纺织印染废水毒性特征与控制技术研究进展

doi:10.11894/iwt.2021-0180

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

纺织印染废水是典型难降解有毒废水。早期水处理研究主要针对废水的常规污染物去除，近年来纺织印染废水的毒性削减越来越受到关注。从纺织印染废水的毒性特征、潜在关键致毒物以及不同处理工艺的毒性削减性能角度综述了近年来相关研究进展，并对今后研究方向提出建议，旨在为纺织印染废水的安全排放和回用提供参考。

关键词: 纺织印染废水, 毒性, 关键致毒物, 生物处理, 化学处理

Abstract:

Textile dyeing wastewater is a typical refractory wastewater with high toxicity. Previous researches have mainly focused on the removal of conventional pollutants. In recent years, more and more attention has been paid to the toxicity reduction of textile dyeing wastewater. The toxicity characteristics of textile dyeing wastewater, potential key toxicants and toxicity reduction performance of different treatment processes were reviewed. Further, some suggestions for future research direction were put forward, so as to provide insights for the safe discharge and reuse of textile dyeing wastewater.

Key words: textile dyeing wastewater, toxicity, key toxicant, biological treatment, chemical treatment

中图分类号:

X703

姜金宏,何席伟,熊晓敏,张徐祥,任洪强. 纺织印染废水毒性特征与控制技术研究进展[J]. 工业水处理, 2021, 41(6): 77-87.

Jinhong Jiang,Xiwei He,Xiaomin Xiong,Xuxiang Zhang,Hongqiang Ren. Research progress on toxicity characteristics and control technologies of textile dyeing wastewater[J]. Industrial Water Treatment, 2021, 41(6): 77-87.

https://www.iwt.cn/CN/Y2021/V41/I6/77

图/表 2

参考文献 85

1	Balapure K , Jain K , Bhatt N , et al. Exploring bioremediation strategies to enhance the mineralization of textile industrial wastewater through sequential anaerobic-microaerophilic process[J]. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2016, 106, 97- 105. URL
2	Bilinska L , Gmurek M , Ledakowicz S . Comparison between industrial and simulated textile wastewater treatment by AOPs-Biodegradability, toxicity and cost assessment[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2016, 306, 550- 559. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.07.100
3	Liang Jieying , Ning Xunan , Sun Jian , et al. Toxicity evaluation of textile dyeing effluent and its possible relationship with chemical oxygen demand[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2018, 166, 56- 62. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.08.106
4	Ledakowicz S , Zylla R , Pazdzior K , et al. Integration of ozonation and biological treatment of industrial wastewater from dyehouse[J]. Ozone-Science & Engineering, 2017, 39 (5): 357- 365. URL
5	Punzi M , Anbalagan A , Borner R A , et al. Degradation of a textile azo dye using biological treatment followed by photo-Fenton oxidation: Evaluation of toxicity and microbial community structure[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2015, 270, 290- 299. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.02.042
6	Valitalo P , Massei R , Heiskanen I , et al. Effect-based assessment of toxicity removal during wastewater treatment[J]. Water Research, 2017, 126, 153- 163. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.014
7	Norberg-King T J , Embry M R , Belanger S E , et al. An international perspective on the tools and concepts for effluent toxicity assessments in the context of animal alternatives: Reduction in vertebrate use[J]. Environnental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2018, 37 (11): 2745- 2757. doi: 10.1002/etc.4259
8	Sponza D T . Necessity of toxicity assessment in Turkish industrial discharges(Examples from metal and textile industry effluents)[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2002, 73 (1): 41- 66. doi: 10.1023/A:1012663213153
9	Akhtar M F , Ashraf M , Javeed A , et al. Toxicity appraisal of untreated dyeing industry wastewater based on chemical characterization and short term bioassays[J]. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2016, 96 (4): 502- 507. doi: 10.1007/s00128-016-1759-x
10	Villegas-Navarro A , Ramirez Y , Salvador M S , et al. Determination of wastewater LC₅₀ of the different process stages of the textile industry[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2001, 48 (1): 56- 61. doi: 10.1006/eesa.2000.1986
11	Zhang Wenjuan , Liu Wei , Zhang Jing , et al. Characterisation of acute toxicity, genotoxicity and oxidative stress posed by textile effluent on zebrafish[J]. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2012, 24 (11): 2019- 2027. doi: 10.1016/S1001-0742(11)61030-9
12	张文娟. 印染废水与辽河典型区域河水的毒性特征研究[D]. 大连: 大连理工大学, 2012.
13	He Xiwei , Qi Zhaodong , Gao Jie , et al. Nonylphenol ethoxylates biodegradation increases estrogenicity of textile wastewater in biological treatment systems[J]. Water Research, 2020, 184, 116137. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116137
14	Tara N , Iqbal M , Khan Q M , et al. Bioaugmentation of floating treatment wetlands for the remediation of textile effluent[J]. Water Environment Journal, 2019, 33 (1): 124- 134. doi: 10.1111/wej.12383
15	Manenti D R , Modenes A N , Soares P A , et al. Biodegradability and toxicity assessment of a real textile wastewater effluent treated by an optimized electrocoagulation process[J]. Environmental Technology, 2015, 36 (4): 496- 506. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2014.952676
16	Dhaouefi Z , Toledo-Cervantes A , Ghedira K , et al. Decolorization and phytotoxicity reduction in an innovative anaerobic/aerobic photobioreactor treating textile wastewater[J]. Chemosphere, 2019, 234, 356- 364. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.06.106
17	Tkaczyk A , Mitrowska K , Posyniak A . Synthetic organic dyes as contaminants of the aquatic environment and their implications for ecosystems: A review[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 717, 19. URL
18	Mahne D , Stangar U L , Trebse P , et al. TiO₂-based photocatalytic treatment of raw and constructed-wetland pretreated textile wastewater[J]. International Journal of Photoenergy, 2012, (8): 483- 490. URL
19	Hayat H , Mahmood Q , Pervez A , et al. Comparative decolorization of dyes in textile wastewater using biological and chemical treatment[J]. Separation and Purification Technology, 2015, 154, 149- 153. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2015.09.025
20	Croce R , Cina F , Lombardo A , et al. Aquatic toxicity of several textile dye formulations: Acute and chronic assays with Daphnia magna and Raphidocelis subcapitata[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2017, 144, 79- 87. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.05.046
21	Holkar C R , Jadhav A J , Pinjari D V , et al. A critical review on textile wastewater treatments: Possible approaches[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2016, 182, 351- 366. URL
22	李珍珍, 罗建中, 马莉娜, 等. 工业园印染污水中重金属识别与集中处理技术研究[J]. 工业水处理, 2013, (2): 9- 12. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-829X.2013.02.003
23	赵霞, 罗培松, 相巧明. 绍兴市典型印染废水中重金属锑排放现状及排放源调查[J]. 中国环境监测, 2016, (4): 91- 97. URL
24	Sreedharan V , Krithishna K V , Nidheesh P V . Removal of chromium and iron from real textile wastewater by sorption on soils[J]. Journal of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste, 2017, 21 (4): 6017002. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000368
25	Ghorbani M , Eisazadeh H . Removal of COD, color, anions and heavy metals from cotton textile wastewater by using polyaniline and polypyrrole nanocomposites coated on rice husk ash[J]. Composites Part B-Engineering, 2013, 45 (1): 1- 7. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.035
26	Mubashar M , Naveed M , Mustafa A , et al. Experimental investigation of Chlorella vulgaris and Enterobacter sp. MN17 for decolorization and removal of heavy metals from textile wastewater[J]. Water, 2020, 12 (11): 2- 5. URL
27	Abu-Ghunmi L N , Jamrah A I . Biological treatment of textile wastewater using sequencing batch reactor technology[J]. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 2006, 11 (4): 333- 343. doi: 10.1007/s10666-005-9025-3
28	Prabha S , Ramanathan A L , Gogoi A , et al. Suitability of conventional and membrane bioreactor system in textile mill effluent treatment[J]. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2015, 56 (1): 14- 23. doi: 10.1080/19443994.2014.932716
29	Wells M J M , Rossano A J , Roberts E C . Textile waste-water effluent toxicity identification evaluation[J]. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 1994, 27 (4): 555- 560. doi: 10.1007/BF00214849
