Abstract / Summary
Abstract Antibiotic wastewater is a big problem for the environment. Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are a common class of antibiotics. They can stay in water for a long time and hurt aquatic life. Many treatment technologies exist, but we do not know which one is best from an environmental point of view. This study uses life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare four treatment technologies: advanced oxidation process (AOP), membrane bioreactor (MBR), granular activated carbon (GAC), and constructed wetland (CW). We built a dual-endpoint framework. The first endpoint is the direct environmental cost of the treatment (global warming potential, GWP). The second endpoint is the avoided ecotoxicity from removing FQs and their transformation products. All inventory data were taken from 41 published studies. We used a pedigree matrix to check data quality. The results differ strongly from our earlier simplified model. In this literature-based model, AOP has the highest GWP (14.54 kg CO2-eq per m3). GAC is the second highest (10.970 kg CO2-eq per m3). MBR is much lower (0.60 kg CO2-eq per m3). CW has the lowest (0.03 kg CO2-eq per m3). The high GAC value comes almost entirely from activated carbon production (70%) and spent carbon disposal (28%). When we look at the amount of FQ removed, the picture changes. CW has the lowest cost per gram of FQ removed (0.0034 kg CO2-eq per g FQ). AOP has the highest (1.2449 kg CO2-eq per g FQ), which is about 370 times higher than CW. We ran 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to check uncertainty. The ranking AOP > GAC > MBR > CW is stable in most runs. However, the gap between AOP and GAC is small (1.6 times). Their confidence intervals overlap. In low-electricity scenarios, the order could reverse. Our study adds a new way to look at treatment technologies. Most LCA studies only count the environmental cost of the treatment. We also count the benefit of removing harmful chemicals. This dual-endpoint view helps us choose better technologies for cleaner production.