Next Article in Journal
Electrochemical Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Cracking Susceptibility of Ti-6Al-3Nb-2Zr-1Mo Alloy Welded Joint in Simulated Deep-Sea Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Overview of the Effect of Different Regenerative Materials in Class II Furcation Defects in Periodontal Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/ma15093200
materials-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

Amoxicillin Retention/Release in Agricultural Soils Amended with Different Bio-Adsorbent Materials

by
Raquel Cela-Dablanca
1,*,
Ana Barreiro
1,
Lucia Rodríguez-López
2,
Vanesa Santás-Miguel
2,
Manuel Arias-Estévez
2,
María J. Fernández-Sanjurjo
1,
Esperanza Álvarez-Rodríguez
1 and
Avelino Núñez-Delgado
1
1
Department Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Engineering Polytechnic School, University Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain
2
Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Faculty Sciences, University Vigo, 32004 Ourense, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(9), 3200; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093200
Submission received: 24 March 2022 / Revised: 20 April 2022 / Accepted: 27 April 2022 / Published: 28 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic New Research on Detection and Removal of Emerging Pollutants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The antibiotic amoxicillin (AMX) may reach soils and other environmental compartments as a pollutant, with potential to affect human and environmental health. To solve/minimize these hazards, it would be clearly interesting to develop effective and low-cost methods allowing the retention/removal of this compound. With these aspects in mind, this work focuses on studying the adsorption/desorption of AMX in different agricultural soils, with and without the amendment of three bio-adsorbents, specifically, pine bark, wood ash and mussel shell. For performing the research, batch-type experiments were carried out, adding increasing concentrations of the antibiotic to soil samples with and without the amendment of these three bio-adsorbents. The results showed that the amendments increased AMX adsorption, with pine bark being the most effective. Among the adsorption models that were tested, the Freundlich equation was the one showing the best fit to the empirical adsorption results. Regarding the desorption values, there was a decrease affecting the soils to which the bio-adsorbents were added, with overall desorption not exceeding 6% in any case. In general, the results indicate that the bio-adsorbents under study contributed to retaining AMX in the soils in which they were applied, and therefore reduced the risk of contamination by this antibiotic, which can be considered useful and relevant to protect environmental quality and public health.

1. Introduction

Emerging pollutants include a wide range of chemical compounds, such as various pharmaceutical products, and specifically antibiotics [1,2]. In 2020, in the European Union (EU), the average total consumption of anti-bacteria compounds for systemic use (ATC Group J01) was 16.4 defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants [3]. These compounds are not fully absorbed in the intestine, causing them to be excreted in significant amounts (up to 90%) through urine and feces [4,5], thus passing to wastewater in the case of humans, and to manure pits or manure accumulations in the case of animal farms. These contaminants can pass into various environmental compartments and may directly cause undesirable effects in soils [6], including the promotion of antibiotic resistance [7,8,9], and/or be absorbed by plants used for human or animal consumption, entering the food chain, as has been shown for lettuce and other vegetables [7,10,11].
One of the most widely used antibiotics in both human and veterinary medicine is amoxicillin (AMX), which is frequently used as a first-choice drug for the treatment of serious infections [12]. Between 80 and 90% of this antibiotic is excreted due to its poor absorption [13], then reaching the environment, and achieving concentrations of 127.49 ng L−1 in wastewater [14].
Different authors point out that antibiotics are frequently detected in treated wastewater, because they come from human use, but also from other sources such as agriculture and livestock production [15,16,17,18]. In this regard, one of the current strategies to alleviate water scarcity is the reuse of previously treated wastewater, which could result in public health issues due to the presence of different chemical pollutants and microbes [19]. Wastewater treatment tries to decrease nutrient loads [20] and pathogens [21], among other contaminants, but many current treatments are not sufficiently effective in retaining and inactivating pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics [22,23].
Current EU and United States (US) legislations do not include concentration limits for antibiotics in treatment plant effluents [24,25], making it more probable that antibiotics reach soils through WWTP-purified water used in irrigation [26]. In addition, antibiotics may be spread on soils through WWTP sludge used as fertilizer in agricultural crops and silvo-pastoral systems [27], and can subsequently be incorporated into the food chain.
Soils have a relevant buffering capacity and filtering potential due to the colloids present in the clay fraction and in organic matter, which help in preventing environmental pollution [28,29,30]. The dynamics followed by antibiotics in the soil depends on their physicochemical properties, as well as on those of the soil, and also on the time of application of the residual materials, as well as weather conditions [31,32,33]. Among the various processes that antibiotics can undergo in the soil environment, it is worth highlighting mineralization, degradation, volatilization, leaching, surface runoff, bioaccumulation, and adsorption.
The specific behavior of the antibiotic AMX in the soil is highly conditioned by the pH of the medium, which affects the ionization of the compound and the surface charge of the soil colloids [34,35]. In this regard, it is highly relevant that AMX has amphoteric properties due to three functional groups present in its structure: -NH2, -COOH, and -OH [36]. The dissociation constants (pka) of a molecule indicate its ionization state as a function of pH [37]. In the case of AMX, pka1 corresponds to carboxyl groups (-COOH), pka2 is represented by amine groups (-NH2), while pka3 corresponds to phenolic groups (where hydroxyl (-OH) is attached to a C atom integrated in an aromatic ring), so that, at different pH values, AMX may appear as a cation, anion, or zwitterion [38]. Specifically, at pH < pka1 AMX will appear as a cation, at pH > pka3 it will appear as an anion, while at pH values between pka1 and pka3 it will appear as a zwitterion [39].
The presence of antibiotics in soils and water that have received the spreading/disposal of wastewater and/or sewage sludge is a matter of concern [40], so different investigations have focused on the design of a variety of systems intended to its removal [41]. Several technologies have been proposed to achieve antibiotics removal during wastewater treatment, such as the use of ozone [42] or advanced oxidation [39], although these methods tend to generate unwanted toxic side-products. In contrast, adsorption is considered a rather simple and sustainable alternative [43]. In this way, commonly used adsorbents include mineral and biological materials, as well as activated carbon, with this last adsorbent being widely used, although it has a high cost and regeneration issues [44]. In view of this, there is increasing interest in using low-cost adsorbents, such as industrial waste or by-products, for which it is necessary to determine their pollutant adsorption capacity, and in particular their potential to retain/remove antibiotics [45,46].
Among them, certain residues/by-products from the food industry, such as mussel shell, and from the forestry industry, such as pine bark and wood ash, are abundant, easily accessible and low-cost, making it interesting to determine their capacity to adsorb contaminants such as antibiotics that reach different environmental compartments. These three bio-adsorbent materials could be added to the soil or used in modules specifically designed and installed in wastewater treatment plants, to minimize the risk of dispersion of these pollutants in the environment. Mussel shell, pine bark and wood ash have already been studied previously regarding their ability to retain heavy metals, inorganic anions and antibiotics from the group of tetracyclines and sulfonamides, obtaining very promising results [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. There are also previous studies dealing with the adsorption of AMX present in wastewater by means of adsorbents such as wheat grain, almond shell ash, palm bark, bentonite or activated carbon [36]. However, there are no previous publications that have focused on evaluating the effects on AMX retention derived from amending crop soils with pine bark, wood ash and mussel shell. In fact, the efficacy of these bio-adsorbents to increase the adsorption of antibiotics in soils has been previously proven for sulfonamides in the case of pine bark [57], while wood ash and mussel shell showed worse results. In addition, mussel shell has been widely studied as a bio-adsorbent in soils contaminated with heavy metals [58], and wood ash has also been investigated for this purpose (for example [59]), but studies on the application of these materials in the retention of pharmaceutical products are very scarce.
In view of the above background, the present study was performed to investigate for the first time AMX adsorption and desorption on/from different agricultural soils with and without the presence of the bio-adsorbents pine bark, wood ash and mussel shell, assessing their potential to decrease the dispersion of this antibiotic, which can be considered of relevance with regard to environmental preservation and public health protection.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soils and Bio-Adsorbents

