Micropollutant abatement with UV/H2O2 oxidation or low-pressure reverse osmosis? A comparative life cycle assessment for drinking water production
Lade...
Autor:innen
Autor:in (Körperschaft)
Publikationsdatum
15.02.2022
Typ der Arbeit
Studiengang
Sammlung
Typ
01A - Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift
Herausgeber:innen
Herausgeber:in (Körperschaft)
Betreuer:in
Übergeordnetes Werk
Journal of Cleaner Production
Themenheft
DOI der Originalpublikation
Link
Reihe / Serie
Reihennummer
Jahrgang / Band
336
Ausgabe / Nummer
Seiten / Dauer
Patentnummer
Verlag / Herausgebende Institution
Elsevier
Verlagsort / Veranstaltungsort
Auflage
Version
Programmiersprache
Abtretungsempfänger:in
Praxispartner:in/Auftraggeber:in
Zusammenfassung
Micropollutants (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.
Schlagwörter
Trace organic chemicals, Advanced oxidation process, Environmental impacts, Toxicity, Membrane filtration, Retentate treatment
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Veranstaltung
Startdatum der Ausstellung
Enddatum der Ausstellung
Startdatum der Konferenz
Enddatum der Konferenz
Datum der letzten Prüfung
ISBN
ISSN
0959-6526
1879-1786
1879-1786
Sprache
Englisch
Während FHNW Zugehörigkeit erstellt
Ja
Zukunftsfelder FHNW
Publikationsstatus
Veröffentlicht
Begutachtung
Peer-Review der ganzen Publikation
Open Access-Status
Hybrid
Lizenz
Zitation
Roth, C., Wünsch, R., Wülser, R., Antes, R., Dinkel, F., Hugi, C., & Thomann, M. (2022). Micropollutant abatement with UV/H2O2 oxidation or low-pressure reverse osmosis? A comparative life cycle assessment for drinking water production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130227