Integration of an innovative biological treatment with physical or chemical disinfection for wastewater reuse

Sanctis, Marco De; Moro, Guido Del; Levantesi, Caterina; Luprano, Maria Laura; Iaconi, Claudio Di

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.006

Cited by 44 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In both experiments, higher removal of E. coli and Enterococcus was achieved by UV disinfection when samples were pretreated with chemical coagulation (Figure 4) whereas removal of E. coli and Enterococcus from raw wastewater by UV disinfection was not sufficient to achieve good microbial water quality as described in EU bathing water directives. In this study, the removal of E. coli from chemically coagulated wastewater by non-contact UV disinfection was higher than what was obtained in another study by a conventional submerged UV system to disinfect biologically treated wastewater (De Sanctis et al, 2016). Thus the non-contact UV disinfection showed potent results on removal of bacteria from wastewater in small arctic communities where biological treatment is not feasible and maintenance operations should be reduced, despite the higher energy costs.…”

Section: Disinfection Efficiencycontrasting

confidence: 56%

Treatment of Arctic wastewater by chemical coagulation, UV and peracetic acid disinfection

Chhetri

Klupsch

Andersen

et al. 2017

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Conventional wastewater treatment is challenging in the Arctic region due to the cold climate and scattered population. Thus, no wastewater treatment plant exists in Greenland and raw wastewater is discharged directly to nearby waterbodies without treatment. We investigated the efficiency of physicochemical wastewater treatment, in Kangerlussuaq, Greenland. Raw wastewater from Kangerlussuaq was treated by chemical coagulation and UV disinfection. By applying 7.5 mg Al/L polyaluminium chloride (PAX XL100), 73% of turbidity and 28% phosphate was removed from raw wastewater. E. coli and Enterococcus were removed by 4 and 2.5 log, respectively, when UV irradiation of 0.70 kWh/m 3 was applied to coagulated wastewater. Furthermore, coagulated raw wastewater in Denmark, which has a chemical quality similar to Greenlandic wastewater, was disinfected by peracetic acid or UV irradiation. Removal of heterotrophic bacteria by applying 6 mg/L and 12 mg/L peracetic acid was 2.8 and 3.1 log, respectively. Similarly, removal of heterotrophic bacteria by applying 0.21 kWh/m 3 and 2.10 kWh/m 3 for UV irradiation was 2.1 and greater than 4 log, respectively. Physico-chemical treatment of raw wastewater followed by UV irradiation and/or peracetic acid disinfection showed the potential for treatment of arctic wastewater.

show abstract

Section: Disinfection Efficiencycontrasting

confidence: 56%

Treatment of Arctic wastewater by chemical coagulation, UV and peracetic acid disinfection

Chhetri

Klupsch

Andersen

et al. 2017

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, no reduction in the number of noroviruses, rotaviruses, or adenoviruses as a result of PAA treatment of tertiary effluent was observed [142]. Recently PAA disinfection was studied in combination with the sequential batch biofilter granular reactor (SBBGR) and it was found that with a dose of 1 mg/L of PAA it was possible to reach E. coli < 10 CFU / 100 mL [143]. Furthermore, SBBGR was able to reduce the amount of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), whereas the PAA had no impact on ARGs [144].…”

Section: Primary Secondary and Tertiary Wastewater Effluentsmentioning

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

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

“…Both UV and peracetic acid can be effective disinfection methods [30,31]. If there is a need to only disinfect effluents during brief periods, such as when it will be used for agricultural irrigation or bathing periods, or during epidemic periods, peracetic acid might be a good alternative since there are low capital costs.…”

Section: Hygienic Quality Of Effluentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical and Microbiological Quality of Effluents from Different On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems across Finland and Sweden

Heinonen‐Tanski

Matikka

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic wastewaters, which cannot be disposed through sewage networks, must be treated with different on-site treatment systems; these are usually commercial, small-scale treatment plants or built sand filters. These systems are usually maintained by the house's inhabitants. This study was achieved by analysing the chemical and microbiological data of 717 effluents collected in Finland and Sweden. There were inadequate reductions in 31% of phosphorus effluents, 22% of nitrogen effluents and 5% of biological oxygen demand compounds. The addition of a coagulant capable of precipitating phosphorus improved the performance of sand filters and biorotors. There are no legally binding limitations on the number of enteric microorganisms that can be present in an effluent, but the number of Escherichia coli and enterococci exceeded more than 100 colony forming units per 100 mL in 59% and 53% effluents studied, with the highest numbers for these indicators being more than 100,000 cfu per 100 mL. The number of E. coli and enterococci were lower when the concentration of phosphorus in effluent was less than 1 mg/L. The treatment efficiency varied extensively, even between similar plant models, possibly due to either irregular use, or after long pauses, when they were not being used. In addition, it is possible that the end users are not capable of properly maintaining these wastewater treatment plants.

show abstract

Integration of an innovative biological treatment with physical or chemical disinfection for wastewater reuse

Cited by 44 publications

References 28 publications

Treatment of Arctic wastewater by chemical coagulation, UV and peracetic acid disinfection

Treatment of Arctic wastewater by chemical coagulation, UV and peracetic acid disinfection

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Chemical and Microbiological Quality of Effluents from Different On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems across Finland and Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About