Four agricultural soils, devoted to maize and vineyard cultivation, located in different areas of Galicia (NW Spain), were selected in function of their pH values and organic matter (OM) contents. All four were characterized as detailed in the Supplementary Materials. Table S1 (Supplementary Materials) shows values corresponding to soil properties., Within them, soil pHwater was between 5.01 and 6.04, while organic matter (OM) content was in the range 3.06–4.59%. The texture of two of the soils (soils M1 and M2) was clay loam, while it was sandy clay loam for the other two soils (soils M3 and VO).
In addition, the following materials were used as bio-adsorbents/amendments: (a) two forest by-products: pine bark (commercially distributed by Geolia, Madrid, Spain), and wood ash (from a local boiler at Lugo, Spain); (b) mussel shell (crushed at <1 mm), from Abonomar (Pontevedra, Spain). These bio-adsorbents were characterized as indicated in the Supplementary Materials, with results shown in Table S2. Some additional data regarding characteristics of these materials have been included in previous publications [55,56].
Different soil + amendment mixtures were elaborated adding the bio-adsorbents to soil samples at doses of 48 t ha−1, followed by 72 h of stirring at 50 rpm using a rotatory shaker, and further homogenization by means of a Retsch splitter (Haan, Germany), all this carried out at stable temperature of 25 ± 2 °C. The pH of the different soil + bio-adsorbent mixtures was analysed, with results shown in Table 1.

2.2. Chemical Reagents

The antibiotic AMX used (with purity ≥95%) was from Sigma-Aldrich (Barcelona, Spain), while acetonitrile (purity ≥ 99.9%) and phosphoric acid (85% extra pure) were from Fisher Scientific (Madrid, Spain), and CaCl2 (95% purity) was from Panreac (Barcelona, Spain). All the solutions needed for HPLC analyses were prepared using milliQ water (from Millipore, Madrid, Spain).

2.3. Adsorption and Desorption Experiments

AMX adsorption and desorption were studied by means of batch experiments, performed on the different soils amended with the bio-adsorbent materials, which were added to the soils in doses of 48 t ha−1. For this, 2 g of the soil + bio-adsorbent mixtures was weighed, then adding a volume of 5 mL of a solution with different concentrations of the antibiotic (2.5, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 µmol L−1), which also contained 0.005 M CaCl2 as background electrolyte. The resulting suspensions were shaken for 48 h in the dark, using a rotary shaker. Previous kinetic tests indicated that the 48 h period is enough to reach equilibrium (data not shown). This step was followed by centrifuging the suspensions (15 min at 4000 rpm), and by subsequent filtration of the supernatants through 0.45 µm nylon syringe filters. Finally, AMX concentration was quantified using specific HPLC-UV equipment (an LPG 3400 SD device, by Thermo-Fisher Scientific, Madrid, Spain). Details on AMX HPLC determinations are provided in Supplementary Materials. Additionally, example chromatograms are shown in Figure S1 (Supplementary Materials).
Regarding desorption, it was studied adding 5 mL of 0.005 M CaCl2 to the material derived from the adsorption experiments, then repeating the procedure performed for the previous adsorption phase. In all cases, triplicate determinations were carried out.