30	Velusamy S , Roy A , Sundaram S , et al. A Review on heavy metal ions and containing dyes removal through graphene oxide-based adsorption strategies for textile wastewater treatment[J]. Chemical Record, 2021, 41, 1- 42.
31	杨永利. 浅谈纺织印染助剂中的非离子表面活性剂的生产工艺[J]. 中国科技博览, 2016, (2): 73- 73. URL
32	徐世美, 张淑芬, 杨锦宗. 表面活性剂在纺织染整中的应用[J]. 日用化学品科学, 2002, (6): 18- 23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7264.2002.06.006
33	Acir I H , Guenther K . Endocrine. disrupting metabolites of alkylphenol ethoxylates-A critical review of analytical methods, environmental occurrences, toxicity, and regulation[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 635, 1530- 1546. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.079
34	Susana G , Mira P , Maja R , et al. Characterization and quantitative analysis of surfactants in textile wastewater by liquid chromatography/quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry[J]. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry Rcm, 2010, 22 (10): 1445- 1454. URL
35	Sheahan D A , Brighty G C , Daniel M , et al. Reduction in the estrogenic activity of a treated sewage effluent discharge to an English river as a result of a decrease in the concentration of industrially derived surfactants[J]. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 2010, 21 (3): 515- 519.
36	Alessando C , Andrea Filippo M , Sabrina S , et al. Bisphenol A, nonylphenols, benzophenones, and benzotriazoles in soils, groundwater, surface water, sediments, and food: A review[J]. Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 2015, 22 (8): 5711- 5741. URL
37	Boonnorat J , Kanyatrakul A , Prakhongsak A , et al. Effect of hydraulic retention time on micropollutant biodegradation in activated sludge system augmented with acclimatized sludge treating low-micropollutants wastewater[J]. Chemosphere, 2019, 230, 606- 615. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.05.039
38	Del Bubba M , Anichini B , Bakari Z , et al. Physicochemical properties and sorption capacities of sawdust-based biochars and commercial activated carbons towards ethoxylated alkylphenols and their phenolic metabolites in effluent wastewater from a textile district[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 708, 135217. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135217
39	Yaseen D A , Scholz M . Textile dye wastewater characteristics and constituents of synthetic effluents: A critical review[J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2019, 16 (2): 1193- 1226. doi: 10.1007/s13762-018-2130-z
40	Ademoroti C , Ukponmwan D , Omode A . Studies of textile effluent discharges in Nigeria[J]. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 1992, 39 (4): 291- 296. doi: 10.1080/00207239208710704
41	Villegas-Navarro A , Gonzaiez M C R , Lopez E R . Evaluation of Daphnia magna as an indicator of toxicity and treatment efficacy of textile wastewaters[J]. Environment International, 1999, 25 (5): 619- 624. doi: 10.1016/S0160-4120(99)00034-3
42	张宇峰, 滕洁, 张雪英, 等. 印染废水处理技术的研究进展[J]. 工业水处理, 2003, 23 (4): 23- 27. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-829X.2003.04.006
43	Almeida E J R , Corso C R . Decolorization and removal of toxicity of textile azo dyes using fungal biomass pelletized[J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2019, 16 (3): 1319- 1328. doi: 10.1007/s13762-018-1728-5
44	Hasanin M S . Sustainable hybrid silica extracted from rice husk with polyvinyl alcohol and nicotinic acid as multi adsorbent for textile wastewater treatment[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2020, 27 (21): 26742- 26749. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-09104-5
45	Castro M , Nogueira V , Lopes I , et al. Treatment of a textile effluent by adsorption with cork granules and titanium dioxide nanomaterial[J]. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part a-Toxic/ Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 2018, 53 (6): 524- 536. URL
46	GilPavas E , Dobrosz-Gomez I , Gomez-Garcia M A . Optimization and toxicity assessment of a combined electrocoagulation, H₂O₂/Fe²⁺/UV and activated carbon adsorption for textile wastewater treatment[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 651, 551- 560. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.125
47	Malamis S , Katsou E , Haralambous K J . Evaluation of the efficiency of a combined adsorption-ultrafiltration system for the removal of heavy metals, color, and organic matter from textile wastewater[J]. Separation Science and Technology, 2011, 46 (6): 920- 932. doi: 10.1080/01496395.2010.551166
48	Mishra A K , Arockiadoss T , Ramaprabhu S . Study of removal of azo dye by functionalized multi walled carbon nanotubes[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2010, 162 (3): 1026- 1034. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2010.07.014
49	do Nascimento G F O , da Costa G R B , de Araujo C M B , et al. Graphene-based materials production and application in textile wastewater treatment: Color removal and phytotoxicity using Lactuca sativa as bioindicator[J]. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part a-Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 2020, 55 (1): 97- 106. URL
50	Tigini V , Prigione V , Donelli I , et al. Cunninghamella elegans biomass optimisation for textile wastewater biosorption treatment: An analytical and ecotoxicological approach[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2011, 90 (1): 343- 352. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-3010-8
51	赵雪, 何瑾馨, 展义臻. 印染废水处理技术的研究进展[J]. 化学工业与工程技术, 2009, 30 (2): 38- 43. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7906.2009.02.010
52	Dulov A , Dulova N , Trapido M . Combined physicochemical treatment of textile and mixed industrial wastewater[J]. Ozone-Science & Engineering, 2011, 33 (4): 285- 293.
53	Pazdzior K , Wrebiak J , Ledakowicz S . Treatment of industrial textile wastewater in biological aerated filters-Microbial diversity analysis[J]. Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe, 2020, 28 (1): 106- 114. URL
54	Vijayaraghavan G , Shanthakumar S . Removal of crystal violet dye in textile effluent by coagulation using algal alginate from brown algae Sargassum sp[J]. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2020, 196, 402- 408. doi: 10.5004/dwt.2020.25569
55	Freitas T K F S , Oliveira V M , de Souza M T F , et al. Optimization of coagulation-flocculation process for treatment of industrial textile wastewater using okra(A. esculentus) mucilage as natural coagulant[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2015, 76, 538- 544. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.06.027
56	Dotto J , Fagundes-Klen M R , Veit M T , et al. Performance of different coagulants in the coagulation/flocculation process of textile wastewater[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 208, 656- 665. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.112
57	de Wilt A , van Gijn K , Verhoek T , et al. Enhanced pharmaceutical removal from water in a three step bio-ozone-bio process[J]. Water Research, 2018, 138, 97- 105. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.028
