Listen
3 Ergebnisse
Ergebnisse nach Hochschule und Institut
Publikation Scattered and transmitted light as surrogates for activated carbon residual in advanced wastewater treatment processes. Investigating the influence of particle size(Elsevier, 04/2024) Kirchen, Franziska; Fundneider, Thomas; Gimmel, Louis; Thomann, Michael; Pulfer, Michael; Lackner, SusanneThe use of powdered activated carbon (PAC) is a common process in advanced wastewater treatment to remove micropollutants. Retention and separation of PAC is essential as PAC loaded with micropollutants should not be released into the environment. Determining the activated carbon (AC) residual in the effluent poses a challenge, as there is currently no on-line measurement method. In this study, the correlation between turbidity, measured by scattered light, and absorption at wavelength of 550 nm (Absorption550 nm), measured by transmitted light, was investigated in relation to the AC residue. Linear correlations for turbidity (R2 = 0.95) and Absorption550 nm (R2 = 1.00) to AC concentrations were observed in both laboratory and full-scale experiments in a pilot plant where superfine PAC was added prior to Pile Cloth Media Filtration (PCMF). Decreasing the particle size (d50) while maintaining the same AC concentration leads to increased turbidity: Therefore, a fourfold reduction in d50 results in a 2- to 3-fold increase in turbidity, whereas a 30-fold reduction in d50 leads to a 6-to 8-fold increase. Furthermore, the original wastewater turbidity led to a parallel shift in the linear correlation between turbidity and AC. Coagulant doses of up to 400 mg Me3+/g AC resulted in a 50% reduction in turbidity. However, higher concentrations from 400 to 1,000 mg Me3+/g AC resulted in increased turbidity with only a 30% reduction compared to the initial turbidity. The study also highlights the significance of AC particle size in optical measurements, impacting result accuracy.01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher ZeitschriftPublikation Tradeoff between micropollutant abatement and bromate formation during ozonation of concentrates from nanofiltration and reverse osmosis processes(Elsevier, 2022) Wünsch, Robin; Hettich, Timm; Prahtel, Marlies; Thomann, Michael; Wintgens, Thomas; Von Gunten, UrsWater treatment with nanofiltration (NF) or reverse osmosis (RO) membranes results in a purified permeate and a retentate, where solutes are concentrated and have to be properly managed and discharged. To date, little is known on how the selection of a semi-permeable dense membrane impacts the dissolved organic matter in the concentrate and what the consequences are for micropollutant (MP) abatement and bromate formation during concentrate treatment with ozone. Laboratory ozonation experiments were performed with standardized concentrates produced by three membranes (two NFs and one low-pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) membrane) from three water sources (two river waters and one lake water). The concentrates were standardized by adjustment of pH and concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, total inorganic carbon, selected micropollutants (MP) with a low to high ozone reactivity and bromide to exclude factors which are known to impact ozonation. NF membranes had a lower retention of bromide and MPs than the LPRO membrane, and if the permeate quality of the NF membrane meets the requirements, the selection of this membrane type is beneficial due to the lower bromate formation risks upon concentrate ozonation. The bromate formation was typically higher in standardized concentrates of LPRO than of NF membranes, but the tradeoff between MP abatement and bromate formation upon ozonation of the standardized concentrates was not affected by the membrane type. Furthermore, there was no difference for the different source waters. Overall, ozonation of concentrates is only feasible for abatement of MPs with a high to moderate ozone reactivity with limited bromate formation. Differences in the DOM composition between NF and LPRO membrane concentrates are less relevant than retention of MPs and bromide by the membrane and the required ozone dose to meet a treatment target.01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher ZeitschriftPublikation Micropollutant abatement with UV/H2O2 oxidation or low-pressure reverse osmosis? A comparative life cycle assessment for drinking water production(Elsevier, 15.02.2022) Roth, Christine; Wünsch, Robin; Wülser, Richard; Antes, Ralf; Dinkel, Fredy; Hugi, Christoph; Thomann, MichaelMicropollutants (MP) are undesired in drinking water. Advanced oxidation processes (AOP) or low-pressure reverse osmosis membrane filtrations (LPRO) can be used to remove them during the water purification process. For a specific case, two treatment scenarios were compared with a life cycle assessment (LCA), using three impact assessment methods (Ecological Scarcity 2013, ILCD 2011, EDIP 2003). Scenario 1 (AOP-based) was a UV/H2O2 oxidation with a subsequent granular activated carbon (GAC) filter to remove excess H2O2 before soil infiltration. Scenario 2 (LPRO-based) was a side-stream treatment with an ultrafiltration (UF) and low-pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) filtration before soil infiltration and the LPRO retentate was treated with O3/H2O2 and subsequent granular activated carbon (GAC) filter before discharge back into Rhine. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the relevant contributors to evaluate the robustness of the results. LCA results showed that in the base-line scenario (electricity from renewable energy sources) the LPRO-based treatment had notably fewer environmental impacts than the AOP-based treatment, which was confirmed with three impact assessment methods. Key contributors to the impacts were mostly operating resources, i.e., electricity, H2O2, liquid O2 for ozone generation and GAC, but also construction resources in the LPRO process. The electrical energy source was decisive for the results: with a share of renewable energy sources <80%, the AOP-based treatment was the better option due to its lower specific energy demand. The optimization of treatment conditions, such as lower H2O2 concentration at an increased UV fluence; different H2O2:O3 molar ratios; or extended GAC utilization time could influence the environmental impact within a range of ±10–30%. Environmental benefits, i.e. the reduction of potential hazardous effects of 21 MPs, were determined with EDIP 2003 and USEtox for both treatment scenarios. The estimated benefits were negligible in comparison to the environmental burden caused by the treatments, thus would not be justified from a global LCA impact-benefit perspective. However, because of several uncertainties and lack of data, the inclusion of treatment benefits in LCAs for drinking water purification requires further research.01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift