A Comparison Among Different Wastewater Disinfection Systems: Experimental Results

Collivignarelli, Carlo; Bertanza, Giorgio; Pedrazzani, Roberta

doi:10.1080/09593332108618137

Cited by 38 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The cost of PAA disinfection per amount of treated municipal wastewater has been estimated to be 0.0200-0.0645 €/m 3 [16,127,196,197], whereas the corresponding cost of PFA disinfection was reported to be 0.010-0.011 €/m 3 [16,198]. [16,146]. According to Collivignarelli et al [146], the investment costs of disinfection systems for biologically treated municipal wastewater are (from the highest to the lowest): UV > ozone > PAA > chlorine dioxide.…”

Section: Costs Of Disinfectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[16,146]. According to Collivignarelli et al [146], the investment costs of disinfection systems for biologically treated municipal wastewater are (from the highest to the lowest): UV > ozone > PAA > chlorine dioxide. In another study, the investment costs of a PAA system (including equipment, construction, electricity, automation, and overheads) were estimated to be 0.4 M€ for a 24 000 m 3 /d capacity plant with an additional annual investment cost of 0.052 M€ [197].…”

Section: Costs Of Disinfectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Luukkonen

Pehkonen

2016

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

255

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peracids have gained interest in the water treatment over the last few decades. Peracetic acid (CH 3 CO 3 H) has already become an accepted alternative disinfectant in wastewater disinfection whereas performic acid (CHO 3 H) has been studied much less, although it is also already commercially available. Peracids have also been tested for drinking water disinfection, oxidation of aqueous (micro)pollutants, sludge treatment and ballast water treatment, to name just a few examples. The purpose of this review paper is to represent comprehensive up-to-date information about the water treatment applications, aqueous reaction mechanisms, and disinfection byproduct formation of peracids, namely performic, peracetic and perpropionic acids. and PFA have several of the qualities of an ideal disinfectant: toxicity to microorganisms, but not to higher forms of life; effectivity at ambient temperatures; stability and long shelf-life; low corrosivity; deodorizing ability; widespread availability and reasonable cost [12].PAA and PFA are colorless liquids with characteristic pungent odors. Both are thermodynamically unstable and can decompose spontaneously or explode when highly concentrated, heated, under mechanical stress or exposed to catalytic effects of impurities [1,13,14]. The recommended storage temperatures are below 30 and 20°C for PAA and PFA, respectively [6,14]. Longer carbon chain length increases stability, and thus PAA is more stable than PFA [1]. However, the O-O bond dissociation energy of PFA and PAA has been calculated to be similar: 48 kcal/mol [15]. Percarboxylic acids have typically pK a values 3-4 units higher than the parent carboxylic acids [1]. Nonetheless, PFA and PAA are corrosive [16]. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3Exposure to PAA and PFA causes irritation and possibly permanent damage to the skin (cutaneous emphysema), eyes and the respiratory system. In the skin contact, 0.2% is proposed as the no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) for short and medium length exposure [17].When inhaled, airborne concentrations less than 0.16-0.17 ppm (0.50-0.52 mg/m 3 ) are considered to cause no irritation [17,18]. However, higher concentrations are harmful and a case study suggested that PAA could cause occupational asthma [19].The largest users of PAA on a global scale (estimated in 2013) are shown in Fig. 1. Similar numbers are not available for PFA, but it is probably used at significantly lower quantities.The largest user, the food industry, applies PAA as a disinfectant in fresh produce washing water, clean-in-place (CIP) processes, on food processing equipment, and in pasteurizers, to name just a few examples [21,22]. PFA is also a suitable disinfectant in low-temperature refrigerated food processing and storage rooms [23]. In healthcare, PAA is used for instance in Recently, methods to determine the residual PAA from wastewater were compared: the spectrophotometric method using DPD and catalase was recommended for 0.1-0.5 mg/L PAA concentrations and the cerimetric/iodometric titration...

show abstract

Section: Costs Of Disinfectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Costs Of Disinfectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Luukkonen

Pehkonen

2016

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

255

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PAA is considered to be the main active component in the solution (Baldry, 1983;Baldry and French, 1989;Fraser et al, 1985;Kitis, 2004;Lubello et al, 2002). The disinfection efficiency of PAA in wastewater applications has been demonstrated numerous times in the literature (Antonelli et al, 2006;Baldry, 1983;Baldry and French, 1989;Baldry et al, 1991;Baldry et al, 1995;Briancesco et al, 2005;Collivignarelli et al, 2000;Dell'Erba et al, 2004;Gehr et al, 2003;Kitis, 2004;Koivunen and Heinonen-Tanski, 2005a;Koivunen and Heinonen-Tanski, 2005b;Lefevre et al, 1992;Liberti and Notarnicola, 1999;Liberti et al, 1999;Salgot et al, 2002;Veschetti et al, 2003;Zanetti et al, 2007). As a result, PAA is gaining acceptance as a disinfectant, especially in the United Kingdom and Italy (Falsanisi et al, 2006 A recent study by Azzellino et al (2011) showed that PAA disinfection is more dependent on dosage than on contact time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical aspects of peracetic acid based wastewater disinfection