58	Liang Jieying , Ning Xunan , Sun Jian , et al. An integrated permanganate and ozone process for the treatment of textile dyeing wastewater: Efficiency and mechanism[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 204, 12- 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.112
59	Selcuk H , Eremektar G , Meric S . The effect of pre-ozone oxidation on acute toxicity and inert soluble COD fractions of a textile finishing industry wastewater[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2006, 137 (1): 254- 260. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.01.055
60	Oktem Y A , Yuzer B , Aydin M I , et al. Chloride or sulfate-Consequences for ozonation of textile wastewater[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2019, 247, 749- 755. URL
61	Nidheesh P V , Gandhimathi R , Ramesh S T . Degradation of dyes from aqueous solution by Fenton processes: A review[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2013, 20 (4): 2099- 2132. URL
62	Meric S , Selcuk H , Belgiorno V . Acute toxicity removal in textile finishing wastewater by Fenton's oxidation, ozone and coagulationflocculation processes[J]. Water Research, 2005, 39 (6): 1147- 1153. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.12.021
63	GilPavas E , Correa-Sanchez S , Acosta D A . Using scrap zero valent iron to replace dissolved iron in the Fenton process for textile wastewater treatment: Optimization and assessment of toxicity and biodegradability[J]. Environmental Pollution, 2019, 252, 1709- 1718. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.06.104
64	Thomas M , Zdebik D . Treatment of real textile wastewater by using potassium ferrate(Ⅵ) and Fe(Ⅲ)/H₂O₂. Application of Aliivibrio Fischeri and Brachionus plicatilis tests for toxicity assessment[J]. Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe, 2019, 27 (3): 78- 84.
65	Kaur P , Sangal V K , Kushwaha J P . Parametric study of electro-Fenton treatment for real textile wastewater, disposal study and its cost analysis[J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2019, 16 (2): 801- 810. doi: 10.1007/s13762-018-1696-9
66	Kaur P , Kushwaha J P , Sangal V K . Transformation products and degradation pathway of textile industry wastewater pollutants in Electro-Fenton process[J]. Chemosphere, 2018, 207, 690- 698. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.114
67	Starling M C V M , Rodrigues dos Santos P H , Ribeiro de Souza F A , et al. Application of solar photo-Fenton toward toxicity removal and textile wastewater reuse[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017, 24 (14): 12515- 12528. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7395-5
68	Pazdzior K , Wrebiak J , Klepacz-Smolka A , et al. Influence of ozonation and biodegradation on toxicity of industrial textile wastewater[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 195, 166- 173. URL
69	Saratale R G , Saratale G D , Chang J S , et al. Bacterial decolorization and degradation of azo dyes: A review[J]. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2011, 42 (1): 138- 157. doi: 10.1016/j.jtice.2010.06.006
70	Frijters C , Vos R H , Scheffer G , et al. Decolorizing and detoxifying textile wastewater, containing both soluble and insoluble dyes, in a full scale combined anaerobic/aerobic system[J]. Water Research, 2006, 40 (6): 1249- 1257. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.01.013
71	Vymazal J . Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Five decades of experience[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45 (1): 61- 69. URL
72	Khandare R V , Govindwar S P . Phytoremediation of textile dyes and effluents: Current scenario and future prospects[J]. Biotechnology Advances, 2015, 33 (8): 1697- 1714. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.09.003
73	Hussain Z , Arslan M , Shabir G , et al. Remediation of textile bleaching effluent by bacterial augmented horizontal flow and vertical flow constructed wetlands: A comparison at pilot scale[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 685, 370- 379. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.414
74	Oller I , Malato S , Sanchez-Perez J A . Combination of advanced oxidation processes and biological treatments for wastewater decontamination-A review[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2011, 409 (20): 4141- 4166. URL
75	Punzi M , Nilsson F , Anbalagan A , et al. Combined anaerobic-ozonation process for treatment of textile wastewater: Removal of acute toxicity and mutagenicity[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2015, 292, 52- 60. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.03.018
76	Somensi C A , Simionatto E L , Bertoli S L , et al. Use of ozone in a pilot-scale plant for textile wastewater pre-treatment: Physico-chemical efficiency, degradation by-products identification and environmental toxicity of treated wastewater[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2010, 175 (1/2/3): 235- 240. URL
77	Baban A , Yediler A , Lienert D , et al. Ozonation of high strength segregated effluents from a woollen textile dyeing and finishing plant[J]. Dyes and Pigments, 2003, 58 (2): 93- 98. doi: 10.1016/S0143-7208(03)00047-0
78	Assalin M R , Almeida E S , Rosa M A , et al. Application of ozonation process in industrial wastewaters: Textile, Kraft E-1 and whey effluents[J]. Environmental Technology, 2004, 25 (8): 867- 872. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2004.9619379
79	Rosa E V C , Simionatto E L , Sierra M M D , et al. Toxicity-based criteria for the evaluation of textile wastewater treatment efficiency[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2001, 20 (4): 839- 845. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620200420
80	Castro A M , Nogueira V , Lopes I , et al. Evaluation of the potential toxicity of effluents from the textile industry before and after treatment[J]. Applied Science-Basel, 2019, 9 (18): 15. URL
81	Giorgetti L , Talouizte H , Merzouki M , et al. Genotoxicity evaluation of effluents from textile industries of the region Fez-Boulmane, Morocco: A case study[J]. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2011, 74 (8): 2275- 2283. URL
82	Baban A , Yediler A , Ciliz N , et al. Biodegradability oriented treatability studies on high strength segregated wastewater of a woolen textile dyeing plant[J]. Chemosphere, 2004, 57 (7): 731- 738. URL
83	Shehzadi M , Afzal M , Khan M U , et al. Enhanced degradation of textile effluent in constructed wetland system using Typha domingensis and textile effluent-degrading endophytic bacteria[J]. Water Research, 2014, 58, 152- 159. URL
84	Kim H L , Cho J B , Park Y J , et al. Treatment and toxicity reduction of textile dyeing wastewater using the electrocoagulation-electroflotation process[J]. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part a-Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 2016, 51 (8): 661- 668. URL
85	Torres N H , Souza B S , Romanholo Ferreira L F , et al. Real textile effluents treatment using coagulation/flocculation followed by electrochemical oxidation process and ecotoxicological assessment[J]. Chemosphere, 2019, 236, 124309. URL

