ap batista _ oral presentation _ 248 acs
TRANSCRIPT
Photosensitized degradation of antibiotic in aqueous solution of
Suwannee River natural organic matter
Ana Paula S Batistapresenter
Antonio Carlos S C Teixeira,Barbara A Cottrell, William J Cooper
Introduction
2
Target Compound: sulfonamide
Hyalella azteca(Bartlett et al. 2013)
Toxicity to some organisms
Occurrence of bacterial resistance
Antibiotic pharmaceutical
has attracted attention due to
Bartlett, A.J., et al., (2013) Toxicity of four sulfonamide antibiotics to the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 32(4), 866-875.
Sulfamerazine (SMR)
contribution
Wastewatertreatment plants
4
Natural waters
Kümmerer, K. 2009 Antibiotics in the aquatic environment – A review – Part I, Chemosphere, 75(4) 417-434.
Sulfonamides are not completely degraded
5
Direct photolysis
photosensitization process (DOM)
Reactive Species
sunlightUV-Vis radiation (solar simulator: 280 – 800 nm)
DOMat excited state
is an important
phenomenon
Indirect photolysis
Photochemical Degradation
6
Hydroxyl Radical
Singlet Oxygen
Improve the photolysis processes
Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM)
due to
Triplet excited state of DOM
HO●1O2 3DOM*
Reactive Species
React with pollutantXu H, Cooper WJ, Jung J, Song W.
Photosensitized degradation of amoxicillin in natural organic matter isolate solutions.
Water Res 2011.45:632-38.
Solution pH
7
Pollutant concentration
Light attenuation
DOM presence
Photochemical Degradation in Waters
influenced
Bahnmüller S, von Gunten U, Canonica S. Sunlight-induced transformation of sulfadiazine and sulfamethoxazole in surface waters and wastewater effluents. Water Res 2014;57:183-92.
parameters
Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
8
the number of experimental runs
response surface
input variable
design space
to minimize generates
of a given
over Solution pH
Pollutant concentration
DOM concentration
Used to determine the optimized experimental condition
? Questions
9
*Does the presence of DOM increase the efficiency of SMR degradation during sunlight irradiation?
Direct photolysis
Efficiency of SMR degradation
Indirect photolysisAddition of SRNOM (1R101N)
? Questions
10
*What is the optimized experimental condition for indirect photolysis of SMR in SRNOM solution?
Optimized Experimental Condition
Indirect photolysisAddition of SRNOM (1R101N)
? Questions
11
*What is the most important parameter for indirect photolysis of SMR ?
Optimized Experimental Condition
Indirect photolysisAddition of SRNOM (1R101N)
Solution pH
Pollutant concentration
DOM concentration
? Questions
12
*What is the mechanism of SMR degradation by indirect photolysis?
Hydroxyl Radical
Singlet Oxygen Triplet excited state of DOM
HO●1O2 3DOM*
SMR indirect photolysis
OBJECTIVES
Degradation of Sulfamerazine (SMR)
UV-Vis radiation ( solar simulator)
13
To evaluate the efficiency of SMR indirect photolysis by usingResponse Surface Methodology.
The optimized experimental condition was applied toinvestigate the role of reactive species in SMR degradation inDOM solutions.
To investigate the mechanism of SMR indirect photolysis inDOM solutions.
Luzchem SolSim solar simulator (Ottawa, Canada) equipped with a rotating table.
300 W ceramic Xe lamp emitting from 290 to 900 nm.
Matched to the AM 1.5 solar spectrum
Samples were irradiated in 4 ml sealed quartz cuvettes (Starna, CA)
Injection volume of 50.0 µL
Eluents were (A) H2O + 0.2% acetic acid and (B) acetonitrile at 85:15 ratio and 0.8 mL
min-1 flow rate.
The DAD detection wavelength was 268 nm.
The retention time was 2.77 min using Germini 3μm C18 – 50 x 4.60.