2.4. Data Treatment

The experimental adsorption data were fitted to the Freundlich (Equation (1)), Langmuir (Equation (2)) and Linear (Equation (3)) models [60].
q e   = K F C e q n
q e = q m K L C e q 1 + K L C e q
K d   = q e / C e q
with qe being the amount of AMX retained, which was calculated as the difference between the concentration added and that remaining in the equilibrium; Ceq is the AMX concentration in the equilibrium solution; KF is the Freundlich parameter related to the adsorption capacity; n is a Freundlich parameter related to the degree of heterogeneity in adsorption; KL is the Langmuir adsorption constant; qm is the maximum adsorption capacity in the Langmuir model; and Kd is the partition coefficient in the Linear model.
The fitting of the experimental data to the Langmuir, Freundlich and Linear models was studied by means of the SPSS Statistics 21 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Adsorption

As shown in Figure 1, as well as in data included in Table S3 (Supplementary Materials), pine bark performed as a very effective material for increasing AMX adsorption in the soils amended with this bio-adsorbent. Table 1 shows that the pH of each soil changes when the different bio-adsorbents are added. Specifically, pine bark (which has pH = 3.99) generally causes an acidification of the amended soil.
Table 2 presents the values of the parameters corresponding to AMX adsorption as per the Freundlich, Langmuir and Linear models.
Considering R2 values, all the non-amended soils (except M1) presented an overall good fit to all three models, given that R2 > 0.90 for VO and M3, and R2 > 0.80 for M2. Focusing on both the non-amended soils and those amended with bio-adsorbents, the errors in some parameters of the Linear model, and especially in the Langmuir model, were too high, invalidating the adjustment in those cases, so the Freundlich’s model shows the best results.
Figure 2 shows the AMX adsorption results (expressed as percentage values) for the different soils with or without bio-adsorbents. It is evident that, in general, adsorption is lower in the vineyard soil, and in the four soils studied, the amount of AMX adsorbed increases when amending with the bio-adsorbents, especially for the three highest concentrations of antibiotic added (30, 40 and 50 µmol L−1). In three of the soils (VO, M2 and M3), adsorption increases when amending with the bio-adsorbents, and this takes place for any of the AMX concentrations added; however, in soil M1, this increase occurs just for the three highest concentrations of antibiotic, because for lower concentrations the soil adsorbs 100% of the added antibiotic. These graphs show that the greatest increases in adsorption occur in both VO and M2 soils, especially after the addition of pine bark, while in soils M1 and M3, no differences were found regarding adsorption onto the different bio-adsorbents (Figure 2).

3.2. Desorption

Table 3 shows the values of AMX desorption from the different soils depending on the concentration of antibiotic added and the bio-adsorbent used. In general, the higher the concentration of antibiotic added, the greater the desorption from soils, both with and without bio-adsorbent amendments. In some soils, this progressive increase is observed up to 40 µmol L−1 of AMX added, with further increase being very scarce or null from this concentration up to 50 µmol L−1. In most cases, desorption was lower in soils with one bio-adsorbent than in soils without bio-adsorbents.

4. Discussion

4.1. Adsorption

In the current study pine bark (with pH 3.99) generally causes an acidification of the amended soil. In this regard, it must be noted that greater acidification is associated with more pronounced AMX adsorption increases, as occurs in soils VO and M2. In previous studies, Githinji et al. [61] found a decrease in AMX adsorption as pH increased from 3.5 to 8.5, whereas other researchers also described a decrease in adsorption for pH values > 5, using pistachio shell [62] or activated carbon [63] as adsorbents.
In the current piece of research, the pH of the soils is above 5, and it was expected that lowering it by incorporating acid adsorbents would facilitate AMX adsorption. In this regard, it is worth noting that, depending on the environmental acid-base conditions, most antibiotics can behave as cations, anions or zwitterions [64], and in the case of AMX the electrical charge of the molecule changes depending on the pH, associated with the charge density present in different functional groups. For AMX, when the pH is lower than its pka1 value (2.98), the amine groups are protonated and the molecule acquires a positive charge; when the pH value is between pka1 (2.98) and pka2 (7.4), the molecule behaves like a zwitterion, with deprotonated carboxyl groups (negative charge density) and protonated amine groups (positive charge density); on the other hand, at pH values between pka2 (7.4) and pka3 (9.6), deprotonated carboxyl and amine groups predominate (with negative charge density); and, finally, at pH > pka3 the phenolic groups are also deprotonated, and the charge is even more negative [65]. When soil pH decreases due to amending with acidic bio-adsorbents (such as pine bark), more positive charges appear on the variable-charge components of those soils, which are summed to those present on the bio-adsorbents, thus being able to bind functional groups of AMX with negatively charged sites, due to electrostatic interactions.
In the current study, the wood ash amendment increased the pH of all soils, while the addition of mussel shell clearly increased the pH of only two of them (M2 and M3) (Table 1). However, an increase in AMX adsorption was also observed with these two amendments (wood ash and mussel shell), similarly to what was achieved when pine bark was added. This is due to the fact that the increase in pH derived from the addition of wood ash and mussel shell causes the appearance of a large number of negative charges in organic matter and in the non-crystalline minerals of the soil, which are very abundant in the soils of this study (Table S1, Supplementary Materials), to be summed to the fact that non-crystalline minerals are also very abundant in wood ash (Table S2, Supplementary Materials). Thus, these negative charges present in the soils and in the bio-adsorbents will facilitate bonds with deprotonated carboxyl groups of the AMX molecule, stablished through cationic bridges (in which Ca probably plays an important role, given its abundance both in wood ash and in mussel shell, Table S2, Supplementary Materials). However, it should be noted that, in the VO soil, despite the fact that wood ash and mussel shell increase the pH, the increase in AMX adsorption is clearly lower than that achieved by amending with pine bark, because organic matter and non-crystalline mineral contents are much lower in this soil than in the other three.
Regarding the fittings to adsorption models, starting with the Linear model the values of the distribution coefficient (Kd) were in the range between 1 and 1525.76 L kg−1 in maize soils, and between 5.93 and 112.34 L kg−1 in the vineyard soil (Table 2). These values are lower than those reported in previous studies for tetracycline antibiotics [54], but are higher than for sulfonamides [66]. This would indicate that the interactions with soils that give rise to AMX adsorption are weaker than those taking place with tetracycline antibiotics, but stronger than those affecting sulfonamides. Regarding the Freundlich model, the KF values (affinity coefficient, related to adsorption capacity) vary between 1 and 139.24 Ln µmol1-n kg−1 in maize soils, and between 9.58 and 109.63 Ln µmol1-n kg−1 in the vineyard soil. These results are also lower than those obtained by other authors [56] for tetracyclines, but higher than those obtained for sulfonamide [64]. As for the Freundlich’s n values, in the case of maize soils they are between 0 and 0.926, while in the vineyard soil they range between 0.298 and 0.892. These n values are lower than 1 in all soils, which would indicate that adsorption is not linear, coinciding with that obtained by other authors [61] for other materials. In fact, values of n < 1 indicate the presence of heterogeneous adsorption sites and a non-linear and concave curve, which means that the number of available adsorption sites decreases when the concentration of the added contaminant increases, occupying firstly the high energy adsorption sites [67,68]. Regarding the Langmuir model, the KL values range between 0.05 and 103.81 L µmol−1 in maize soils, and between 0.037 and 0.975 L µmol−1 in vineyard soils (Table 2).
As shown in Figure 1 and in Table S3 (Supplementary Materials), both soils M1 and M3 have very high AMX adsorption scores (sometimes close to 100%) for most of the antibiotic concentrations added. For these two soils, the incorporation of bio-adsorbents causes modifications in adsorption that are lower than the results reached in the other two soils. In the soils that adsorb less AMX (VO and M2), the mixtures with wood ash, mussel shell or pine bark generally continue to present high R2 values (>0.80) for the three models (Table 2), but the high errors associated with the estimation of some parameters invalidate the fittings in several cases (especially in the Langmuir model).