废水类型	进水		处理工艺	出水			参考文献
废水类型	水质特征	毒性	处理工艺	毒性削减率	COD削减率	色度削减率	参考文献
实际废水（高级氧化后出水）	COD 238~274 mg/L；B/C 0.42~0.46	卤虫（Artemia salina）急性毒性40%~80%致死率	活性炭吸附（废水以20 mL/min流速通过45 g活性炭）	40%~70%	4.4%~5.0%	7.5%~9.1%	〔46〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	混凝/絮凝（FeCl₃ 0.6 g/L，pH=4）	75.9%	约46%	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	混凝/絮凝（FeCl₃ 0.6 g/L，pH=9）	88.7%	约46%	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 27	混凝/絮凝（Epoly CRD 1.0 g/L）	62%	31%	94%~99%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 27	混凝/絮凝（PAX 18 1.6 cm³/L）	77%	41%	49%~58%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 1 257 mg/L；B/C 0.16	莴苣（Lactuca sativa）种子发芽抑制TU 5.26	电絮凝（电流142.9 A/m²，60 min，pH 7.0）	37.5%	72%	/	〔13〕
实际废水	COD 900~950 mg/L；B/C 0.16~0.19	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性100%致死率（75%稀释浓度）	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率10.5~13.6 g/h，反应体系1 L，30~45 min，pH 8.6~8.8）	80%~90%	57%~64%	86%~96%	〔59〕
实际废水	COD 1 505 mg/L；B/C 0.06	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 29.41	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率20 g/h，反应体系18 L，4 h，pH 9）	88.1%	25.5%	68%	〔76〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率10 mg/min，反应体系1 L，120 min，pH 3）	约100%	/	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率10 mg/min，反应体系1 L，120 min，pH 8.2）	76.9%	/	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 700 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性GL 24	臭氧氧化（40 min，O₃消耗80.2 mg/L，pH 8.3）	66.7%	14.7%	56.5%~59.8%	〔77〕
实际废水（生化后出水）	COD 450 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性GL 6	臭氧氧化（10 min，O₃消耗18.8 mg/L，pH 8.3）	66.7%	15.6%	35.5%~42.6%	〔77〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.5 g/L，pH 9.5）	约60%	约16%	约50%	〔4〕
实际废水	/	月牙藻（Selenastrum capricornutum）生长抑制率38%	臭氧氧化（60 min，O₃消耗14 mg/L）	65.8%	43%（TOC削减率）	>90%	〔78〕
实际废水（生化后出水）	COD 192~480 mg/L；B/C 0.05~0.13	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 4.7~240；栅藻（Desmodesmus subspicatus）生长抑制TU 3.2~4.9	臭氧+ KMnO₄氧化（O₃ 10 mg/L，KMnO₄ 1.5 mmol/L，30 min，pH 7）	34.4%~95.5%	72.6%~87.5%	/	〔58〕
实际废水	COD 1 512 mg/L；B/C 0.06	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 18.5	臭氧氧化（实际工程，无剂量信息）	83.8%	87%	80.9%	〔79〕
实际废水	COD 910 mg/L；B/C 0.16	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性致死率100%（50%稀释浓度）	芬顿氧化（FeSO₄ 300 mg/L，H₂O₂ 800 mg/L，20 min，pH 3.5）	100%（致死率0%）	约60%	约87%	〔62〕
实际废水	COD 875 mg/L；B/C 0.22	卤虫（Artemia salina）急性毒性致死率60%	芬顿氧化（零价废铁2 000 mg/L，H₂O₂ 24.3 mmol/L，60 min，pH=3）	40%（致死率20%）	76%	95%	〔63〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	芬顿氧化〔（m（H₂O₂）/m（Fe²⁺）=6∶1〕	约100%	/	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 920 mg/L；B/C 0.22	发光菌（Aliivibrio fischeri）急性毒性抑制率99%；轮虫（Brachionus plicatilis）急性毒性致死率100%	芬顿氧化（K₂FeO₄ 0.259 g/L，H₂O₂ 2.65 g/L，pH 4.4）	33%（发光菌）；45%（轮虫）	75.4%	/	〔64〕
实际废水	COD 418 mg/L	发光菌（Aliivibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU=3	光芬顿氧化（FeSO₄ 20 mg/L，H₂O₂ 500 mg/L，辐照37.5 W/m²，5 h，pH 3）	66.7%	100%	100%	〔67〕
实际废水	COD 1 156 mg/L；B/C 0.17	鳉鱼（Aploclzeilus panchax）急性毒性致死率100%	电芬顿氧化（Ti/RuO₂电极，Fe 0.55 mmol/L，电流1.10 A，电压5.8V，137 min，pH 3）	100%（致死率0%）	84%	94%	〔66〕
实际废水	/	发光菌（Aliivibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 13.9；大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 4.1	好氧活性污泥法（实际工程）	>92.8%（发光菌）；>75.6%（大型溞）	/	/	〔80〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 27	曝气生物滤池（HRT 72 h）	92%~94%	48%~62%	18%~38%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 850~1 065mg/L；B/C 0.24~0.29	TU=16.58~44.05（Vibrio fischeri）	SBR（HRT 48 h）	78%~87%	约60%	/	〔68〕
实际废水	COD 887 mg/L；B/C 0.14	对酵母（S. cerevisiae）有显著基因毒性	SBR（HRT 24 h）	对酵母（S. cerevisiae）无显著基因毒性	96.6%	86%~94%	〔81〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 34	SBR（HRT 48 h）	约70%	约62%	约36%	〔4〕
实际废水	COD 378 mg/L	斑马鱼急性毒性致死率20%（50%稀释浓度）	厌氧-好氧生物法（HRT 6.5 h，实际工程）	20%（致死率0%）	16.4%	/	〔11〕
实际废水	COD 4 500 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU20 50	厌氧-好氧生物法（HRT 43 h）	>95.6%	80%~90%	80%~95%	〔70〕
实际废水	COD 10 000 mg/L；B/C 0.33	高粱（Sorghum vulgare）、小麦（Triticum asetivum）、绿豆（Phaseolus mungo）种子发芽抑制率75%~82%	厌氧生物膜反应器+微需氧生物膜反应器（HRT 60 h）	74%~81%（发芽抑制率0%~1%）	99%	99%	〔1〕
实际废水	COD 542~860 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 4.9~211.2；栅藻（Desmodesmus subspicatus）生长抑制TU 4.7~7.0	AD-AB-MF；AD-AB-SB-SF；PC-AD-AB-SF；PC-AD-AB-BSB-ESB-BAF（实际工程）	31.4%~92.3%	81.7%~91.9%	69.4%~87.5%	〔3〕
实际废水	COD 1 700 mg/L	发光菌急性毒性GL 24	厌氧-好氧生物法（SRT 15 d）	75%	73.5%	约50%	〔82〕
模拟废水	COD 623 mg/L；B/C 0.50	萝卜（Raphanus sativus）种子发芽抑制率52%	厌氧-好氧光合生物（藻-菌）反应器（HRT 8 d）	52%（抑制率0%）	>78%（TOC削减率）	>95%	〔14〕
实际废水	COD 471 mg/L；B/C 0.52	小麦（Triticum aesativum）种子发芽抑制率59.66%；绿豆（Phaseolus mungo）种子发芽抑制率69.55%	人工湿地（Typha domingensis）+微生物强化（Poa labillardierei+Lolium perenne+Polygonum aviculare）（HRT 8 d）	40.1%（小麦，抑制率19.6%）；60.3%（绿豆，抑制率9.28%）	83.9%	/	〔12〕
实际废水	COD 410 mg/L；B/C 0.50	沙门氏菌TA98 MR 3.69；TA100 MR 3.02	人工湿地（Typha domingensis）+微生物强化（Microbacterium arborescens TYSI04+Bacilluspumilus PIRI30）（HRT 72 h）	82.9%（TA98）；80.5%（TA100）	79.3%	/	〔83〕
实际废水	COD 690 mg/L；B/C 0.36	鲤鱼（Labeo rohita）急性毒性致死率100%	人工湿地（Phragmites australis）+微生物强化（Bacillus endophyticus PISI25，Microbacterium arborescens TYSI04，和Pantoea sp. TYRI15）（HRT 72 h）	100%（致死率0%）	87.1%	/	〔73〕
实际废水	COD 768 mg/L；B/C 0.29	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 4.4	电絮凝-电气浮法（电流密度300 A/m²，絮凝剂30 mg/L，20 min）	75%	94%	/	〔84〕
实际废水	COD 1 130 mg/L；TOC=734 mg/L；B/C 0.26	绿藻（Raphidocelis subcapitata）生长抑制TU 3.57；莴苣（Lactuca sativa）种子发芽抑制率61.3%（50%稀释度浓度）	混凝/絮凝+电芬顿氧化〔（Al₂（SO₄）₃ 20 mg/L，Engeclean CA 34絮凝剂76.7 mg/L，Ti/Ti_0.7Ru_0.3O₂电极，电流300 mA，180 min〕	47.1%（绿藻）；41.3%（莴苣，抑制率20%）	82%（TOC削减率）	/	〔85〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 27	曝气生物滤池（HRT 72 h）+PAX 18（1.6 cm³/L）	98%	87%	81%~93%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 1 714 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU20 29.4	厌氧生物膜反应器（HRT 3 d）+臭氧氧化（6 min，O₃消耗0.38 g/L）	约95%	68.5%	/	〔75〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.5 g/L）+SBR（HRT 48 h）	81%	62%	73%	〔4〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	SBR（HRT 48 h）+臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.384 g/L）	94%	66%	89%	〔4〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	SBR（HRT 48 h）+臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.384 g/L）+ HCFB（HRT 48 h）	约96%	72%	约90%	〔4〕