Reversed phase high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)
concentration of SMR
Results and Discussion
16
17
Initial concentration: SMR = 0.03 mmol L-1
at pH 7 buffered deionized water after 6 h irradiaton (solar simulator)
Hydrolysis (pH 5, 7 and 9)
direct photolysis
indirect photolysis15 mgL-1 SRNOM (1R101N)
Degradation of Sulfamerazine (SMR)
Direct and Indirect Photolysis
K = 2.96 x 10-3
60%
K = 4.24 x 10-3
80%
Run[SMR]TermA
[DOM]TermB
pHTermC
1 0.03 20.00 7.00
2 0.03 15.00 7.00
3 0.05 15.00 7.00
4 0.03 15.00 7.00
5 0.05 10.00 5.00
6 0.01 20.00 5.00
7 0.05 20.00 9.00
8 0.01 10.00 9.00
9 0.03 15.00 7.00
10 0.03 15.00 7.00
11 0.05 10.00 9.00
12 0.01 20.00 9.00
13 0.03 15.00 7.00
14 0.03 15.00 5.00
15 0.01 15.00 7.00
16 0.05 20.00 5.00
17 0.03 15.00 9.00
18 0.03 10.00 7.00
19 0.01 10.00 5.00
20 0.03 15.00 7.00
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualDegradation ((%))
Design points above predicted valueDesign points below predicted value89.6
33.7
X1 = A: SMR concentrationX2 = C: pH
Actual FactorB: DOM concentration = 15.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
De
gra
da
tio
n (%
)
A: SMR concentration (mM)
C: pH
Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
18
Response surface
Number of runs and values of variables used
Design-Expert software (version 9, Stat-Ease, Inc., MN, USA)
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualDegradation ((%))
Design points above predicted valueDesign points below predicted value89.6
33.7
X1 = A: SMR concentrationX2 = C: pH
Actual FactorB: DOM concentration = 15.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
De
gra
da
tio
n (%
)
A: SMR concentration (mM)
C: pH
Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
19
Design-Expert® Software
Degradation
Color points by value of
Degradation:
89.6
33.7
Actual
Pre
dic
ted
Predicted vs. Actual
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
Good correlation (R2 = 0.99)
Response surface
Solution pH(term C)
Pollutant concentration(term A)
DOM concentration(term B)
(R2 = 0.99)
Source Sum of squares
df Mean square F value p-value Prob > F
SRNOM
Model 6512.15 9 723.57 385.87 < 0.0001
A-SMR concentration 646.09 1 646.09 344.55 < 0.0001
B-DOM concentration 120.27 1 120.27 64.14 < 0.0001
C-pH 932.00 1 932.00 497.02 < 0.0001
Determination coeficiente (R2) 0.9942 Predicted R2 0.9893 Adjusted R2 0.9945
SMR Indirect Photolysis
20
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the response surface model
p-value less than 0.05 is reported as statistically significant
Zarei M, Niaei A, Salari D, Khataee A. Application of Response Surface Methodology for optimization of peroxi-coagulation of textile dye solution using carbon nanotube–PTFE cathode.
J Hazard Mater 2010;173:544-51.
21
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the coefficient values from regression model
FactorCoefficientEstimate
df
StandardError
95%CILow
95%CIHigh
Suwannee River natural organic matter (SRNOM)
Intercept 78.58 1 0.47 77.53 79.63A-SMRconcentration -8.04 1 0.43 -9.00 -7.07B-DOMconcentration 3.47 1 0.43 2.50 4.43C-pH -9.65 1 0.43 -10.62 -8.69
The order of importance:
solution pH (term C; -9.65) > SMR conc. (term A; -8.04) > SRNOM conc. (term B; 3.47)
SMR Indirect Photolysis
Relationship with Response Factor: degradation percentege of SMR
22
Efficiency of SMR
indirect photolysis
At circumneutral pH conditions
was more pronounced
Effect of solution pH
An equivalent concentration of protonated and deprotonated SMR molecule (neutral molecules) in the reaction solution.
(Martinez F, Gomez A. J Phys Org Chem 2002;15:874-880).
pK1 (2.24)
pK2 (6.92)
5 < PH < 8
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualDegradation ((%))
Design Points89.6
33.7
X1 = B: DOM concentrationX2 = C: pH
Actual FactorA: SMR concentration = 0.03
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00Degradation (%)
B: DOM concentration (mg/L)
C: p
H
60
60
70
70
80
80
9085
45
50
50
6
0.03 mmol L-1 SMR6 hours irradiation
23
efficiency of SMR
indirect photolysis
Effect of SMR concentration
Initial
concentration of
SMR
Competition for photons between the pollutant and the DOM
(Zhou L, Ji Y, Zeng C, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Yang X. Water Res 2013;47:153-62)
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualDegradation ((%))
Design Points89.6
33.7
X1 = A: SMR concentrationX2 = C: pH
Actual FactorB: DOM concentration = 15.00
0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00Degradation (%)
A: SMR concentration (mM)
C: p
H
60
60
70
70
80
45
50
50
7585
6
In 15 mg L-1 DOM6 hours irradiation
24
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualDegradation ((%))
Design Points89.6
33.7
X1 = B: DOM concentrationX2 = C: pH
Actual FactorA: SMR concentration = 0.03
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00Degradation (%)
B: DOM concentration (mg/L)
C: p
H
60
60
70
70
80
80
9085
45
50
50
6 > 85 % degradation
0.03 mmol L-1 SMR6 hours irradiation
Effect of DOM concentration
High formation of reactive species that are able to react with pollutant
(Wang L, Xu H, Cooper WJ, Song W. Sci Total Environ 2012;426:289-95. )
High concentration of SRNOM (1R101N)
25
At pH 715 mg L-1 DOM
The role of reactive species in the photosensitized degradation of
sulfamerazine
0.0
1.0x10-3
2.0x10-3
3.0x10-3
4.0x10-3
5.0x10-3
6.0x10-3
7.0x10-3
8.0x10-3
N2
Sorbic
acid
2-propanolD2O H
2O
Degra
datio
n r
ate
(m
in-1)
0.01 mmol L-1 SMR
Indirect Photolysis: Optimized Experimental Condition
26
0.01 mM SMR - 15 mg L-1 DOM - pH 7
Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualDegradation ((%))
Design Points89.6
33.7
X1 = A: SMR concentrationX2 = C: pH
Actual FactorB: DOM concentration = 15.00
0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00Degradation (%)
A: SMR concentration (mM)
C: p
H
60
60
70
70
80
45
50
50
7585
6
27
DOM
HO●
3O2
1DOM*
3DOM*
1O2
ENER
GY
photon
energy
eletron
Intersystem crossing
Photosensitization Processes
ground state
28
DOM
1DOM*
3DOM*
1O2
ENER
GY
photon
energy
3O2
Role of Singlet OxygenEnhancer: increase of lifetime
ten times longer
in D2O than H2O
Merkel PB, Kearns DR. Radiationless decay of singlet molecular oxygen in solution. Experimental and theoretical study of electronic-to-vibrational energy transfer. J Am Chem Soc 1972;94:7244-53.
Intersystem crossing
0.0
1.0x10-3
2.0x10-3
3.0x10-3
4.0x10-3
5.0x10-3
6.0x10-3
7.0x10-3
8.0x10-3
N2
Sorbic
acid
2-propanolD2O H
2O
Degra
datio
n r
ate
(m
in-1)
Photo-induced oxidation
29
At pH 715 mg L-1 DOM The role of singlet oxygen
(kdeuterium oxide/kwater = 1.3 ± 0.1)
0.01 mmol L-1 SMR
Low reactivity of 1O2 with sulfamerazine
Boreen AL, Arnold WA, McNeill K. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:3630-38.
