Advanced oxidation technologies (AOTs), which involve the in situ generation of highly potent chemical oxidants, such as the hydroxyl radical (áOH), have emerged as an important class of technologies for accelerating the oxidation (and hence removal) of a wide range of organic contaminants in polluted water and air. In this report, standard figures-of-merit are proposed for the comparison and evaluation of these waste treatment technologies. These figures-of-merit are based on electric-energy consumption (for electric-energy-driven systems) or collector area (for solar-energy-driven systems). They fit within two phenomenological kinetic order regimes: 1) for high contaminant concentrations (electric energy per mass, EEM, or collector area per mass, ACM) and 2) for low concentrations (electric energy per order of magnitude, EEO, or collector area per order of magnitude, ACO). Furthermore, a simple understanding of the overall kinetic behavior of organic contaminant removal in a waste stream (i.e., whether zero- or first-order) is shown to be necessary for the description of meaningful electric- or solar-energy efficiencies. These standard figures-of-merit provide a direct link to the electric- or solar-energy efficiency (lower values mean higher efficiency) of an advanced oxidation technology, independent of the nature of the system, and therefore allow for direct comparison of widely disparate AOTs. These figures-of-merit are also shown to be inversely proportional to fundamental efficiency factors, such as the lamp efficiency (for electrical systems), the fraction of the emitted light that is absorbed in the aqueous solution, and the quantum yield of generation of active radicals.

Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), which involve the in-situ generation of highly potent chemical oxidants such as the hydroxyl radical (•OH), have recently emerged as an important class of technologies for accelerating the oxidation and hence destruction of a wide range of organic contaminants in polluted water and air. We propose generally applicable standard figures-of-merit for comparing these waste treatment technologies. These figures-of-merit are based on electrical energy consumption within two phenomenological kinetic order regimes: one for high contaminant concentrations (electrical energy per mass, EE/M) and one for low concentrations (electrical energy per order of magnitude per m

No abstract

The concept of Electrical Energy per Order (EEO) was introduced in 2001 as a figure of merit for evaluating the energy requirements of ultraviolet-based advanced oxidation processes (UV AOPs) used for the degradation of various organic contaminants. The EEO parameter represents the energy input into the reactor that can achieve an order of magnitude decrease in the concentration of a target contaminant in a unit volume. Since the introduction of this parameter, it has become increasingly popular among UV AOP researchers and practitioners. However, the EEO is often reported without important details that affect the parameter, making its interpretation difficult. The EEO depends on a variety of factors (e.g. the concentration and identity of the target contaminant and the amount of hydrogen peroxide added). Therefore, the EEO parameter needs to be reported in the literature with several other experimental details affecting the reactor performance and in a way that proper comparisons can be made between reactors across studies or manufacturers. This paper discusses the proper application of the EEO parameter for bench-, pilot-, and full-scale studies. Sucralose (artificial sweetener, C12H19Cl3O8) is proposed as a standard substance for reactor comparison.

The shipping industry is critical to international commerce; however, contemporary shipping practices involve uptake and discharge of ballast water, which introduces the potential for transfer of nonindigenous, invasive species among geographically distinct habitats. To counteract this hazard, regulations for ballast water management have been implemented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and by regulatory agencies such as the United States Coast Guard (USCG). IMO and USCG discharge standards are numerically identical, but involve different definitions of treatment end points, which are based on fundamentally different biological assays for quantification of ballast water treatment effectiveness. Available assays for quantification of the responses of organisms in the 10-50 μm size range include vital stains based on fluorescein diacetate (FDA), sometimes used in combination with 5-chloromethylfluorescein diacetate (CMFDA), observations of motility, and the most probable number dilution culture method (MPN). The mechanisms and implications of these assays are discussed relative to the Type Approval process, which quantitatively evaluates compliance with ballast water discharge standards (BWDSs) under controlled shipboard and land-based tests. For antimicrobial processes that accomplish treatment by preventing subsequent replication of the target species, the FDA/CMFDA and MPN methods can yield dramatically different results. An important example of a treatment process that is affected by the choice of assay is ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. Results of laboratory and field experiments have demonstrated UV-based technologies to be effective for accomplishing the objectives of ballast water treatment (inactivation of cellular reproduction), when the MPN assay is used as the basis for evaluation. The FDA, CMFDA, motility, and MPN methods are subject to well recognized sources of error; however, the MPN method is based on a response that is consistent with the objectives of ballast water management as well as the mechanism of action of UV-based inactivation. Complementary assays are available for use in compliance testing; however, the development of relevant indicative tests remains as a research priority. Historical lessons learned from applications of vital stains (and other indirect methods) for quantification of microbial responses to UV irradiation in other settings also support the use of assays that provide a direct measure of growth and reproduction, such as MPN. Collectively, these observations point to the use of MPN assays as the standard for type testing, especially when UV-based treatment is employed.