废水类型	进水		处理工艺	出水			参考文献
废水类型	水质特征	毒性	处理工艺	毒性削减率	COD削减率	色度削减率	参考文献
实际废水（高级氧化后出水）	COD 238~274 mg/L；B/C 0.42~0.46	卤虫（Artemia salina）急性毒性40%~80%致死率	活性炭吸附（废水以20 mL/min流速通过45 g活性炭）	40%~70%	4.4%~5.0%	7.5%~9.1%	〔46〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	混凝/絮凝（FeCl₃ 0.6 g/L，pH=4）	75.9%	约46%	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	混凝/絮凝（FeCl₃ 0.6 g/L，pH=9）	88.7%	约46%	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 27	混凝/絮凝（Epoly CRD 1.0 g/L）	62%	31%	94%~99%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 27	混凝/絮凝（PAX 18 1.6 cm³/L）	77%	41%	49%~58%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 1 257 mg/L；B/C 0.16	莴苣（Lactuca sativa）种子发芽抑制TU 5.26	电絮凝（电流142.9 A/m²，60 min，pH 7.0）	37.5%	72%	/	〔13〕
实际废水	COD 900~950 mg/L；B/C 0.16~0.19	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性100%致死率（75%稀释浓度）	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率10.5~13.6 g/h，反应体系1 L，30~45 min，pH 8.6~8.8）	80%~90%	57%~64%	86%~96%	〔59〕
实际废水	COD 1 505 mg/L；B/C 0.06	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 29.41	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率20 g/h，反应体系18 L，4 h，pH 9）	88.1%	25.5%	68%	〔76〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率10 mg/min，反应体系1 L，120 min，pH 3）	约100%	/	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	臭氧氧化（O₃通入速率10 mg/min，反应体系1 L，120 min，pH 8.2）	76.9%	/	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 700 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性GL 24	臭氧氧化（40 min，O₃消耗80.2 mg/L，pH 8.3）	66.7%	14.7%	56.5%~59.8%	〔77〕
实际废水（生化后出水）	COD 450 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性GL 6	臭氧氧化（10 min，O₃消耗18.8 mg/L，pH 8.3）	66.7%	15.6%	35.5%~42.6%	〔77〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.5 g/L，pH 9.5）	约60%	约16%	约50%	〔4〕
实际废水	/	月牙藻（Selenastrum capricornutum）生长抑制率38%	臭氧氧化（60 min，O₃消耗14 mg/L）	65.8%	43%（TOC削减率）	>90%	〔78〕
实际废水（生化后出水）	COD 192~480 mg/L；B/C 0.05~0.13	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 4.7~240；栅藻（Desmodesmus subspicatus）生长抑制TU 3.2~4.9	臭氧+ KMnO₄氧化（O₃ 10 mg/L，KMnO₄ 1.5 mmol/L，30 min，pH 7）	34.4%~95.5%	72.6%~87.5%	/	〔58〕
实际废水	COD 1 512 mg/L；B/C 0.06	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 18.5	臭氧氧化（实际工程，无剂量信息）	83.8%	87%	80.9%	〔79〕
实际废水	COD 910 mg/L；B/C 0.16	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性致死率100%（50%稀释浓度）	芬顿氧化（FeSO₄ 300 mg/L，H₂O₂ 800 mg/L，20 min，pH 3.5）	100%（致死率0%）	约60%	约87%	〔62〕
实际废水	COD 875 mg/L；B/C 0.22	卤虫（Artemia salina）急性毒性致死率60%	芬顿氧化（零价废铁2 000 mg/L，H₂O₂ 24.3 mmol/L，60 min，pH=3）	40%（致死率20%）	76%	95%	〔63〕
实际废水	COD 1 634 mg/L；B/C 0.33	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 11.07	芬顿氧化〔（m（H₂O₂）/m（Fe²⁺）=6∶1〕	约100%	/	/	〔52〕
实际废水	COD 1 920 mg/L；B/C 0.22	发光菌（Aliivibrio fischeri）急性毒性抑制率99%；轮虫（Brachionus plicatilis）急性毒性致死率100%	芬顿氧化（K₂FeO₄ 0.259 g/L，H₂O₂ 2.65 g/L，pH 4.4）	33%（发光菌）；45%（轮虫）	75.4%	/	〔64〕
实际废水	COD 418 mg/L	发光菌（Aliivibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU=3	光芬顿氧化（FeSO₄ 20 mg/L，H₂O₂ 500 mg/L，辐照37.5 W/m²，5 h，pH 3）	66.7%	100%	100%	〔67〕
实际废水	COD 1 156 mg/L；B/C 0.17	鳉鱼（Aploclzeilus panchax）急性毒性致死率100%	电芬顿氧化（Ti/RuO₂电极，Fe 0.55 mmol/L，电流1.10 A，电压5.8V，137 min，pH 3）	100%（致死率0%）	84%	94%	〔66〕
