4.7 Article

Greenhouse gas emissions from advanced oxidation processes in the degradation of bisphenol A: a comparative study of the H2O2/UV, TiO2/UV, and ozonation processes

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 11, Pages 12227-12236

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-07807-3

Keywords

Greenhouse gas emission; Carbon footprint; Bisphenol A; Ozonation; H2O2/UV; TiO2/UV

Funding

  1. Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) - Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) [2019002710001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and degradation rate constants (k(obs)) from H2O2/UV-C, TiO2/UV-C, and ozonation processes in the degradation of bisphenol A (BPA), the laboratory scale experiments were conducted. In the H2O2/UV-C process, the fastest degradation rate constant (k(obs) = 0.353 min(-1)) was observed at 4 mM of H2O2, while the minimum GHG emission was achieved at 3 mM of H2O2. In the TiO2/UV-C process, the fastest rate constant (k(obs) = 0.126 min(-1)) was achieved at 2000 mg/L of TiO2, while the minimum GHG emission was observed at 400 mg/L of TiO2. In the ozonation process, GHG emissions were minimal at 5 mg/L of O-3, but the degradation rate constant kept on increasing as the O-3 concentration increased. There were three major types of GHG emissions in the advanced oxidation processes (AOPs). In the ozonation process, most of the GHG emissions were generated by electricity consumption. TiO2/UV-C process accounted for a significant portion of the GHGs generated by the use of chemicals. Finally, the H2O2/UV-C process produced similar GHG emissions from both chemical inputs and electricity consumption. The carbon footprint calculation revealed that for the treatment of 1 m(3) of water contaminated with 0.04 mM BPA, the H2O2/UV-C process had the smallest carbon footprint (0.565 kg CO2 eq/m(3)), followed by the TiO2/UV-C process (3.445 kg CO2 eq/m(3)) and the ozonation process (3.897 kg CO2 eq/m(3)). Our results imply that the increase in removal rate constant might not be the optimal parameter for reducing GHG emissions during the application of these processes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available