Modeling Water Treatment Chemical Disinfection Kinetics

Gyürék, Lyndon L.; Finch, Gordon R.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(1998)124:9(783)

Cited by 160 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The disinfection kinetics of PFA and PAA have been successfully modelled by the Hom model (i.e., the disinfectant concentration is assumed to be constant during the process) [181]. A summary of the reported PFA and PAA disinfection kinetics parameters in the literature is shown in Table 3.…”

Section: Disinfection Kineticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Luukkonen

Pehkonen

2016

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

256

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: Disinfection Kineticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Luukkonen

Pehkonen

2016

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

256

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in the specific case of removal of FC and HE, there are very few physico-chemical and biological processes which by themselves can produce wastewater of Category A microbiological quality from raw wastewater (Table 1), making necessary a final disinfection stage. Chlorination, due to its high effectiveness, low cost and residual effect, is the most widely used method to eliminate microorganisms present in the water [6]. The main disadvantages relating to water chlorination are the increase in the proportion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which are potentially pathogenic, as well as the creation of carcinogenic compounds [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of the use of Ag, Cu and PAA to disinfect municipal wastewater

Luna-Pabello

Ríos

Jiménez³

et al. 2009

Environmental Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The WHO defines Category A wastewater as one which does not contain more than 1000 FCU 100 ml(-1) of faecal coliforms (FC) and less than 1 helminth egg (HE) per litre. The objectives of this work were to determine: 1) the disinfectant capacity of different concentrations of silver (Ag), silver-copper (Ag-Cu) and silver-copper-peracetic acid (Ag-Cu-PAA) when added to samples of raw wastewater (RW), with a contact time of 60 minutes; 2) the optimal concentration and contact time required by the better performing disinfectant, determined from the previous stage, to obtain Category A RW; 3) the effect of the selected disinfectant when applied to RW, the effluent of activated sludge (ASE) and the effluent of sand filters (FE) for 10, 30 and 60 min duration. The Ag:Cu:PAA ratio of 0.6:6.0:100.0 mg l(-1), showed the best disinfectant capability to produce Category A wastewater. The ratio of 0.1:1.0:20.0 mg l(-1) of Ag:Cu:PAA and a contact time of 10 minutes are the optimal values to produce Category A wastewater in RW. For RW and ASE, the optimal ratios and times for Ag:Cu:PAA were: 1.2:12.0:90.0 mg l(-1) at 60 min and 0.1:1.0:20.0 for 10 min, respectively. The FE samples showed concentrations of FC and HE below the standards of the WHO; therefore, their disinfection is not necessary.

show abstract

“…This occurred with high initial PAA demand (Falsanisi et al, 2006), as well as with low initial demand followed by low disinfectant decay (Dell'Erba et al, 2004), and as such rapid disinfectant decay cannot fully account for the observed decreased disinfection rate in function of time in those studies. A possible explanation would be the presence of subpopulations with different resistance against PAA within a species (E. coli) or varying resistance between species within a microbial group (total coliforms), clumping of microbial cells, or particle association of microbial cells (Gyürék and Finch, 1998). As in the current study all E. coli O157 cells were derived from two strains that were grown in ideal conditions, such variety among the population might have been absent.…”

Section: Peracetic Acid Process Water Recycling Of Fresh-cut Lettuce mentioning

confidence: 90%