4.8 Article

Direct comparison of ozonation and adsorption onto powdered activated carbon for micropollutant removal in advanced wastewater treatment

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 185-193

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.02.025

Keywords

Organic micropollutant; Powdered activated carbon; Ozone; Wastewater treatment

Funding

  1. European Regional Development Fund (EFRE) [11325UEPII/2]
  2. Berlin Senate Department for Health, Environment and Consumer Protection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Organic micropollutants (OMPs) may occur ubiquitously in the aquatic environment. In order to protect the ecosystem and drinking water sources from potentially toxic effects, discharges of an increasing number of OMPs are being regulated. OMP removal from wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents as a point source is a preferred option with removal by adsorption onto powdered activated carbon (PAC) and OMP transformation to presumably harmless compounds by ozonation as the most promising techniques. In this study, effluents of four WWTPs were treated with PAC and ozone in bench-scale experiments to compare the removal efficiencies of seven relevant OMPs. Concentrations of carbamazepine and diclofenac were reduced by more than 90% with 20 mg/L PAC or 5-7 mg/L ozone (0.5 mg O-3 per mg dissolved organic carbon (DOC)). Comparing typical doses for practical applications ozonation proved to be more efficient for abatement of sulfamethoxazole, while removal of benzotriazole and iomeprol was comparatively more efficient with activated carbon. While well known for ozonation, DOC-normalized doses were also applied to PAC and correlated better to relative OMP removal than volume proportional PAC addition. Furthermore, OMP removal efficiencies corresponded well with the reduction of ultraviolet light absorption at 254 nm for both treatment options. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available