实际废水	/	发光菌（Aliivibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 13.9；大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 4.1	好氧活性污泥法（实际工程）	>92.8%（发光菌）；>75.6%（大型溞）	/	/	〔80〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 27	曝气生物滤池（HRT 72 h）	92%~94%	48%~62%	18%~38%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 850~1 065mg/L；B/C 0.24~0.29	TU=16.58~44.05（Vibrio fischeri）	SBR（HRT 48 h）	78%~87%	约60%	/	〔68〕
实际废水	COD 887 mg/L；B/C 0.14	对酵母（S. cerevisiae）有显著基因毒性	SBR（HRT 24 h）	对酵母（S. cerevisiae）无显著基因毒性	96.6%	86%~94%	〔81〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fisheri）急性毒性TU 34	SBR（HRT 48 h）	约70%	约62%	约36%	〔4〕
实际废水	COD 378 mg/L	斑马鱼急性毒性致死率20%（50%稀释浓度）	厌氧-好氧生物法（HRT 6.5 h，实际工程）	20%（致死率0%）	16.4%	/	〔11〕
实际废水	COD 4 500 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU20 50	厌氧-好氧生物法（HRT 43 h）	>95.6%	80%~90%	80%~95%	〔70〕
实际废水	COD 10 000 mg/L；B/C 0.33	高粱（Sorghum vulgare）、小麦（Triticum asetivum）、绿豆（Phaseolus mungo）种子发芽抑制率75%~82%	厌氧生物膜反应器+微需氧生物膜反应器（HRT 60 h）	74%~81%（发芽抑制率0%~1%）	99%	99%	〔1〕
实际废水	COD 542~860 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 4.9~211.2；栅藻（Desmodesmus subspicatus）生长抑制TU 4.7~7.0	AD-AB-MF；AD-AB-SB-SF；PC-AD-AB-SF；PC-AD-AB-BSB-ESB-BAF（实际工程）	31.4%~92.3%	81.7%~91.9%	69.4%~87.5%	〔3〕
实际废水	COD 1 700 mg/L	发光菌急性毒性GL 24	厌氧-好氧生物法（SRT 15 d）	75%	73.5%	约50%	〔82〕
模拟废水	COD 623 mg/L；B/C 0.50	萝卜（Raphanus sativus）种子发芽抑制率52%	厌氧-好氧光合生物（藻-菌）反应器（HRT 8 d）	52%（抑制率0%）	>78%（TOC削减率）	>95%	〔14〕
实际废水	COD 471 mg/L；B/C 0.52	小麦（Triticum aesativum）种子发芽抑制率59.66%；绿豆（Phaseolus mungo）种子发芽抑制率69.55%	人工湿地（Typha domingensis）+微生物强化（Poa labillardierei+Lolium perenne+Polygonum aviculare）（HRT 8 d）	40.1%（小麦，抑制率19.6%）；60.3%（绿豆，抑制率9.28%）	83.9%	/	〔12〕
实际废水	COD 410 mg/L；B/C 0.50	沙门氏菌TA98 MR 3.69；TA100 MR 3.02	人工湿地（Typha domingensis）+微生物强化（Microbacterium arborescens TYSI04+Bacilluspumilus PIRI30）（HRT 72 h）	82.9%（TA98）；80.5%（TA100）	79.3%	/	〔83〕
实际废水	COD 690 mg/L；B/C 0.36	鲤鱼（Labeo rohita）急性毒性致死率100%	人工湿地（Phragmites australis）+微生物强化（Bacillus endophyticus PISI25，Microbacterium arborescens TYSI04，和Pantoea sp. TYRI15）（HRT 72 h）	100%（致死率0%）	87.1%	/	〔73〕
实际废水	COD 768 mg/L；B/C 0.29	大型溞（Daphnia magna）急性毒性TU 4.4	电絮凝-电气浮法（电流密度300 A/m²，絮凝剂30 mg/L，20 min）	75%	94%	/	〔84〕
实际废水	COD 1 130 mg/L；TOC=734 mg/L；B/C 0.26	绿藻（Raphidocelis subcapitata）生长抑制TU 3.57；莴苣（Lactuca sativa）种子发芽抑制率61.3%（50%稀释度浓度）	混凝/絮凝+电芬顿氧化〔（Al₂（SO₄）₃ 20 mg/L，Engeclean CA 34絮凝剂76.7 mg/L，Ti/Ti_0.7Ru_0.3O₂电极，电流300 mA，180 min〕	47.1%（绿藻）；41.3%（莴苣，抑制率20%）	82%（TOC削减率）	/	〔85〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.29	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 27	曝气生物滤池（HRT 72 h）+PAX 18（1.6 cm³/L）	98%	87%	81%~93%	〔53〕
实际废水	COD 1 714 mg/L	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU20 29.4	厌氧生物膜反应器（HRT 3 d）+臭氧氧化（6 min，O₃消耗0.38 g/L）	约95%	68.5%	/	〔75〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.5 g/L）+SBR（HRT 48 h）	81%	62%	73%	〔4〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	SBR（HRT 48 h）+臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.384 g/L）	94%	66%	89%	〔4〕
实际废水	COD 990 mg/L；B/C 0.28	发光菌（Vibrio fischeri）急性毒性TU 34	SBR（HRT 48 h）+臭氧氧化（120 min，O₃消耗0.384 g/L）+ HCFB（HRT 48 h）	约96%	72%	约90%	〔4〕

