Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Presencia de glifosato en fuentes de agua superficial y potable en Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, y su eliminación mediante tecnología de membranas

dc.contributor.authorÁlvarez Bayona, María Angélica
dc.contributor.authorGallardo Amaya, Romel Jesús
dc.contributor.authorMaturana Córdoba, Aymer
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz Acevedo, Amner
dc.coverage.spatialColombiaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-02T13:54:24Z
dc.date.available2025-10-02T13:54:24Z
dc.date.issued2022-10-03
dc.identifier.issn2296-665Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioinstitucional.ufpso.edu.co/xmlui/handle/20.500.14167/5649
dc.description.abstractEl glifosato es actualmente el herbicida más utilizado en todo el mundo para el control de malezas. Se ha detectado en diferentes fuentes de agua, incluida el agua potable, lo que podría estar generando daños potenciales para la salud humana. En el Área Metropolitana de Cúcuta predomina el cultivo intensivo de arroz, y como crece en zonas inundadas, el uso de herbicidas tiene un mayor contacto con los cuerpos de agua, que se utilizan como fuentes de abastecimiento. En base a esto, se cuantificó la concentración de glifosato en cinco puntos de muestreo de agua superficial y potable de los ríos Pamplonita y Zulia, utilizando espectrofotometría UV-Vis, estableciéndose que la concentración encontrada en el agua potable (216 y 204,5 µg/L) estaba por debajo de los límites máximos permitidos en países como Estados Unidos, Canadá y Australia, y por encima de los de la Unión Europea y el Reino Unido. Una vez identificada la presencia, se evaluó la capacidad de eliminación del glifosato mediante tecnología de membranas a través de ósmosis inversa (RO) y nanofiltración (NF) en una planta piloto, para lo cual se implementaron modelos de optimización de superficie de respuesta, y se obtuvieron eliminaciones del 100 %, con una repetibilidad cercana al 1 % con respecto a otras investigaciones reportadas, destacando que el proceso de NF fue más eficiente a pesar de que el peso molecular del glifosato estaba por debajo del límite de la membrana. Por el contrario, se determinó que, según las concentraciones encontradas en el agua potable suministrada al Área Metropolitana de Cúcuta, esta presenta un riesgo bajo según las directrices de calidad del agua potable de Canadá y un riesgo moderado según la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Los sistemas convencionales que se utilizan actualmente para la purificación del agua son insuficientes para eliminar los restos de contaminantes como los herbicidas. Por lo tanto, es necesario implementar nuevas tecnologías.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relationhttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.941836/fullen_US
dc.titlePresencia de glifosato en fuentes de agua superficial y potable en Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, y su eliminación mediante tecnología de membranasen_US
dc.title.translatedOccurrence of glyphosate in surface and drinking water sources in Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, and its removal using membrane technologyen_US
dc.contributor.cvlacMaría Angélica Álvarez Bayona [0000156889]en_US
dc.contributor.cvlacRomel Jesús Gallardo Amaya [0000883590]en_US
dc.contributor.cvlacAymer Maturana Córdoba [0000597708]en_US
dc.contributor.cvlacAmner Muñoz Acevedo [0000158755]en_US
dc.contributor.googlescholarMaría Angelica Álvarez Bayona [WICQdWQAAAAJ]en_US
dc.contributor.googlescholarRomel Jesús Gallardo Amaya [kCbpxb4AAAAJ]en_US
dc.contributor.googlescholarAymer Maturana Córdoba [P7ixpbcAAAAJ]en_US
dc.contributor.googlescholarAmner Muñoz Acevedo [8vHBV9wAAAAJ]en_US
dc.contributor.orcidMaría Angelica Álvarez Bayona [0000-0002-9464-9884]en_US
dc.contributor.orcidRomel Jesús Gallardo Amaya [0000-0002-4740-4841]en_US
dc.contributor.orcidAymer Maturana Córdoba [0000-0003-3518-0606]en_US
dc.contributor.orcidAmner Muñoz Acevedo [ 0000-0003-2145-1495]en_US
dc.contributor.researchgateMaría Angelica Álvarez Bayona [Maria-Angelica-Alvarez-Bayona]en_US
