These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Multi-target assessment of advanced oxidation processes-based strategies for indirect potable reuse of tertiary wastewater: Fate of compounds of emerging concerns, microbial and ecotoxicological parameters.
    Author: Murgolo S, De Giglio O, De Ceglie C, Triggiano F, Apollonio F, Calia C, Pousis C, Marzella A, Fasano F, Giordano ME, Lionetto MG, Santoro D, Santoro O, Mancini S, Di Iaconi C, De Sanctis M, Montagna MT, Mascolo G.
    Journal: Environ Res; 2024 Jan 15; 241():117661. PubMed ID: 37980992.
    Abstract:
    Two advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), namely ozone/H2O2 and UV/H2O2, were tested at pilot scale as zero-liquid-discharge alternative treatments for the removal of microbiological (bacteria and viruses), chemical (compounds of emerging concern (CECs)) and genotoxic responses from tertiary municipal wastewater for indirect potable reuse (IPR). The AOP treated effluents were further subjected to granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption and UV disinfection, following the concept of multiple treatment barriers. As a reference, a consolidated advanced wastewater treatment train consisting of ultrafiltration, UV disinfection, and reverse osmosis (RO) was also employed. The results showed that, for the same electrical energy applied, the ozone/H2O2 treatment was more effective than the UV/H2O2 treatment in removing CECs. Specifically, the ozone/H2O2 treatment, intensified by high pressure and high mixing, achieved an average CECs removal efficiency higher than UV/H2O2 (66.8% with respect to 18.4%). The subsequent GAC adsorption step, applied downstream the AOPs, further improved the removal efficiency of the whole treatment trains, achieving rates of 98.5% and 96.8% for the ozone/H2O2 and UV/H2O2 treatments, respectively. In contrast, the ultrafiltration step of the reference treatment train only achieved a removal percentage of 22.5%, which increased to 99% when reverse osmosis was used as the final step. Microbiological investigations showed that all three wastewater treatment lines displayed good performance in the complete removal of regulated and optional parameters according to both national and the European Directive 2020/2184. Only P. aeruginosa resulted resistant to all treatments with a higher removal by UV/H2O2 when higher UV dose was applied. In addition, E. coli STEC/VTEC and enteric viruses, were found to be completely removed in all tested treatments and no genotoxic activity was detected even after a 1000-fold concentration. The obtained results suggest that the investigated treatments are suitable for groundwater recharge to be used as a potable water source being such a procedure an IPR. The intensified ozone/H2O2 or UV/H2O2 treatments can be conveniently incorporated into a multi-barrier zero-liquid-discharge scheme, thus avoiding the management issues associated with the retentate of the conventional scheme that uses reverse osmosis. By including the chemical cost associated with using 11-12 mg/L of H2O2 in the cost calculations, the overall operational cost (energy plus chemical) required to achieve 50% average CECs removal in tertiary effluent for an hypothetical full-scale plant of 250 m3/h (or 25,000 inhabitants) was 0.183 €/m3 and 0.425 €/m3 for ozone/H2O2 and UV/H2O2 treatment train, respectively.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]