4.2. Desorption

Regarding desorption, focusing on the maximum concentration added (50 µmol L−1), unamended soils desorb between 6% and 17% of the AMX previously adsorbed, while the release of the antibiotic from the mixtures of soil + bio-adsorbent was always lower than 6%. The greatest decrease in desorption occurred in soil M2 when adding pine bark, going from 17% to 2.5%. Similar results were obtained previously for tetracyclines and sulfonamides [56,66], by researchers who added pine bark to different soils, detecting a decrease in desorption of up to 12% for tetracyclines, and up to 17% for sulfonamides. In this regard, a previous study [69] indicated that the presence of tannins in pine bark favors adsorption (and decreases desorption). It should be noted that AMX desorption has been mainly studied in wastewater, while most of the studies on the adsorption of this antibiotic in soils omit desorption processes. In aqueous matrices, the reported AMX desorption values went from 5% when almond shell ashes were added [70] up to 40% in cases where clay materials were used as adsorbents [71].

5. Conclusions

The pH and the abundance of non-crystalline minerals and organic matter are the most determining factors in the adsorption processes of the antibiotic amoxicillin (AMX) in the soils evaluated in this study, both alone and amended with the three tested bio-adsorbents (pine bark, wood ash and mussel shell). It was evidenced that AMX adsorption increased when the crop soils used (devoted to maize and vineyard cultivation) were mixed with the different bio-adsorbents. This increase was higher when pine bark (the bio-adsorbent with the most acidic pH) was added. In addition, AMX desorption decreased when the bio-adsorbent materials were incorporated into the soil, reaching values that did not exceed 6%. The overall results obtained in the current research show that, regarding its applicability, the incorporation of the three bio-adsorbents into agricultural soils contaminated by AMX reduced the risk of transport and passage of the antibiotic to surface and groundwater, and therefore to the food chain, which in fact entails important implications for the environment and public health. In future studies, it would be interesting to evaluate the effect of other bio-adsorbents, as well as soils with different characteristics compared to those used here. Furthermore, possible additional studies could delve into the mechanisms that explain the retention and release processes of AMX when it reaches the environment as a pollutant.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ma15093200/s1. Table S1. Values corresponding to the basic parameters determined in the various soils studied. M: maize soils; VO: vineyard soils; OC: organic carbon; OM: organic matter; eCEC: effective cation exchange capacity; Cae, Mge, Nae, Ke, Ale: elements in the exchange complex; o subindex: non-crystalline form; pyr subindex: crystalline form. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.; Table S2. Characteristics of the bio-adsorbent materials. Cae, Mge, Nae, Ke, Ale: elements in the exchange complex; Sat. Al: Al-saturation in the exchange complex; eCEC: effective cation exchange capacity; XT: total content of the element (X); Alo, Feo: non-crystalline Al and Fe; <LD: below detection level. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.; Table S3. AMX adsorption, expressed in µmol kg−1 (and in percentage between brackets), for the various soils studied, with or without bio-adsorbents, as a function of the concentration of antibiotic added. M: maize (corn) soils; VO: vineyard soils; A: ashes; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.; Figure S1. Example chromatograms corresponding to AMX adsorption onto soils amended with bio-adsorbents

