The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Removal of Estrogens in Municipal Wastewater Treatment under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions: Consequences for Plant Optimization
Abstract
The removal of estrogens (estrone E1, estradiol E2, and ethinylestradiol EE2) was studied in various municipal wastewater treatment processes equipped for nutrient removal. A biological degradation model is formulated, and kinetic parameters are evaluated with batch experiments under various redox conditions. The resulting model calculations are then compared with sampling campaigns performed on differenttypes of full-scale plant: conventional activated-sludge treatment, a membrane bioreactor, and a fixed-bed reactor. The results show a > 90% removal of all estrogens in the activated sludge processes. (Due to the analytical quantification limit and low influent concentrations, however, this removal efficiency represents only an observable minimum.) The removal efficiencies of 77% and > or = 90% for E1 and E2, respectively, in the fixed-bed reactor represent a good performance in view of the short hydraulic retention time of 35 min. The first-order removal-rate constant in batch experiments observed for E2 varied from 150 to 950 d(-1) for a 1 gSS L(-1) sludge suspension. The removal efficiency of E1 and EE2 clearly depends on the redox conditions, the maximum removal rate occurring under aerobic conditions when E1 was reduced to E2. Sampling campaigns on full-scale plants indicate that the kinetic values identified in batch experiments (without substrate addition) for the natural estrogens may overestimate the actual removal rates. Although this paper does not give direct experimental evidence, it seems that the substrate present in the raw influent competitively inhibits the degradation of E1 and E2. These compounds are therefore removed mainly in activated sludge compartments with low substrate loading. Theoretical evaluation leads us to expect that diffusive mass transfer inside the floc (but not across the laminar boundary layer) appreciably influences the observed degradation rates of E1 and E2, but not of EE2.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Verlicchi, P., Al Aukidy, M., & Zambello, E. (2012) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.028 · Cited by 2,183
Tran, N. H., Reinhard, M., & Gin, K. Y.-H. (2018) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.029 · Cited by 1,686
Ahmed, M. B., Zhou, J. L., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Thomaidis, N. S., & Xu, J. (2017) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.045 · Cited by 1,310
Verlicchi, P., Galletti, A., Petrovic, M., & Barceló, D. (2010) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.005 · Cited by 836
Suarez, S., Lema, J. M., & Omil, F. (2010) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.02.040 · Cited by 490
Metadata
- Authors
- Joss, A., Andersen, H., Ternes, T., Richle, P. R., & Siegrist, H.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2004-04-22
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3047-3055
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2040596636
- Cited by
- 504
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Removal of Estrogens in Municipal Wastewater Treatment under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions: Consequences for Plant Optimization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es0351488
- The paper
- Joss, A., Andersen, H., Ternes, T., Richle, P. R., & Siegrist, H. (2004). Removal of Estrogens in Municipal Wastewater Treatment under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions: Consequences for Plant Optimization. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0351488
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.