30
DOM
HO●
3O2
1DOM*
3DOM*
ENER
GY
photon
eletron
Role of Hydroxyl RadicalScavenger: Hydrogen abstraction by radical from 2-propanol
2-Propanol
H3C-C-CH3
H|
|OH
H2O
Intersystem crossing
0.0
1.0x10-3
2.0x10-3
3.0x10-3
4.0x10-3
5.0x10-3
6.0x10-3
7.0x10-3
8.0x10-3
N2
Sorbic
acid
2-propanolD2O H
2O
Degra
datio
n r
ate
(m
in-1)
Photo-induced oxidation
31
At pH 715 mg L-1 DOM The role of Hydroxyl Radical
(k2-propanol/kwater = 0.59 ± 0.04)
0.01 mmol L-1 SMR
65 mM 2-propanol
High reactivity of hydroxyl radical with sulfamerazine
Mezyk SP, Neubauer TJ, Cooper WJ, Peller JR. J Phys Chem A 2007;111:9019-24.
32
DOM
HO•
3O2
1DOM*
3DOM*
1O2
ENER
GY
photon
Intersystem crossing
energy
eletron
De-oxygenated solutions
Role of Triplet Excited State of DOMRemoval of dissolved oxygen: De-oxygenated solutions
Photo-induced oxidation
33
At pH 715 mg L-1 DOM The role of Triplet Excited State of DOM
0.0
1.0x10-3
2.0x10-3
3.0x10-3
4.0x10-3
5.0x10-3
6.0x10-3
7.0x10-3
8.0x10-3
N2
Sorbic
acid
2-propanolD2O H
2O
Degra
datio
n r
ate
(m
in-1) (knitrogen gas /kwater = 1.8 ± 0.2)
0.01 mmol L-1 SMR
Bubbling Nitrogen
34
DOM
Sorbic Acid
1DOM*
3DOM*
ENER
GY
photon
energy
Role of Triplet Excited State of DOMQuencher: decrease fluorescence intensity
Grebel JE, Pignatello JJ, Mitch WA. Sorbic acid as a quantitative probe for the formation, scavenging and steady-state concentrations of the triplet-excited state of organic compounds. Water Res 2011;45: 6535.
Intersystem crossing
0.0
1.0x10-3
2.0x10-3
3.0x10-3
4.0x10-3
5.0x10-3
6.0x10-3
7.0x10-3
8.0x10-3
N2
Sorbic
acid
2-propanolD2O H
2O
Degra
datio
n r
ate
(m
in-1)
Photo-induced oxidation
35
0.01 mmol L-1 SMR
At pH 715 mg L-1 DOM
The mechanisms proceeds though 3DOM*
(ksorbic acid /kwater = 0.78 ± 0.04) 0.18 mM Sorbic Acid
Conclusions
36
37
Presence of DOM increased the efficiency of SMR degradation during sunlight irradation.
The optimized experimental condition for indirect photolysis of SMR was achieved in low concentration of pollutant at
circumneutral pH conditions and in presence of high concentration of DOM (>15 mg L-1).
The solution pH (term C) was the most statistically significant parameter for indirect photolysis of SMR.
The mechanism of SMR degradation proceeded through HO• and 3DOM* species.
São Paulo Research Foundation Post-Doctoral grant 2013/05041-7
Acknowledgments
38
WJ Cooper, NFS Grant CBET - 1034555
40
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the coefficient values from regression model
Factor Coefficient Estimate
df
Standard Error
95% CI Low
95% CI High
Suwannee River natural organic matter (SRNOM) Intercept 78.58 1 0.47 77.53 79.63 A-SMR concentration -8.04 1 0.43 -9.00 -7.07 B-DOM concentration 3.47 1 0.43 2.50 4.43 C-pH -9.65 1 0.43 -10.62 -8.69 AB 1.51 1 0.48 0.43 2.59 AC 2.27 1 0.48 1.19 3.35 BC -9.67 1 0.48 -10.75 -8.59
The order of importance:
solution pH (term C; -9.65) > SMR conc. (term A; -8.04) > SRNOM conc. (term B; 3.47)
SMR Indirect Photolysis
Relationship with Response Factor: degradation percentege of SMR