dc.contributor.researchgateAymer Maturana Córdoba [Aymer-Maturana]en_US
dc.contributor.researchgateAmner Muñoz Acevedo [Amner-Munoz-Acevedo]en_US
dc.contributor.scopusAymer Maturana Córdoba [55260401200]en_US
dc.contributor.scopusAmner Muñoz Acevedo [50462114200]en_US
dc.description.abstractenglishGlyphosate is currently the herbicide with the highest use worldwide for weed control. It has been detected in different water sources, including drinking water, which could be generating potential damage to human health. In the Metropolitan Area of Cúcuta, intensive rice cultivation is predominant, and as it grows in flooded areas, the use of herbicides has greater contact with water bodies, which are used as sources of supply. Based on this, the concentration of glyphosate was quantified in five sampling points of surface and drinking water of the Pamplonita and Zulia rivers, using UV-Vis spectrophotometry, establishing that the concentration found in drinking water (216 and 204.5 µg/L) was below the maximum allowable limits of countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia and above those of the European Union and the United Kingdom. Once the occurrence was identified, the removal capacity of glyphosate was evaluated using membrane technology through reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) in a pilot plant, for which response surface optimization models were implemented, and 100% removals were obtained, with repeatability close to 1% with respect to other reported investigations, highlighting that the NF process was more efficient even though the molecular weight of glyphosate was below the limit of the membrane. In contrast, it was determined that, according to the concentrations found in the drinking water supplied to the Metropolitan Area of Cúcuta, this has a low risk according to the guidelines for drinking water quality in Canada and a moderate risk according to the World Health Organization (WHO). The conventional systems currently used for water purification are insufficient to remove traces of contaminants such as herbicides. Therefore, it is necessary to implement new technologies.en_US
dc.subject.proposalglisofatoen_US
dc.subject.proposalosmosis inversaen_US
dc.subject.proposalnanofiltraciónen_US
dc.subject.proposalcontaminaciónen_US
dc.subject.proposalEliminaciónen_US
dc.subject.keywordsglyphosateen_US
dc.subject.keywordsosmosis reverseen_US
dc.subject.keywordsnanofiltrationen_US
dc.subject.keywordscontaminantsen_US
dc.subject.keywordsremovalen_US
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad ingenieríasen_US
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTen_US
dc.relation.referencesAktaş, N. (2005). Optimization of biopolymerization rate by response surface methodology (RSM). Enzyme Microb. Technol. 37 (4), 441–447. doi:10.1016/j. enzmictec.2005.03.010en_US
dc.relation.referencesAlza-Camacho, W. R., García-Colmenares, J. M., and Chaparro-Acuña, S. P. (2016). Determinación voltamétrica de paraquat y glifosato en aguas superficiales. Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecu. 17 (3), 331–345. doi:10.21930/rcta.vol17_num3_art:510en_US
dc.relation.referencesAmerican Public Health Association (2017). “American water works association., and water environment federation,” in Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 23rd ed. (Washington D. C).en_US
dc.relation.referencesAnderson, A.-M., Byrtus, G., and Humphries, D. (2015). Glyphosate residues in Alberta’s atmospheric deposition, soils and surface waters/. doi:10.5962/bhl.title.102010en_US
dc.relation.referencesAnupam, K., Dutta, S., Bhattacharjee, C., and Datta, S. (2011). Adsorptive removal of chromium (VI) from aqueous solution over powdered activated carbon: Optimisation through response surface methodology. Chem. Eng. J. 173 (1), 135–143. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2011.07.049en_US
dc.relation.referencesAparicio, V. C., de Gerónimo, E., Marino, D., Primost, J., Carriquiriborde, P., and Costa, J. L. (2013). Environmental fate of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters and soil of agricultural basins. Chemosphere 93 (9), 1866–1873. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.041en_US
