Integration of biofiltration and advanced oxidation processes for tertiary treatment of an oil refinery wastewater aiming at water reuse.

The combination of biological and chemical oxidation processes is an interesting approach to remove ready, poor, and non-biodegradable compounds from complex industrial wastewaters. In this study, biofiltration followed by H2O2/UV oxidation (or microfiltration) and final reverse osmosis (RO) step was employed for tertiary treatment of an oil refinery wastewater. Biofiltration alone allowed obtaining total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), UV absorbance at 254 nm (UV254), ammonium, and turbidity removal of around 46, 46, 23, 50, and 61 %, respectively. After the combined biological-chemical oxidation treatment, TOC and UV254 removal amounted to 88 and 79 %, respectively. Whereas, the treatment performance achieved with different UV lamp powers (55 and 95 W) and therefore distinct irradiance levels (26.8 and 46.3 mW/cm(2), respectively) were very similar and TOC and UV254 removal rates were highly affected by the applied C/H2O2 ratio. Silt density index (SDI) was effectively reduced by H2O2/UV oxidation, favoring further RO application. C/H2O2 ratio of 1:4, 55 W UV lamp, and 20-min oxidation reaction corresponded to the experimental condition which provided the best cost/benefit ratio for TOC, UV254, and SDI reduction from the biofilter effluent. The array of treatment processes proposed in this study has shown to be adequate for tertiary treatment of the oil refinery wastewater, ensuring the mitigation of membrane fouling problems and producing a final effluent which is suitable for reuse applications.

Psychopharmacotherapy of panic disorder: 8-week randomized trial with clonazepam and paroxetine

The objective of the present randomized, open-label, naturalistic 8-week study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with clonazepam (N = 63) and paroxetine (N = 57) in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Efficacy assessment included number of panic attacks and clinician ratings of the global severity of panic disorders with the clinical global impression (CGI) improvement (CGI-I) and CGI severity (CGI-S) scales. Most patients were females (69.8 and 68.4 percent in the clonazepam and paroxetine groups, respectively) and age (mean ± SD) was 35.9 ± 9.6 years for the clonazepam group and 33.7 ± 8.8 years for the paroxetine group. Treatment with clonazepam versus paroxetine resulted in fewer weekly panic attacks at week 4 (0.1 vs 0.5, respectively; P < 0.01), and greater clinical improvements at week 8 (CGI-I: 1.6 vs 2.9; P = 0.04). Anxiety severity was significantly reduced with clonazepam versus paroxetine at weeks 1 and 2, with no difference in panic disorder severity. Patients treated with clonazepam had fewer adverse events than patients treated with paroxetine (73 vs 95 percent; P = 0.001). The most common adverse events were drowsiness/fatigue (57 percent), memory/concentration difficulties (24 percent), and sexual dysfunction (11 percent) in the clonazepam group and drowsiness/fatigue (81 percent), sexual dysfunction (70 percent), and nausea/vomiting (61 percent) in the paroxetine group. This naturalistic study confirms the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam and paroxetine in the acute treatment of patients with panic disorder.

Psychopharmacotherapy of panic disorder: 8-week randomized trial with clonazepam and paroxetine.

The objective of the present randomized, open-label, naturalistic 8-week study was to compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with clonazepam (N = 63) and paroxetine (N = 57) in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Efficacy assessment included number of panic attacks and clinician ratings of the global severity of panic disorders with the clinical global impression (CGI) improvement (CGI-I) and CGI severity (CGI-S) scales. Most patients were females (69.8 and 68.4% in the clonazepam and paroxetine groups, respectively) and age (mean ± SD) was 35.9 ± 9.6 years for the clonazepam group and 33.7 ± 8.8 years for the paroxetine group. Treatment with clonazepam versus paroxetine resulted in fewer weekly panic attacks at week 4 (0.1 vs 0.5, respectively; P < 0.01), and greater clinical improvements at week 8 (CGI-I: 1.6 vs 2.9; P = 0.04). Anxiety severity was significantly reduced with clonazepam versus paroxetine at weeks 1 and 2, with no difference in panic disorder severity. Patients treated with clonazepam had fewer adverse events than patients treated with paroxetine (73 vs 95%; P = 0.001). The most common adverse events were drowsiness/fatigue (57%), memory/concentration difficulties (24%), and sexual dysfunction (11%) in the clonazepam group and drowsiness/fatigue (81%), sexual dysfunction (70%), and nausea/vomiting (61%) in the paroxetine group. This naturalistic study confirms the efficacy and tolerability of clonazepam and paroxetine in the acute treatment of patients with panic disorder.

MBBR evaluation for oil refinery wastewater treatment, with post-ozonation and BAC, for wastewater reuse.

This work evaluated the performance of a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) in the treatment of an oil refinery wastewater. Also, it investigated the possibility of reuse of the MBBR effluent, after ozonation in series with a biological activated carbon (BAC) column. The best performance of the MBBR was achieved with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 6 hours, employing a bed to bioreactor volume ratio (V(B)/V(R)) of 0.6. COD and N-NH4(+) MBBR effluent concentrations ranged from 40 to 75 mg L⁻¹ (removal efficiency of 69-89%) and 2 to 6 mg L⁻¹ (removal efficiency of 45-86%), respectively. Ozonation carried out for 15 min with an ozone concentration of 5 mg L⁻¹ was able to improve the treated wastewater biodegradability. The treatment performance of the BAC columns was practically the same for ozonated and non ozonated MBBR effluents. The dissolved organic carbon (DOC) content of the columns of the activated carbon columns (CAG) was in the range of 2.1-3.8 mg L⁻¹, and the corresponding DOC removal efficiencies were comprised between 52 and 75%. The effluent obtained at the end of the proposed treatment presented a quality, which meet the requirements for water reuse in the oil refinery.