[1]	李守彪, 吴亚品, 徐凤麒, 郭宇, 颜薇, 江波. ClO _x ^-产物对电氧化去除COD性能评价及水体毒性影响[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(9): 143-150.
[2]	陈可欣, 辜凌云, 余春秀, 熊兆锟, 王学杰, 刘方, 吴怡, 赖波. 医疗污水中新污染物特征与环境归趋研究进展[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(8): 1-12.
[3]	陈文超, 李勇超, 杨昕旻, 刘佳浩, 单胜道. 多行业污泥生物炭特性及深度处理工业废水行为研究[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(8): 70-80.
[4]	王来春, 钱佳, 金凯, 许柯, 黄辉, 王庆. 内分泌干扰毒性深度削减关键技术及工艺研究[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(8): 114-121.
[5]	薛罡. 论纺织印染废水低碳治理[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(7): 1-8.
[6]	李海鹏, 麻微微. 石化废水处理厂特征污染物变化及水质安全研究[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(6): 88-93.
[7]	高品, 于晓霏, 杨婧, 陈晓倩. 工业废水综合毒性评价方法及其应用研究进展[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(4): 19-29.
[8]	李泽乙, 廖常盛, 柴云, 王庆宏, 詹亚力, 陈春茂, 陈发源. 焦化废水生化尾水特征及其深度处理技术进展[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(3): 10-23.
[9]	邓岳鹏, 赵鹏, 唐升引, 李赫, 杨锴, 徐旋波, 张锡辉. OAAO-陶瓷膜MBR一体化工艺用于市政污水处理厂扩容工程[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(10): 201-206.
[10]	史曼伊, 申渝, 傅慧敏, 陈猷鹏. 工厂化循环水养殖系统重金属积累的生物毒性及去除技术[J]. 工业水处理, 2024, 44(10): 18-31.
[11]	范雪滢, 赖伟, 梁诗捷, 林健辉, 吴欣颖, 梅承芳, 曾国驱. 市政污泥挥发性有机物及浸出液毒性相关性分析[J]. 工业水处理, 2023, 43(7): 160-168.
[12]	于凡, 谭凤训, 罗从伟, 武道吉, 陈永凯, 李明安. 日光/氯氧化体系降解阿特拉津的效能及机理研究[J]. 工业水处理, 2023, 43(5): 77-84.
[13]	张皓, 刘海成, 陈国栋, 孟无霜, 尤雨, 曹梦茹. 微塑料吸附水环境中重金属的研究进展[J]. 工业水处理, 2023, 43(4): 36-44.
[14]	李明安, 王榕, 罗从伟, 宋阳, 武道吉, 谭凤训, 成小翔. LED-UV₃₆₅/PDS体系降解碘帕醇的效能及机制研究[J]. 工业水处理, 2023, 43(4): 63-70.
[15]	韩涛, 李彦刚, 许骐, 李津, 李文涛, 强志民. 水质背景对过流式紫外/氯工艺降解有机污染物的影响[J]. 工业水处理, 2023, 43(3): 105-113.

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容