dc.relation.referencesAuthor Anonymous (2007). Ministerio de la Protección social Ministerio de Ambiente Vivienda y desarrollo territorial. Bogota: Resolución 2115 de 2007, 23.en_US
dc.relation.referencesAzargohar, R., and Dalai, A. K. (2005). Production of activated carbon from Luscar char: Experimental and modeling studies. Microporous Mesoporous Mater. 85 (3), 219–225. doi:10.1016/j.micromeso.2005.06.018en_US
dc.relation.referencesBattaglin, W. A., Rice, K. C., Focazio, M. J., Salmons, S., and Barry, R. X. (2005- 20062009). The occurrence of glyphosate, atrazine, and other pesticides in vernal pools and adjacent streams in Washington, DC, Maryland, Iowa, and Wyoming, 2005–2006. Environ. Monit. Assess. 155 (1–4), 281–307. doi:10.1007/s10661-008- 0435-yen_US
dc.relation.referencesBenbrook, C. M. (2016). Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ. Sci. Eur. 28 (1), 3–15. doi:10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0en_US
dc.relation.referencesBraeken, L., Ramaekers, R., Zhang, Y., Maes, G., Van Der Bruggen, B., and Vandecasteele, C. (2005). Influence of hydrophobicity on retention in nanofiltration of aqueous solutions containing organic compounds. J. Memb. Sci. 252 (1–2), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2004.12.017en_US
dc.relation.referencesBravo, E., and Naranjo, A. (2016). América Latina fumigada y crisis de las commodities. El caso del glifosato de Monsanto. Cienc. politi. 11 (21), 229–250. doi:10.15446/cp.v11n21.60295en_US
dc.relation.referencesCCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) (2012). Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Gatineau: Glyphosate. ChemSpider (2022). ChemSpider- chemistry search and share. Glyphosate: Royal Society of Chemistry. Available at: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical Structure.3376.html?rid=d4d684ea-01aa-49ab-a888-58c3c955ba7d.en_US
dc.relation.referencesCIRCABC (2022). Dossier version submitted to. SCHEER Committee.en_US
dc.relation.referencesDolan, T., Howsam, P., Parsons, D. J., and Whelan, M. J. (2013). Is the EU drinking water directive standard for pesticides in drinking water consistent with the precautionary principle? Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (10), 4999–5006. doi:10.1021/ es304955gen_US
dc.relation.referencesDrinking Water Inspectorate (2010). Drinking water inspectorate, UK DW guideline. [Online]. Available: http://www.dwi.gov.uk.en_US
dc.relation.referencesEdwards, W. M., Triplett, G. B., and Kramer, R. M. (1980). A watershed study of glyphosate transport in runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 9 (4), 661–665. doi:10.2134/ jeq1980.00472425000900040024xen_US
dc.relation.referencesEPA (2011). Risk characterization. USA: Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/Brownfield_Conference/%0Adocs/ Presentations/3-Risk characterization.pdf.en_US
dc.relation.referencesE. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (2009). National primary drinking water guidelines. 1, 7. Epa 816-F-09-004[Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/npwdr_ complete_table.pdfen_US
dc.relation.referencesFAO and FAOLEX (1998). Integrated wastewater discharge standard, 19. GB 8978-1996).en_US
dc.relation.referencesGoodwin, L., Carra, I., Campo, P., and Soares, A. (2018). Treatment options for reclaiming wastewater produced by the pesticide industry. Int. J. Water Wastewater Treat. 4 (1), 1–15. doi:10.16966/2381-5299.149en_US
dc.relation.referencesHealth Canada (HC) (2006). “Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality: Guideline technical document glyphosate,” in Water Quality and health Bureau, Healthy Environments and consumer safety Branch, 1–5. [Online]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/ guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-guideline-technical-document glyphosate.html#fn30.en_US
dc.relation.referencesHomem, V., and Santos, L. (2011). Degradation and removal methods of antibiotics from aqueous matrices - a review. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (10), 2304–2347. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.023en_US