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S., A.N.-D. and M.A.-E.; methodology, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S., A.N.-D., M.A.-E., R.C.-D. and A.B.; software, E.Á.-R. and R.C.-D.; validation, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S., A.N.-D., M.A.-E. and A.B.; formal analysis, R.C.-D.; investigation, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S., R.C.-D. and A.B.; resources, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S. and M.A.-E.; data curation, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S., A.N.-D. and A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S., A.B. and R.C.-D.; writing—review and editing, A.N.-D.; visualization, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S., A.N.-D., M.A.-E., R.C.-D., L.R.-L., V.S.-M. and A.B.; supervision, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S. and A.B.; project administration, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S. and M.A.-E.; funding acquisition, E.Á.-R., M.J.F.-S. and M.A.-E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, grant numbers RTI2018-099574-B-C21 and RTI2018-099574-B-C22.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Conde-Cid, M.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Fernández-Calviño, D.; Arias-Estévez, M. Tetracycline and Sulfonamide Antibiotics in Soils: Presence, Fate and Environmental Risks. Processes 2020, 8, 1479–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Khan, N.A.; Khan, S.U.; Ahmed, S.; Farooqi, I.H.; Yousefi, M.; Mohammadi, A.A.; Changani, F. Recent trends in disposal and treatment technologies of emerging-pollutants—A critical review. Trends Anal. Chem. 2020, 122, 115744–115759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. ECDC. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrobial Consumption in the EU/EEA (ESAC-Net)—Annual Epidemiological Report 2020; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. Duan, H.; Li, X.; Mei, A.; Li, P.; Liu, Y.; Li, X.; Li, W.; Wang, C.; Xie, S. The diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in infectious diseases. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Russell, J.N.; Yost, C.K. Alternative, environmentally conscious approaches for removing antibiotics from wastewater treatment systems. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 128177–128187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Santás-Miguel, V.; Díaz-Raviña, M.; Martín, A.; García-Campos, E.; Barreiro, A.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Calviño, D. Medium-term influence of tetracyclines on total and specific microbial biomass in cultivated soils of Galicia (NW Spain). Span. J. Soil Sci. 2020, 10, 2017–2232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Christou, A.; Agüera, A.; Bayona, J.M.; Cytryn, E.; Fotopoulos, V.; Lambropoulou, D.; Manaia, C.M.; Michael, C.; Revitt, M.; Schöder, P.; et al. Τhe potential implications of reclaimed wastewater reuse for irrigation on the agricultural environment: The knowns and unknowns of the fate of antibiotics and antibiotic resistant bacteria and resistance genes—A review. Water Res. 2017, 123, 448–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Krzeminski, P.; Tomei, M.C.; Karaolia, P.; Langenhoff, A.; Almeida, C.M.R.; Felis, E.; Gritten, F.; Andersen, H.R.; Fernandes, T.; Manaia, C.M.; et al. Performance of secondary wastewater treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern implicated in crop uptake and antibiotic resistance spread: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 1052–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Salam, L.B.; Obayori, O.S. Structural and functional metagenomics analyses of a tropical agricultural soil. Span. J. Soil Sci. 2019, 9, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ahmed, M.B.M.; Rajapaksha, A.U.; Lim, J.E.; Vu, N.T.; Kim, I.S.; Kang, H.M.; Lee, S.S.; Ok, Y.S. Distribution and accumulative pattern of tetracyclines and sulfonamides in edible vegetables of cucumber, tomato, and lettuce. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Azanu, D.; Mortey, C.; Darko, G.; Weisser, J.J.; Styrishave, B.; Abaidoo, R.C. Uptake of antibiotics from irrigation water by plants. Chemosphere 2016, 157, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yazidi, A.; Atrous, M.; Soetaredjo, F.E.; Sellaoui, L.; Ismadji, S.; Erto, A.; Bonilla-Petriciolet, A.; Dotto, G.L.; Lamine, A.B. Adsorption of amoxicillin and tetracycline on activated carbon prepared from durian shell in single and binary systems: Experimental study and modeling analysis. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 379, 122320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kidak, R.; Doğan, Ş. Medium-high frequency ultrasound and ozone based advanced oxidation for amoxicillin removal in water. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2018, 40, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kim, C.; Ryu, H.; Chung, E.G.; Kim, Y. Determination of 18 veterinary antibiotics in environmental water using high-performance liquid chromatography-q-orbitrap combined with on-line solid-phase extraction. J. Chromatogr. B 2018, 1084, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Cacace, D.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; Manaia, C.M.; Cytryn, E.; Kreuzinger, N.; Rizzo, L.; Karaolia, P.; Schwartz, T.; Alexander, J.; Merlin, C.; et al. Antibiotic resistance genes in treated wastewater and in the receiving water bodies: A pan- European survey of urban settings. Water Res. 2019, 162, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bilal, M.; Mehmood, S.; Rasheed, T.; Iqbal, H.M. Antibiotics traces in the aquatic environment: Persistence and adverse environmental impact. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2020, 13, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Parra-Saldivar, R.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Life cycle assessment on wastewater treatment technology. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2020, 13, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rizzo, L.; Gernjak, W.; Krzeminski, P.; Malato, S.; McArdell, C.S.; Perez, J.A.S.; Schaar, H.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Best available technologies and treatment trains to address current challenges in urban wastewater reuse for irrigation of crops in EU countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136312–136329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Adegoke, A.A.; Amoah, I.D.; Stenström, T.A.; Verbyla, M.E.; Mihelcic, J.R. Epidemiological evidence and health risks associated with agricultural reuse of partially treated and untreated wastewater: A review. Front. Public Health 2018, 6, 337–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Carey, R.O.; Migliaccio, K.W. Contribution of wastewater treatment plant effluents to nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems: A review. Environ. Manag. 2009, 44, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Payment, P.; Plante, R.; Cejka, P. Removal of indicator bacteria, human enteric viruses Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts at a large wastewater primary treatment facility. Can. J. Microbiol. 