TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of AOPs at pilot scale
T2 - Energy costs for micro-pollutants oxidation, disinfection by-products formation and pathogens inactivation
AU - Sgroi, Massimiliano
AU - Snyder, Shane A.
AU - Roccaro, Paolo
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was partially funded by the University of Catania within the “Piano di incentivi per la Ricerca di Ateneo 2020/2022” of the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Project “Materiali e Metodologie chimico-fisiche avanzate per l’abbattimento di contaminanti Xenobiotici (MaMeX)”. Authors acknowledge Dr. Tarun Anumol from Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, California) for his help on the analysis of emerging contaminants, and Dr. Armando Durazo from the University of Arizona for his assistance in the analysis of bromate. Prof. Channah M. Rock and her laboratory staff at the University of Arizona are acknowledged for the help in the microbiological analyses. The authors are also grateful to Jens Scheideler of Wedeco (Xylem, Germany) for the equipment and technical support used in this study.
Funding Information:
This study was partially funded by the University of Catania within the “Piano di incentivi per la Ricerca di Ateneo 2020/2022” of the Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Project “Materiali e Metodologie chimico-fisiche avanzate per l'abbattimento di contaminanti Xenobiotici (MaMeX)”. Authors acknowledge Dr. Tarun Anumol from Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, California) for his help on the analysis of emerging contaminants, and Dr. Armando Durazo from the University of Arizona for his assistance in the analysis of bromate. Prof. Channah M. Rock and her laboratory staff at the University of Arizona are acknowledged for the help in the microbiological analyses. The authors are also grateful to Jens Scheideler of Wedeco (Xylem, Germany) for the equipment and technical support used in this study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - This work evaluated different advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) operated at pilot-scale as tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater in terms of energy efficiency, disinfection by-products formation and pathogens inactivation. Investigated AOPs included UV/H2O2, UV/Cl2, O3, O3/UV, H2O2/O3/UV, Cl2/O3/UV. AOPs were operated using various ozone doses (1.5–9 mg L−1), and UV fluences (191–981 mJ cm−2). Electrical energy costs necessary for the oxidation of contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) (i.e., carbamazepine, fluoxetine, gemfibrozil, primidone, sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim) were calculated using the electrical energy per order (EEO) parameter. Ozonation resulted by far the most energy efficient process, whereas UV/H2O2 and UV/Cl2 showed the highest energy costs. Energy costs for AOPs based on the combination of UV and ozone were in the order O3/UV ≈ Cl2/O3/UV > H2O2/O3/UV, and they were significantly lower than energy costs of UV/H2O2 and UV/Cl2 processes. Cl2/O3/UV increased bromate formation, O3/UV and O3 had same levels of bromate formation, whereas H2O2/O3/UV did not form bromate. In addition, UV photolysis resulted an effective treatment for NDMA mitigation even in combination with ozone and chlorine in AOP technologies. Ozonation (doses of 1.5–6 mg L−1) was the least effective process to inactivate somatic coliphages, total coliform, escherichia coli, and enterococci. UV irradiation was able to completely inactivate somatic coliphages, total coliform, escherichia coli at low fluence (191 mJ cm−2), whereas enterococci were UV resistant. AOPs that utilized UV irradiation were the most effective processes for wastewater disinfection resulting in a complete inactivation of selected indicator organisms by low ozone dose (1.5 mg L−1) and UV fluence (191–465 mJ cm−2).
AB - This work evaluated different advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) operated at pilot-scale as tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater in terms of energy efficiency, disinfection by-products formation and pathogens inactivation. Investigated AOPs included UV/H2O2, UV/Cl2, O3, O3/UV, H2O2/O3/UV, Cl2/O3/UV. AOPs were operated using various ozone doses (1.5–9 mg L−1), and UV fluences (191–981 mJ cm−2). Electrical energy costs necessary for the oxidation of contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) (i.e., carbamazepine, fluoxetine, gemfibrozil, primidone, sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim) were calculated using the electrical energy per order (EEO) parameter. Ozonation resulted by far the most energy efficient process, whereas UV/H2O2 and UV/Cl2 showed the highest energy costs. Energy costs for AOPs based on the combination of UV and ozone were in the order O3/UV ≈ Cl2/O3/UV > H2O2/O3/UV, and they were significantly lower than energy costs of UV/H2O2 and UV/Cl2 processes. Cl2/O3/UV increased bromate formation, O3/UV and O3 had same levels of bromate formation, whereas H2O2/O3/UV did not form bromate. In addition, UV photolysis resulted an effective treatment for NDMA mitigation even in combination with ozone and chlorine in AOP technologies. Ozonation (doses of 1.5–6 mg L−1) was the least effective process to inactivate somatic coliphages, total coliform, escherichia coli, and enterococci. UV irradiation was able to completely inactivate somatic coliphages, total coliform, escherichia coli at low fluence (191 mJ cm−2), whereas enterococci were UV resistant. AOPs that utilized UV irradiation were the most effective processes for wastewater disinfection resulting in a complete inactivation of selected indicator organisms by low ozone dose (1.5 mg L−1) and UV fluence (191–465 mJ cm−2).
KW - Bromate
KW - Emerging contaminants
KW - Nitrosamine
KW - Ozone
KW - UV/Chlorine
KW - Water reuse
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85094603113&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85094603113&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128527
DO - 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128527
M3 - Article
C2 - 33268086
AN - SCOPUS:85094603113
SN - 0045-6535
VL - 273
JO - Chemosphere
JF - Chemosphere
M1 - 128527
ER -