the substrates were reused for five subsequent cycles of MER degradation, the activity of the substrates was maintained until the fourth cycle of reuse. However, a decrease in MER removal was observed during the fifth cycle. After the fifth cycle of reuse, the activity of the substrates was recovered by the regeneration procedure.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2073-4344/10/3/344/s1, Table S1: Average content of TiO2 immobilized on the fiberglass substrates, Figure S2: SEM images of the TiO2/fiberglass substrate, Figure S3: Point of zero charge of the TiO2/fiberglass substrate, Figure S4: Statistical analysis of the effect of the pH value on the pseudo-first order rate constant of the photocatalytic degradation meropenem, Figure S5: Statistical analysis of the effect of the reuse of the TiO2/fiberglass substrate on the removal of MER after 60 min of reaction (pH = 5.7).

Author Contributions

A.A.B. and I.C.G. prepared the photocatalysts, characterize them and tested their activity; D.M. develop the methodology for the preparation of the substrates; the manuscript was written and drafted by I.E. and C.S.-P.; L.R.G., P.V.J. and F.M.B. designed the experiments, played a supervising role and review and edit the final version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by Escuela Politécnica Nacional.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the support provided by Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas—ESPE, Escuela Politécnica Nacional and Universidad UTE. A.A.B., I.C.G. and D.M. are grateful to Paola Zarate Pozo from Departamento de Ciencias Nucleares of Escuela Politécnica Nacional for providing support in the HPLC measurements.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Carvalho, I.T.; Santos, L. Antibiotics in the aquatic environments: A review of the European scenario. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 736–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Vardanyan, R.; Hruby, V. Synthesis of Best-Seller Drugs, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Grenni, P.; Ancona, V.; Barra Caracciolo, A. Ecological effects of antibiotics on natural ecosystems: A review. Microchem. J. 2018, 136, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, X.; Lu, S.; Guo, W.; Xi, B.; Wang, W. Antibiotics in the aquatic environments: A review of lakes, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 1195–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yang, Y.; Song, W.; Lin, H.; Wang, W.; Du, L.; Xing, W. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in global lakes: A review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 2018, 116, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Alexander, J.; Knopp, G.; Dötsch, A.; Wieland, A.; Schwartz, T. Ozone treatment of conditioned wastewater selects antibiotic resistance genes, opportunistic bacteria, and induce strong population shifts. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 559, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hrenovic, J.; Ivankovic, T.; Ivekovic, D.; Repec, S.; Stipanicev, D.; Ganjto, M. The fate of carbapenem-resistant bacteria in a wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 2017, 126, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Szekeres, E.; Baricz, A.; Chiriac, C.M.; Farkas, A.; Opris, O.; Soran, M.-L.; Andrei, A.-S.; Rudi, K.; Balcázar, J.L.; Dragos, N.; et al. Abundance of antibiotics, antibiotic resistance genes and bacterial community composition in wastewater effluents from different Romanian hospitals. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 225, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kongthavonsakul, K.; Lucksiri, A.; Eakanunkul, S.; Roongjang, S.; Issaranggoon na Ayuthaya, S.; Oberdorfer, P. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of meropenem in children with severe infection. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2016, 48, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Proia, L.; Anzil, A.; Borrego, C.; Farrè, M.; Llorca, M.; Sanchis, J.; Bogaerts, P.; Balcázar, J.L.; Servais, P. Occurrence and persistence of carbapenemases genes in hospital and wastewater treatment plants and propagation in the receiving river. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 358, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Reina, A.C.; Martínez-Piernas, A.B.; Bertakis, Y.; Brebou, C.; Xekoukoulotakis, N.P.; Agüera, A.; Sánchez Pérez, J.A. Photochemical degradation of the carbapenem antibiotics imipenem and meropenem in aqueous solutions under solar radiation. Water Res. 2018, 128, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khan, A.; Sharma, D.; Faheem, M.; Bisht, D.; Khan, A.U. Proteomic analysis of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae strain in response to meropenem stress. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2017, 8, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Magalhães, M.J.T.L.; Pontes, G.; Serra, P.T.; Balieiro, A.; Castro, D.; Pieri, F.A.; Crainey, J.L.; Nogueira, P.A.; Orlandi, P.P. Multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa survey in a stream receiving effluents from ineffective wastewater hospital plants. BMC Microbiol. 2016, 16, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Dewil, R.; Mantzavinos, D.; Poulios, I.; Rodrigo, M.A. New perspectives for Advanced Oxidation Processes. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 195, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Gągol, M.; Przyjazny, A.; Boczkaj, G. Wastewater treatment by means of advanced oxidation processes based on cavitation—A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 338, 599–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kordestani, B.; Takdastan, A.; Jalilzadeh Yengejeh, R.; Neisi, A.K. Photo-Fenton oxidative of pharmaceutical wastewater containing meropenem and ceftriaxone antibiotics: Influential factors, feasibility, and biodegradability studies. Toxin Rev. 2018, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kordestani, B.; Jalilzadeh Yengejeh, R.; Takdastan, A.; Neisi, A.K. A new study on photocatalytic degradation of meropenem and ceftriaxone antibiotics based on sulfate radicals: Influential factors, biodegradability, mineralization approach. Microchem. J. 2019, 146, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Giri, A.S.; Golder, A.K. Fenton, Photo-Fenton, H2O2 Photolysis, and TiO2 Photocatalysis for Dipyrone Oxidation: Drug Removal, Mineralization, Biodegradability, and Degradation Mechanism. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 1351–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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]
  20. Malesic-Eleftheriadou, N.; Evgenidou, E.Ν.; Kyzas, G.Z.; Bikiaris, D.N.; Lambropoulou, D.A. Removal of antibiotics in aqueous media by using new synthesized bio-based poly(ethylene terephthalate)-TiO2 photocatalysts. Chemosphere 2019, 234, 746–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Silva, A.R.; Martins, P.M.; Teixeira, S.; Carabineiro, S.A.C.; Kuehn, K.; Cuniberti, G.; Alves, M.M.; Lanceros-Mendez, S.; Pereira, L. Ciprofloxacin wastewater treated by UVA photocatalysis: Contribution of irradiated TiO 2 and ZnO nanoparticles on the final toxicity as assessed by Vibrio fischeri. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 95494–95503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Babić, S.; Ćurković, L.; Ljubas, D.; Čizmić, M. TiO2 assisted photocatalytic degradation of macrolide antibiotics. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2017, 6, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sousa, V.M.; Manaia, C.M.; Mendes, A.; Nunes, O.C. Photoinactivation of various antibiotic resistant strains of Escherichia coli using a paint coat. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2013, 251, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sandoval, C.; Molina, G.; Vargas Jentzsch, P.; Pérez, J.; Muñoz, F. Photocatalytic Degradation of Azo Dyes Over Semiconductors Supported on Polyethylene Terephthalate and Polystyrene Substrates. J. Adv. Oxid. Technol. 2017, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Huang, C.; Ding, Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, P.; Zhu, S.; Shen, S. Highly efficient Zr doped-TiO2/glass fiber photocatalyst and its performance in formaldehyde removal under visible light. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 60, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Balandina, T.A.; Larina, T.Y.; Kuznetsova, N.I.; Bal’zhinimaev, B.S. Copper catalysts based on fiberglass supports for hydrocarbon oxidation reactions with the participation of hydrogen peroxide. Kinet. Catal. 2008, 49, 499–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bal’zhinimaev, B.S.; Kovalyov, E.V.; Kaichev, V.V.; Suknev, A.P.; Zaikovskii, V.I. Catalytic Abatement of VOC Over Novel Pt Fiberglass Catalysts. Top. Catal. 2017, 60, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brichkov, A.S.; Shamsutdinova, A.N.; Khalipova, O.S.; Rogacheva, A.O.; Larina, T.V.; Glazneva, T.S.; Cherepanova, S.V.; Paukshtis, E.A.; Buzaev, A.A.; Kozik, V.V.; et al. Preparation of a fiberglass-supported Ni-Si-Ti oxide catalyst for oxidation of hydrocarbons: Effect of SiO2. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 3618–3624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sun, P.; Xue, R.; Zhang, W.; Zada, I.; Liu, Q.; Gu, J.; Su, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, D. Photocatalyst of organic pollutants decomposition: TiO2/glass fiber cloth composites. Catal. Today 2016, 274, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, M.; Chen, W.; Liu, C. The Preparation of TiO2 Film Loaded on Fiberglass Mesh and the Experimental Study on Its Photocatalytic Properties. Adv. Mater. Res. 2010, 150, 1421–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sriprang, P.; Wongnawa, S.; Sirichote, O. Amorphous titanium dioxide as an adsorbent for dye polluted water and its recyclability. J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2014, 71, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kosmulski, M. The significance of the difference in the point of zero charge between rutile and anatase. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2002, 99, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vu, D.; Li, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, W.; Wang, Z.; Xu, X.; Dong, B.; Wang, C. Adsorption of Cu(II) from aqueous solution by anatase mesoporous TiO2 nanofibers prepared via electrospinning. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 367, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Çubuk Demiralay, E.; Koç, D.; Daldal, Y.D.; Alsancak, G.; Ozkan, S.A. Determination of chromatographic dissociation constants of some carbapenem group antibiotics and quantification of these compounds in human urine. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2014, 28, 660–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Picho-Chillán, G.; Dante, R.C.; Muñoz-Bisesti, F.; Martín-Ramos, P.; Chamorro-Posada, P.; Vargas-Jentzsch, P.; Sánchez-Arévalo, F.M.; Sandoval-Pauker, C.; Rutto, D. Photodegradation of Direct Blue 1 azo dye by polymeric carbon nitride irradiated with accelerated electrons. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2019, 237, 121878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Parsa, J.B.; Golmirzaei, M.; Abbasi, M. Degradation of azo dye C.I. Acid Red 18 in aqueous solution by ozone-electrolysis process. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2014, 20, 689–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chekem, C.T.; Richardson, Y.; Drobek, M.; Plantard, G.; Blin, J.; Goetz, V. Effective coupling of phenol adsorption and photodegradation at the surface of micro-and mesoporous TiO2-activated carbon materials. React. Kinet. Mech. Catal. 2017, 122, 1297–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lin, L.; Wang, H.; Luo, H.; Xu, P. Enhanced photocatalysis using side-glowing optical fibers coated with Fe-doped TiO2 nanocomposite thin films. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2015, 307, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Meng, A.; Xing, J.; Guo, W.; Li, Z.; Wang, X. Electrospinning synthesis of porous Bi12TiO20/Bi4Ti3O12 composite nanofibers and their photocatalytic property under simulated sunlight. J. Mater. Sci. 2018, 53, 14328–14336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, H.S.; Wang, Y.L. Inactivation and Regeneration of Photocatalytic Properties of ZnO Nanofilm Materials. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 531, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Newcombe, G.; Hayes, R.; Drikas, M. Granular activated carbon: Importance of surface properties in the adsorption of naturally occurring organics. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 1993, 78, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Darwish, A.A.A.; Rashad, M.; AL-Aoh, H.A. Methyl orange adsorption comparison on nanoparticles: Isotherm, kinetics, and thermodynamic studies. Dyes Pigments 2019, 160, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Baird, R.B.; Eaton, A.D.; Rice, E.W. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd ed.; American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Catalysts 10 00344 g001 550
Figure 1. SEM images of the TiO2/fiberglass substrate (a) 750×; (b) 1600×; (c) 2300×; (d) 8000×.
Figure 1. SEM images of the TiO2/fiberglass substrate (a) 750×; (b) 1600×; (c) 2300×; (d) 8000×.
Catalysts 10 00344 g001
Catalysts 10 00344 g002 550
Figure 2. Variation of the MER concentration due to the heterogeneous photocatalytic process with TiO2/fiberglass substrates at different pH values ([MER]o = 100 mg/L).
Figure 2. Variation of the MER concentration due to the heterogeneous photocatalytic process with TiO2/fiberglass substrates at different pH values ([MER]o = 100 mg/L).
Catalysts 10 00344 g002
Catalysts 10 00344 g003 550
Figure 3. Variation of the MER concentration due to UV photolysis and heterogeneous photocatalysis with the TiO2/fiberglass substrate ([MER]o = 100 mg/L, pH = 5.7).
Figure 3. Variation of the MER concentration due to UV photolysis and heterogeneous photocatalysis with the TiO2/fiberglass substrate ([MER]o = 100 mg/L, pH = 5.7).
Catalysts 10 00344 g003
Catalysts 10 00344 g004 550
Figure 4. Photocatalytic degradation kinetics of MER obtained for the 5 cycles of reuse of the TiO2/fiberglass substrates ([MER]o = 100 mg/L, pH = 5.7).
Figure 4. Photocatalytic degradation kinetics of MER obtained for the 5 cycles of reuse of the TiO2/fiberglass substrates ([MER]o = 100 mg/L, pH = 5.7).
Catalysts 10 00344 g004
Catalysts 10 00344 g005 550
Figure 5. Chemical structure of MER (C17H25N3O5S; (4R,5S,6S)-3-[(3S,5S)-5-(dimethylcarbamoyl)pyrrolidin-3-yl]sulfanyl-6-[(1R)-1-hydroxyethyl]-4-methyl-7-oxo-1-azabicyclo[3.2.0]hept-2-ene-2-carboxylic acid).
Figure 5. Chemical structure of MER (C17H25N3O5S; (4R,5S,6S)-3-[(3S,5S)-5-(dimethylcarbamoyl)pyrrolidin-3-yl]sulfanyl-6-[(1R)-1-hydroxyethyl]-4-methyl-7-oxo-1-azabicyclo[3.2.0]hept-2-ene-2-carboxylic acid).
Catalysts 10 00344 g005
Table
Table 1. Pseudo-first order rate constants of the photocatalytic degradation of MER with the TiO2/fiberglass substrates at different pH values ([MER]o = 100 mg/L, t = 60 min).
Table 1. Pseudo-first order rate constants of the photocatalytic degradation of MER with the TiO2/fiberglass substrates at different pH values ([MER]o = 100 mg/L, t = 60 min).
pHk (min−1)R2
4.00.032 ± 0.0010.946 ± 0.020
5.70.032 ± 0.0010.933 ± 0.009
7.90.028 ± 0.0010.976 ± 0.004

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Altamirano Briones, A.; Cóndor Guevara, I.; Mena, D.; Espinoza, I.; Sandoval-Pauker, C.; Ramos Guerrero, L.; Vargas Jentzsch, P.; Muñoz Bisesti, F. Degradation of Meropenem by Heterogeneous Photocatalysis Using TiO2/Fiberglass Substrates. Catalysts 2020, 10, 344. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/catal10030344

AMA Style

Altamirano Briones A, Cóndor Guevara I, Mena D, Espinoza I, Sandoval-Pauker C, Ramos Guerrero L, Vargas Jentzsch P, Muñoz Bisesti F. Degradation of Meropenem by Heterogeneous Photocatalysis Using TiO2/Fiberglass Substrates. Catalysts. 2020; 10(3):344. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/catal10030344

Chicago/Turabian Style

Altamirano Briones, Alejandro, Iván Cóndor Guevara, David Mena, Isabel Espinoza, Christian Sandoval-Pauker, Luis Ramos Guerrero, Paul Vargas Jentzsch, and Florinella Muñoz Bisesti. 2020. "Degradation of Meropenem by Heterogeneous Photocatalysis Using TiO2/Fiberglass Substrates" Catalysts 10, no. 3: 344. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/catal10030344

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