dc.relation.referencesHopman, R., Beerendonk, E. F., and Puijker, L. M. (1995). Glyphosate and AMPA in the production of drinking water. KIWA Rep. SWE 95.026. [Online]. Available: email: Ronald.Hopman@kiwa.en_US
dc.relation.referencesmail: Ronald.Hopman@kiwa. International agency for research on cancer (2015). “Evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides,” in World health organization, international agency for research on cancer (Lyon, France: IARC Monographs), 112, 1–2. doi:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2004.00593.xen_US
dc.relation.referencesJ. LANXING (2010). Glyphosate wastewater treatment method.en_US
dc.relation.referencesLemly, A. D. (1996). Evaluation of the hazard quotient method for risk assessment of selenium. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 35 (2), 156–162. doi:10.1006/ eesa.1996.0095en_US
dc.relation.referenceseesa.1996.0095 Liu, Z. Y., Xie, M., Ni, F., and Xu, Y. H. (2012). Nanofiltration process of glyphosate simulated wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 65 (5), 816–822. doi:10.2166/ wst.2012.808en_US
dc.relation.referencesMahler, B. J., van Metre, P. C., Burley, T. E., Loftin, K. A., Meyer, M. T., and Nowell, L. H. (2017). Similarities and differences in occurrence and temporal fluctuations in glyphosate and atrazine in small Midwestern streams (USA) during the 2013 growing season. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 149–158. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv. 2016.10.236en_US
dc.relation.referencesMaroneze, M. M., Zepka, L. Q., Vieira, J. G., Queiroz, M. I., and Jacob-Lopes, E. (2014). A tecnologia de remoção de fósforo: Gerenciamento do elemento em resíduos industriais. Rev. ambiente agua 9 (3), 445–458. doi:10.4136/ambi-agua. 1403en_US
dc.relation.references1403 Mojarrad, M., Noroozi, A., Zeinivand, A., and Kazemzadeh, P. (2018). Response surface methodology for optimization of simultaneous Cr (VI) and as (V) removal from contaminated water by nanofiltration process. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 37 (1), 434–443. doi:10.1002/ep.12704en_US
dc.relation.referencesNagaraja, P., and Bhaskara, B. L. (2006). Sensitive spectrophotometric assessment of carbofuran using dapsone as a new chromogenic reagent in formulations and environmental samples. Eclet. Quim. 31 (4), 43–48. doi:10.1590/S0100- 46702006000400006en_US
dc.relation.referencesNational Health and Medical Research Council (2007). Australian drinking water guidelines paper 6: National water quality management Strategy, version 3.4 Updated October 2017, no. October. 2011.en_US
dc.relation.referencesPliego, G., Zazo, J. A., Pariente, M. I., Rodriguez, I., Petre, A. L., Leton, P., et al. (2014). Treatment of a wastewater from a pesticide manufacture by combined coagulation and Fenton oxidation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21 (21), 12129–12134. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-2880-1en_US
dc.relation.referencesQingling, G., Liqin, Z., Shu, G., Bailong, X., Xinyang, W., and Yueping, Y. (2017). Study on reverse osmosis for drinking water purification in sudden natural disaster emergency. Zhejiang Univ. Journals 44 (6), 666–674. [Online]. Available: http:// www.zjujournals.com/sci/CN/abstract/abstract2598.shtml.en_US
dc.relation.referencesRahmani, A., Leili, M., Seid-mohammadi, A., Shabanloo, A., Ansari, A., Nematollahi, D., et al. (2021). Improved degradation of diuron herbicide and pesticide wastewater treatment in a three-dimensional electrochemical reactor equipped with PbO2 anodes and granular activated carbon particle electrodes. J. Clean. Prod. 322, 129094. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129094en_US
dc.relation.referencesRendón-Von Osten, J., and Dzul-Caamal, R. (2017). Glyphosate residues in groundwater, drinking water and urine of subsistence farmers from intensive agriculture localities: A survey in hopelchén, campeche, Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 595–596. doi:10.3390/ijerph14060595en_US
dc.relation.referencesRichardson, S. D. (2008). Environmental mass spectrometry: Emerging contaminants and current issues. Anal. Chem. 80 (12), 4373–4402. doi:10.1021/ ac800660den_US