2001, 47, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rizzo, L.; Manaia, C.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Ploy, M.C.; Michael, I.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes spread into the environment: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 447, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Oliveira, N.A.L.; Gonçalves, B.H.; Lee, S.; Oliveira, C.A.F.; Corassin, C.H. Use of antibiotics in animal production and its impact on human health. JFCN 2020, 6, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Grenni, P.; Ancona, V.; Caracciolo, A.B. Ecological effects of antibiotics on natural ecosystems: A review. Microchem. J. 2018, 136, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kovalakova, P.; Cizmas, L.; McDonald, T.J.; Marsalek, B.; Feng, M.; Sharma, V.K. Occurrence and toxicity of antibiotics in the aquatic environment—A review. Chemosphere 2020, 251, 126351–126366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Piña, B.; Bayona, J.M.; Christou, A.; Fatta-Kassinos, D.; Guillon, E.; Lambropoulou, D.; Michael, C.; Polesel, F.; Sayen, S. On the contribution of reclaimed wastewater irrigation to the potential exposure of humans to antibiotics, antibiotic resistant bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes—NEREUS COST Action ES1403 position paper. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 102131–102134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, Q.; An, X.; Li, H.; Su, J.; Ma, Y.; Zhu, Y. Long-term field application of sewage sludge increases the abundance of antibiotic resistance genes in soil. Environ. Int. 2016, 92–93, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. López-Periago, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Díaz-Fierros, F. Attenuation of groundwater contamination caused by cattle slurry: A plot-scale experimental study. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 84, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Núñez-Delgado, A.; López-Períago, E.; Díaz-Fierros-Viqueira, F. Pollution attenuation by soils receiving cattle slurry after passage of a slurry-like feed solution: Column experiments. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 84, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xie, T.; Wang, M.; Su, C.; Chen, W. Evaluation of the natural attenuation capacity of urban residential soils with ecosystem-service performance index (EPX) and entropy-weight methods. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 238, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dong, J.; Xie, H.; Feng, R.; Lai, X.; Duan, H.; Xu, L.; Xia, X. Transport and fate of antibiotics in a typical aqua-agricultural catchment explained by rainfall events: Implications for catchment management. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 293, 112953–112963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kemper, N. Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pan, M.; Chu, L.M. Fate of antibiotics in soil and their uptake by edible crops. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 599–600, 500–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Putra, E.K.; Ismadji, S. Performance of activated carbon and bentonite for adsorption of amoxicillin from wastewater: Mechanisms, isotherms and kinetics. Water Res. 2009, 43, 2419–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zha, S.X.; Zhou, Y.; Jin, X.; Chen, Z. The removal of amoxicillin from wastewater using organobentonite. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 569–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Anastopoulos, I.; Pashalidis, I.; Orfanos, A.O.; Manariotis, I.D.; Tatarchuk, T.; Sellaoui, L.; Bonilla-Petriciolet, A.; Mittal, A.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Removal of caffeine, nicotine and amoxicillin from (waste) waters by various adsorbents. A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Felix, I.M.B.; Moreira, L.C.; Chiavone-Filho, O.; Mattedi, S. Solubility measurements of amoxicillin in mixtures of water and ethanol from 283.15 to 298.15 K. Fluid Phase Equilib. 2016, 422, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shakak, M.; Rezaee, R.; Afshin, M.; Jafari, A.; Safari, M.; Shahmoradi, B.; Daraei, H.; Lee, S. Synthesis and characterization of nanocomposite ultrafiltration membrane (PSF/PVP/SiO2) and performance evaluation for the removal of amoxicillin from aqueous solutions. Environ. Technol. 2020, 17, 100529–100543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Homayoonfal, M.; Mehrnia, M.R. Amoxicillin separation from pharmaceutical solution by pH sensitive nanofiltration membranes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2014, 130, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lyu, J.; Yang, L.; Zhang, L.; Ye, B.; Wang, L. Antibiotics in soil and water in China-a systematic review and source analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, 115147–115159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ding, H.; Wu, Y.; Zou, B.; Lou, Q.; Zhang, W.; Zhong, J.; Lu, L.; Dai, G. Simultaneous removal and degradation characteristics of sulfonamide, tetracycline, and quinolone antibiotics by laccase-mediated oxidation coupled with soil adsorption. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 307, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ata, R.; Sacco, O.; Vaiano, V.; Rizzo, L.; Tore, G.Y.; Sannino, D. Visible light active N-doped TiO2 immobilized on polystyrene as efficient system for wastewater treatment. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2017, 348, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, C.; Wang, W.; Duan, A.; Zeng, G.; Huang, D.; Lai, C.; Tan, X.; Cheng, M.; Wang, R.; Zhou, C.; et al. Adsorption behavior of engineered carbons and carbon nanomaterials for metal endocrine disruptors: Experiments and theoretical calculation. Chemosphere 2019, 222, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Crisafully, R.; Millhome, M.A.L.; Cavalcante, R.M.; Silveira, E.R.; De Keukeleire, D.; Nascimento, R.F. Removal of some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from petrochemical wastewater using low-cost adsorbents of natural origin. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4515–4519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cela-Dablanca, R.; Nebot, C.; Rodríguez López, L.; Fernández-Calviño, D.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E. Efficacy of Different Waste and By-Products from Forest and Food Industries in the Removal/Retention of the Antibiotic Cefuroxime. Processes 2021, 9, 1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Núñez-Delgado, A.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Calviño, D. Perspectives on the use of by-products to treat soil and water pollution. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 2015, 210, 199–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ramírez-Pérez, A.M.; Paradelo, M.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Heavy metal retention in copper mine soil treated with mussel shells: Batch and column experiments. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 248–249, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Seco-Reigosa, N.; Peña-Rodríguez, S.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Arsenic, chromium and mercury removal using mussel shell ash or a sludge/ashes waste mixture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 2670–2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Seco-Reigosa, N.; Bermúdez-Couso, A.; Garrido-Rodríguez, B.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. As(V) retention on soils and forest by-products and other waste materials. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 6574–6583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Seco-Reigosa, N.; Cutillas-Barreiro, L.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Mixtures including wastes from the mussel shell processing industry: Retention of arsenic, chromium and mercury. J. Clean Prod. 2014, 84, 680–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cutillas-Barreiro, L.; Ansias-Manso, L.; Fernández-Calviño, D.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Fernández Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Pine bark as bio-adsorbent for Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn: Batch-type and stirred flow chamber experiments. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 144, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Otero, M.; Cutillas-Barreiro, L.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Cr (VI) sorption/desorption on untreated and mussel-shell-treated soil materials: Fractionation and effects of pH and chromium concentration. Solid Earth 2015, 6, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Romar, A.; Nóvoa, J.C.; Arias, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez, E.; Núñez, A. Controlling risks of P water pollution by sorption on soils, pyritic material, granitic material, and different by-products: Effects of pH and incubation time. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 26, 11558–115564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Quintáns-Fondo, A.; Ferreira-Coelho, G.; Paradelo, R.; Nóvoa, J.C.; Arias, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez, E.; Núñez, A. F sorption/desorption on two soils and on different by-products and waste materials. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 14676–14685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Quintáns-Fondo, A.; Ferreira-Coelho, G.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Nóvoa-Múñoz, J.C.; Fernández-Calviño, D.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Chromium VI and fluoride competitive adsorption on different soils and by-products. Processes 2019, 7, 748–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Conde-Cid, M.; Ferreira-Coelho, G.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Álvarez-Esmorís, C.; Nóvoa Muñoz, J.C.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E. Competitive adsorption/desorption of tetracycline, oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline on pine bark, oak ash and mussel shell. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 250, 109509–109519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Conde-Cid, M.; Cela-Dablanca, R.; Ferreira-Coelho, G.; Fernández-Calviño, D.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E. Sulfadiazine, sulfamethazine and sulfachloropyridazine removal using three different porous materials: Pine bark, “oak ash” and mussel shell. Environ. Res. 2021, 195, 110814–110820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Conde-Cid, M.; Fernández-Calviño, D. Chapter 25—Sorbents to control soil pollution. In Sorbents Materials for Controlling Environmental Pollution; Núñez-Delgado, A., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rivas-Pérez, I.M.; Conde-Cid, M.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. As(V)/Cr(VI) retention on un-amended and waste-amended soil samples: Competitive experiments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 1051–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ayawei, N.; Ebelegi, A.N.; Wankasi, D. Modelling and Interpretation of Adsorption Isotherms. J. Chem. 2017, 2017, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Githinji, L.J.M.; Musey, M.K.; Ankumah, R.O. Evaluation of the fate of ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin in domestic wastewater. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2011, 219, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mohammed, A.A.; Al-Musawi, T.J.; Kareem, S.L.; Zarrabi, M.; Al-Mabreh, A.M. Simultaneous adsorption of tetracycline, amoxicillin and ciprofloxacin by pistacho shell powder coates with zinc oxide nanoparticles. Arab. J. Chem. 2020, 13, 4629–4643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shahrouzi, J.R.; Sakineh, M.; Ebadi, A.; Tiwfighi, F.; Bakhti, F. Investigation of effective parameters on adsorption of amoxicillin from aqueous medium onto activated carbon. Adv. Environ. Technol. 2019, 2, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhi, D.; Yang, D.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, Y.; HE, Y.; Luo, L.; Zhou, Y. Current progress in the adsorption, transport and biodegradation of antibiotics in soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109598–109605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Pezoti, O.; Cazetta, A.L.; Bedin, K.C.; Souza, L.S.; Martíns, A.C.; Silva, T.L.; Santos Junior, O.O.; Visentainer, J.V.; Almeida, V.C. NaOH-actived carbon of high surface area produced from guava seeds as a high-efficiency adsorbent for amoxicillin removal: Kinetic, isotherm and thermodynamic studies. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 288, 778–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Conde-Cid, M.; Fernández, D.; Núñez-Delgado, A.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E. Influence of mussel shell, oak ash and pine bark on the adsorption and desorption of sulfonamides in agricultural soils. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110221–110231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Foo, K.Y.; Hameed, B.H. Insights into the modeling of adsorption isotherm systems. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 156, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Behnajady, M.A.; Bimeghdar, S. Synthesis of mesoporous NiO nanoparticles and their application in the adsorption of Cr (VI). Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 239, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Barceló, H.A.; Santos, S.C.; Botelho, C.M. Tannin-based biosorbents for environmental applications–A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 303, 575–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Homem, V.; Alves, A.; Santos, L. Amoxicillin removal from aqueous matrices by sorption with almond shell ashes. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2010, 90, 1063–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chauhan, M.; Saini, V.K.; Suthar, S. Ti-pillared montmorillonite clay for adsorptive removal of amoxicillin, imipramine, diclofenac-sodium, and paracetamol from water. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 399, 122832–122845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 15 03200 g001 550