Luukkonen¹,

Teeriniemi²,

Prokkola³

et al. 2014

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peracetic acid (PAA) has been studied for wastewater disinfection applications for some 30 years and has been shown to be an effective disinfectant against many indicator microbes, including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. One of the key advantages compared to, e.g., chlorine is the lack of harmful disinfection by-products. In this paper a pilot-scale study of PAAbased disinfection is presented. Indicator microbes (E. coli, total coliforms and coliphage viruses) as well as chemical parameters (pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), chemical and biochemical oxygen demand (COD and BOD), and residual PAA and hydrogen peroxide) were studied. The main aim of this investigation was to study how these selected chemical parameters change during PAA treatment. Based on the results, disinfection was efficient at C•t values of 15 to 30 (mg•min)/ℓ which equals to a PAA dose of 1.5 to 2 mg/ℓ and a contact time of 10 to 15 min. In this concentration area changes in pH, COD and BOD were negligible. However, hydrogen peroxide residues may interfere with COD measurements and apparent COD can be higher than the calculated theoretical oxygen demand (ThOD). Additionally PAA or hydrogen peroxide residues interfere with the BOD test resulting in BOD values that are too low. Residual PAA and ORP were found to correlate with remaining amounts of bacteria.

show abstract

“…In some cases they can be used in bioreactors to process waste; in other cases they cause malfunctions of one kind or another. The formation of biofilms creates major problems in such activities as water distribution (biofilms form in the distribution networks) (2,10), health care (11,13), and the food industry (7,8,14). A study by Haeghebaert et al (24) has suggested that 40.5% of all food-borne infection outbreaks registered in France in 1996 were linked to contamination by equipment, highlighting the hazard that biofilms represent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of Microorganisms, Including Listeria monocytogenes , from Various Materials to Beef

Midelet

Carpentier

2002

Appl Environ Microbiol

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quantity of microorganisms that may be transferred to a food that comes into contact with a contaminated surface depends on the density of microorganisms on the surface and on the attachment strengths of the microorganisms on the materials. We made repeated contacts between pieces of meat and various surfaces (stainless steel and conveyor belt materials [polyvinyl chloride and polyurethane]), which were conditioned with meat exudate and then were contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus sciuri, Pseudomonas putida, or Comamonas sp. Attachment strengths were assessed by the slopes of the two-phase curves obtained by plotting the logarithm of the number of microorganisms transferred against the order number of the contact. These curves were also used to estimate the microbial population on the surface by using the equation of A. Veulemans, E. Jacqmain, and D. Jacqmain (Rev. Ferment. Ind. Aliment. 25:58-65, 1970). The biofilms were characterized according to their physicochemical surface properties and structures. Their exopolysaccharide-producing capacities were assessed from biofilms grown on polystyrene. The L. monocytogenes biofilms attached more strongly to polymers than did the other strains, and attachment strength proved to be weaker on stainless steel than on the two polymers. However, in most cases, it was the population of the biofilms that had the strongest influence on the total number of CFU detached. Although attachment strengths were weaker on stainless steel, this material, carrying a smaller population of bacteria, had a weaker contaminating capacity. In most cases the equation of Veulemans et al. revealed more bacteria than did swabbing the biofilms, and it provided a better assessment of the contaminating potential of the polymeric materials studied here.When bacteria attach to surfaces and colonize them, their phenotypes change. They show, for instance, a decreased susceptibility to disinfectant (41, 42) and an increased exopolysaccharide production (46), and the community they form is called a biofilm. Biofilms are an integral part of our environment. In some cases they can be used in bioreactors to process waste; in other cases they cause malfunctions of one kind or another. The formation of biofilms creates major problems in such activities as water distribution (biofilms form in the distribution networks) (2, 10), health care (11, 13), and the food industry (7,8,14). A study by Haeghebaert et al. (24) has suggested that 40.5% of all food-borne infection outbreaks registered in France in 1996 were linked to contamination by equipment, highlighting the hazard that biofilms represent. In this study we examined biofilms liable to cause problems in the meat industry. Many studies have shown that when animals are slaughtered, microbial flora remains on the surface of the carcasses (5, 21), and despite the decontamination processes carried out (scorching the skin or using hot water, organic acid, or phosphate solutions), part of the microflora survives (3, 52). This resident fl...

show abstract

A Comparison Among Different Wastewater Disinfection Systems: Experimental Results

Cited by 38 publications

References 0 publications

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Chemical aspects of peracetic acid based wastewater disinfection

Transfer of Microorganisms, Including Listeria monocytogenes , from Various Materials to Beef

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About