4.6 Article

Application of Ultraviolet Light-Emitting Diodes (UV-LED) to Full-Scale Drinking-Water Disinfection

期刊

WATER
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w11091894

关键词

disinfection; Cryptosporidium; UV-LED; bacteriophage; chemical actinometry; drinking water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ultraviolet light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) have recently emerged as a viable technology for water disinfection. However, the performance of the technology in full-scale drinking-water treatment systems remains poorly characterised. Furthermore, current UV disinfection standards and protocols have been developed specifically for conventional mercury UV systems and so do not necessarily provide an accurate indication of UV-LED disinfection performance. Hence, this study aimed to test the hypothesis that a full-scale UV-LED reactor can match the Cryptosporidium inactivation efficiency of conventional mercury UV reactors. Male-specific bacteriophage (MS2) was used as the Cryptosporidium spp. surrogate microorganism. The time-based inactivation efficiency of the full-scale reactor was firstly compared to that of a bench-scale (batch-type) UV-LED reactor. This was then related to mercury UV reactors by comparing the fluence-based efficiency of the bench-scale reactor to the USEPA 90% prediction interval range of expected MS2 inactivation using mercury UV lamps. The results showed that the full-scale UV-LED reactor was at least as effective as conventional mercury UV reactors at the water-quality and drive-current conditions considered. Nevertheless, comparisons between the bench- and full-scale UV-LED reactors indicated that improvements in the hydraulic flow profile and power output of the full-scale reactor could help to further improve the efficiency of UV-LED reactors for municipal drinking water disinfection. This represents the world's first full-scale UV-LED reactor that can be applied at municipal water treatment works for disinfection of pathogenic microorganisms from drinking water.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据