Figure 1. Adsorption curves for AMX in unamended and bio-adsorbent-amended soils. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
Figure 1. Adsorption curves for AMX in unamended and bio-adsorbent-amended soils. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
Materials 15 03200 g001
Materials 15 03200 g002 550
Figure 2. Adsorbed antibiotic (%) for each soil and the mixtures soil + bio-adsorbent in relation to the concentration of AMX added. M: maize soil; VO: vineyard soil; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark; AMX: amoxicillin. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
Figure 2. Adsorbed antibiotic (%) for each soil and the mixtures soil + bio-adsorbent in relation to the concentration of AMX added. M: maize soil; VO: vineyard soil; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark; AMX: amoxicillin. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
Materials 15 03200 g002
Table
Table 1. pH values of the different soils and soil + bio-adsorbent mixtures. VO: vineyard soil; M: maize soils; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
Table 1. pH values of the different soils and soil + bio-adsorbent mixtures. VO: vineyard soil; M: maize soils; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
Soils and MixturespHSoils and MixturespH
M15.33M35.01
M1 + A6.93M3 + A6.93
M1 + MS5.29M3 + MS5.46
M1 + PB4.92M3 + PB4.79
M25.65VO6.04
M2 + A7.04VO + A7.81
M2 + MS5.76VO + MS5.92
M2 + PB5.24VO + PB5.35
Table
Table 2. Values of the adsorption parameters corresponding to the Freundlich (KF, expressed in Ln µmol1-nkg−1, and n–dimensionless-), Langmuir (KL, expressed in L µmol−1, and qm -µmol kg−1-) and Linear (Kd, expressed in L kg−1) models. M: maize soil; VO: vineyard soil; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark; --: fitting not possible.
Table 2. Values of the adsorption parameters corresponding to the Freundlich (KF, expressed in Ln µmol1-nkg−1, and n–dimensionless-), Langmuir (KL, expressed in L µmol−1, and qm -µmol kg−1-) and Linear (Kd, expressed in L kg−1) models. M: maize soil; VO: vineyard soil; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark; --: fitting not possible.
FreundlichLangmuirLinear
SampleKFErrornErrorR2KLErrorqmErrorR2KdErrorR2
M150.7934.560.2740.3440.723----------3.6990.1220.983
M1 + A----------0.780.2092066.700.3441525.8358.850.344
M1 + MS139.2436.560.1910.1450.74527.98329.16812930.230.746------
M1+ PB--------------------------
M2 11.814.2240.6760.1410.8960.0740.039140.8540.680.9355.0570.5680.813
M2 + A31.0426.8810.7580.160.932----------22.2651.6710.911
M2 + MS40.0223.1420.6720.0620.9860.1830.064243.0653.740.98426.3781.6250.939
M2 + PB91.916.9840.3910.1080.9231.7250.79515427.490.93469.9511.360.633
M319.174.6260.670.1140.9280.1240.049161.8234.480.9613.0840.1130.978
M3 + A----------0.050------------
M3 + MS107.4187.27900.0380.978103.812287.076------------
M3 + PB98.8911.050.2820.150.857.3426.343112.8820.250.8594.9415.650.622
VO9.5792.1550.8060.0910.9740.0370.017232.6775.910.9825.9340.3120.957
VO + A10.992.2460.8920.0940.982----------8.6940.3130.979
VO + MS10.254.7640.7950.1960.893----------6.2870.5710.875
VO + PB109.6314.060.7660.2140.815----------112.3413.830.778
Table
Table 3. AMX desorption, in µmol kg−1 and in percentage between brackets, from the soils studied, with or without bio-adsorbents, as a function of the concentration of antibiotic added (C0). M: maize soils; VO: vineyard soil; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark; --: no value. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
Table 3. AMX desorption, in µmol kg−1 and in percentage between brackets, from the soils studied, with or without bio-adsorbents, as a function of the concentration of antibiotic added (C0). M: maize soils; VO: vineyard soil; A: wood ash; MS: mussel shell; PB: pine bark; --: no value. Average values (n = 3), with coefficients of variation always <5%.
C0 (µmol L−1)
Sample2.551020304050
M10.349 (10.9)1.181 (12.5)2.331 (12.8)2.819 (11.1)4.781 (7.2)4.816 (11.6)6.21 (16.9)
M1 + A0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.414 (0.79)1.698 (2.26)2.482 (2.51)5.062 (4.10)
M1 + MS0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.233 (0.44)2.259 (3.05)3.943 (3.98)6.105 (4.99)
M1 + PB0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.824 (1.09)0.834 (0.84)1.851 (1.50)
M20.767 (9.25)1.339 (12.19)3.029 (16.12)5.032 (13.17)5.211 (6.07)11.504 (8.07)18.489 (8.36)
M2 + A0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.935 (0)
M2 + MS0 (0)0.047 (0.34)0.176 (0.77)--0.69 (0.99)1.061 (1.16)3.488 (3.09)
M2 + PB--0.164 (1.13)0.329 (1.35)0.713 (1.46)1.075 (1.46)1.788 (1.83)2.597 (2.19)
M30.384 (7.45)0.828 (8.88)2.6 (10.40)4.639 (6.11)--6.151 (9.33)6.107 (9.67)
M3 + A0.283 (3.82)0.313 (2.45)--0.949 (1.80)1.055 (1.40)2.319 (2.31)--
M3 + MS--0.258 (2.01)--2.488 (4.74)2.694 (3.58)--4.684 (3.79)
M3 + PB0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.14 (0.14)1.276 (1.05)
VO0.357 (7.67)0.735 (13.41)2.115 (13.85)2.446 (8.58)4.741 (8.15)8.139 (6.26)8.682 (7.68)
VO + A0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
VO + MS0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
VO + PB0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0.219 (0.30)0.712 (0.73)--
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cela-Dablanca, R.; Barreiro, A.; Rodríguez-López, L.; Santás-Miguel, V.; Arias-Estévez, M.; Fernández-Sanjurjo, M.J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, E.; Núñez-Delgado, A. Amoxicillin Retention/Release in Agricultural Soils Amended with Different Bio-Adsorbent Materials. Materials 2022, 15, 3200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093200

AMA Style

Cela-Dablanca R, Barreiro A, Rodríguez-López L, Santás-Miguel V, Arias-Estévez M, Fernández-Sanjurjo MJ, Álvarez-Rodríguez E, Núñez-Delgado A. Amoxicillin Retention/Release in Agricultural Soils Amended with Different Bio-Adsorbent Materials. Materials. 2022; 15(9):3200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cela-Dablanca, Raquel, Ana Barreiro, Lucia Rodríguez-López, Vanesa Santás-Miguel, Manuel Arias-Estévez, María J. Fernández-Sanjurjo, Esperanza Álvarez-Rodríguez, and Avelino Núñez-Delgado. 2022. "Amoxicillin Retention/Release in Agricultural Soils Amended with Different Bio-Adsorbent Materials" Materials 15, no. 9: 3200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093200

APA Style

Cela-Dablanca, R., Barreiro, A., Rodríguez-López, L., Santás-Miguel, V., Arias-Estévez, M., Fernández-Sanjurjo, M. J., Álvarez-Rodríguez, E., & Núñez-Delgado, A. (2022). Amoxicillin Retention/Release in Agricultural Soils Amended with Different Bio-Adsorbent Materials. Materials, 15(9), 3200. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093200

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