dc.relation.referencesRoche, L. (2004). Traitabilité de composés phytosanitaires sur une filière de traitement. JIE Poitiers, Conférence 32. November 30 – December 1 (in French).en_US
dc.relation.referencesRodriguez-Narvaez, O. M., Peralta-Hernandez, J. M., Goonetilleke, A., and Bandala, E. R. (2017). Treatment technologies for emerging contaminants in water: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 323, 361–380. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2017.04.106en_US
dc.relation.referencesSaitúa, H., Giannini, F., and Padilla, A. P. (2012). Drinking water obtaining by nanofiltration from waters contaminated with glyphosate formulations: Process evaluation by means of toxicity tests and studies on operating parameters. J. Hazard. Mat. 227 (228), 204–210. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.05.035en_US
dc.relation.referencesSchoonenberg Kegel, F., Rietman, B. M., and Verliefde, A. R. D. (2010). Reverse osmosis followed by activated carbon filtration for efficient removal of organic micropollutants from river bank filtrate. Water Sci. Technol. 61 (10), 2603–2610. doi:10.2166/wst.2010.166en_US
dc.relation.referencesSeenuvasan, M., Sathish Kumar, K., Anil Kumar, M., Iyyappan, J., and Rini Gnana Suganthi, J. (2014). Response surface estimation and canonical quantification for the pectin degrading Fe3O4-SiO2-nanobiocatalyst fabrication. Int. J. Chemtech Res. 6 (7), 3618–3627en_US
dc.relation.referencesSolutions, A., Cropscience, B., and Agrochemical, J. (2022). Glyphosate global market reporten_US
dc.relation.referencesSzymczyk, A., and Fievet, P. (2005). Investigating transport properties of nanofiltration membranes by means of a steric, electric and dielectric exclusion model. J. Memb. Sci. 252 (1–2), 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2004. 12.002en_US
dc.relation.referencesTzaskos, D. F., Marcovicz, C., Dias, N. M. P., and Rosso, N. D. (2012). Development of sampling for quantification of glyphosate in natural waters. Cienc. Agrotec. 36 (4), 399–405. doi:10.1590/s1413-70542012000400003en_US
dc.relation.referencesUSEPA (2007). Restricted database. Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.en_US
dc.relation.referencesvan Bruggen, A. H. C., He, M., Shin, K., Mai, V., Jeong, K., Finckh, M., et al. (2018). Environmental and health effects of the herbicide glyphosate. Sci. Total Environ. 616–617, 255–268. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.309en_US
dc.relation.referencesVezzani, D., and Bandini, S. (2002). Donnan equilibrium and dielectric exclusion for characterization of nanofiltration membranes. Desalination 149 (1–3), 477–483. doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00784-1en_US
dc.relation.referencesWorld Health Organization (2017). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. FourthGeneva: World Health Organization. [Online]. Available: https://apps. who.int/iris/handle/10665/254637.en_US
dc.relation.referencesXie, M., Liu, Z., and Xu, Y. (2010). Removal of glyphosate in neutralization liquor from the glycine-dimethylphosphit process by nanofiltration. J. Hazard. Mat. 181 (1–3), 975–980. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.05.109en_US
dc.relation.referencesYaroshchuk, A. E. (2001). Non-steric mechanisms of nanofiltration: Superposition of donnan and dielectric exclusion. Sep. Purif. Technol. 22 (23), 143–158. doi:10.1016/S1383-5866(00)00159-3en_US
dc.relation.referencesYuan, J., Duan, J., Saint, C. P., and Mulcahy, D. (2018). Removal of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid from synthetic water by nanofiltration. Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom) 39 (11), 1384–1392. doi:10.1080/09593330.2017. 1329356en_US
dc.relation.referencesZhang, Y., and Pagilla, K. (2010). Treatment of malathion pesticide wastewater with nanofiltration and photo-Fenton oxidation. Desalination 263 (1–3), 36–44. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2010.06.031en_US
dc.identifier.DOIhttps://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.941836en_US


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre:
Occurrence of glyphosate in ...
Tamaño:
3.885Mb
Formato:
PDF
Ver/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem