The present work focuses on the fate of two cancerostatic platinum compounds (CPC), cisplatin and carboplatin, as well as of two inorganic platinum compounds, [PtCl4]2− and [PtCl6]2− in biological wastewater treatment. Laboratory experiments modelling adsorption of these compounds onto activated sludge showed promising specific adsorption coefficients KD and KOC and Freundlich adsorption isotherms. However, the adsorption properties of the investigated substances were differing significantly. Adsorption decreased following the order cisplatin > [PtCl6]2− > [PtCl4]2− > carboplatin. Log KD-values were ranging from 2.5 to 4.3 , log KOC from 3.0 to 4.7.
A pilot membrane bioreactor system (MBR) was installed in a hospital in Vienna and fed with wastewater from the oncologic in-patient treatment ward to investigate CPC-adsorption in a sewage treatment plant. During three monitoring periods Pt-concentrations were measured in the influent (3–250 μg l−1 Pt) and the effluent (2–150 μg l−1 Pt) of the treatment plant using ICP-MS. The monitoring periods (duration 30 d) revealed elimination efficiencies between 51% and 63% based on averaged weekly input–output budgets. The derived log KD-values and log KOC-values ranged from 2.4 to 4.8 and from 2.8 to 5.3, respectively. Species analysis using HPLC-ICP-MS proofed that mainly carboplatin was present as intact drug in the influent and – due to low log KD – in the effluent of the MBR. 相似文献
This paper aims to give practical meaning to ‘capacity building’ through (a) identifying a suite of practical measures, such
as mentoring or best practice guidelines, that have been shown to or are considered to build human, social, institutional,
and economic capital; (b) placing these measures within a broader systems framework; and (c) exploring stakeholder feedback
on specific measures to inform framework implementation. The 29 measures described provide actors, whether government or nongovernment,
with a suite of practical investment choices for building capacity. These measures are then clustered into eight groups according
to their primary purpose and placed within a systems framework. The framework provides a tool for actors with responsibilities
for or an interest in capacity building to inform more holistic and strategic targeting of effort and investment. Stakeholder
feedback gathered through surveys and workshops is subsequently reported to further inform implementation of specific measures
within the framework’s eight groupings. The framework presented may be built upon through the identification and inclusion
of further capacity building measures. The research is conducted within the context of decentralized governance arrangements
for natural resource management (NRM), with specific focus on Australia’s recently formalized 56 NRM regions and their community-based
governing boards as an informative arena of learning. Application of the framework is explored in the Australian setting through
the identification and comparison of measures supported and most preferred by four major stakeholder groups, namely board
members, regional NRM organization staff, policy/research interests, and Indigenous interests. The research also examines
stakeholder perceptions of capacity issues, and whether these issues are likely to be addressed through implementing their
preferred measures.