Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38688221›Full record

ArticleJournal of hazardous materials2024

Non-targeted analysis and toxicity prediction for evaluation of photocatalytic membrane distillation removing organic contaminants from hypersaline oil and gas field-produced water.

Himali M K Delanka-Pedige, Robert B Young, Maha T Abutokaikah, Lin Chen, Huiyao Wang, Kanchana A B I Imihamillage, Sean Thimons, Michael A Jahne, Antony J Williams, Yanyan Zhang and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hazardous materials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Himali M K Delanka-PedigeDepartment of Civil Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States.
Robert B YoungChemical Analysis and Instrumentation Laboratory, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States.
Maha T AbutokaikahChemical Analysis and Instrumentation Laboratory, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States.
Lin ChenDepartment of Civil Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States.
Huiyao WangDepartment of Civil Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States.
Kanchana A B I ImihamillageDepartment of Engineering Technology and Surveying Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States.
Sean ThimonsOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States.
Michael A JahneOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States.
Antony J WilliamsOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, United States.
Yanyan ZhangDepartment of Civil Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States.
Pei XuDepartment of Civil Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States. Electronic address: pxu@nmsu.edu.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Membrane distillation (MD) has received ample recognition for treating complex wastewater, including hypersaline oil and gas (O&G) produced water (PW). Rigorous water quality assessment is critical in evaluating PW treatment because PW consists of numerous contaminants beyond the targets listed in general discharge and reuse standards. This study evaluated a novel photocatalytic membrane distillation (PMD) process, with and without a UV light source, against a standard vacuum membrane distillation (VMD) process for treating PW, utilizing targeted analyses and a non-targeted chemical identification workflow coupled with toxicity predictions. PMD with UV light resulted in better removals of dissolved organic carbon, ammoniacal nitrogen, and conductivity. Targeted organic analyses identified only trace amounts of acetone and 2-butanone in distillates. According to non-targeted analysis, the number of suspects reduced from 65 in feed to 25-30 across all distillate samples. Certain physicochemical properties of compounds influenced contaminant rejection in different MD configurations. According to preliminary toxicity predictions, VMD, PMD with and without UV distillate samples, respectively contained 21, 22, and 23 suspects associated with critical toxicity concerns. Overall, non-targeted analysis together with toxicity prediction provides a competent supportive tool to assess treatment efficiency and potential impacts on public health and the environment during PW reuse.

Indexed as

CheminformaticsLiquid chromatography-mass spectrometryPhysicochemical propertiesProduced water treatmentVacuum membrane distillation

Identifiers

PMID38688221
PMCPMC11694490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.