IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11605-d916070.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptable Process Design as a Key for Sustainability Upgrades in Wastewater Treatment: Comparative Study on the Removal of Micropollutants by Advanced Oxidation and Granular Activated Carbon Processing at a German Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Toni Sturm

    (Wasser 3.0 gGmbH, Neufeldstr. 17a–19a, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
    abcr GmbH, Im Schlehert 10, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Erika Myers

    (Wasser 3.0 gGmbH, Neufeldstr. 17a–19a, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Dennis Schober

    (Wasser 3.0 gGmbH, Neufeldstr. 17a–19a, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
    abcr GmbH, Im Schlehert 10, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
    Entsorgungs- und Wirtschaftsbetrieb Landau, Georg-Friedrich-Dentzel-Straße 1, 76829 Landau, Germany)

  • Clara Thege

    (Van Remmen UV Technology, Hooglandweg 3a, 8131 TE Wijhe, The Netherlands)

  • Anika Korzin

    (Wasser 3.0 gGmbH, Neufeldstr. 17a–19a, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany
    abcr GmbH, Im Schlehert 10, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Katrin Schuhen

    (Wasser 3.0 gGmbH, Neufeldstr. 17a–19a, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany)

Abstract

Micropollutants have been increasingly detected at low concentrations in surface waters and may have harmful effects on humans, organisms, and the environment. As wastewater treatment plants are one of the main sources of micropollutants, conventional wastewater treatment methods and plants (mainly one to three cleaning stages) must be improved through an advanced (fourth) treatment stage. The optimal fourth treatment stage should be determined based not only on removal efficiencies but also on a holistic sustainability assessment that further considers the process’s adaptability, economic, environmental, and social parameters. The ability of a tertiary wastewater treatment plant to remove organic pollutants was investigated over four months using two different advanced treatment methods: (1) an advanced oxidation process (AOP) (using UV + H 2 O 2 ) and (2) granular activated carbon (GAC). The resulting average micropollutant removal efficiencies were 76.4 ± 6.2% for AOP and 90.0 ± 4.6% for GAC. As the GAC became saturated, it showed a decreasing performance from 97.6% in week one to 80.7% in week 13, after 2184 bed volumes were processed. For the AOP, adjusting the UV and H 2 O 2 doses results in higher removal efficiencies. With 40 ppm H 2 O 2 and 10 kJ/m 2 UV, a removal of 97.1% was achieved. Furthermore, the flexibility and adaptability of the AOP process to adjust to real-time water quality, along with a lower resource consumption and waste disposal, make it a more promising technology when comparing the sustainability aspects of the two methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Toni Sturm & Erika Myers & Dennis Schober & Clara Thege & Anika Korzin & Katrin Schuhen, 2022. "Adaptable Process Design as a Key for Sustainability Upgrades in Wastewater Treatment: Comparative Study on the Removal of Micropollutants by Advanced Oxidation and Granular Activated Carbon Processin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11605-:d:916070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11605/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11605/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dafne Crutchik & José Luis Campos, 2021. "Municipal Wastewater Reuse: Is it a Competitive Alternative to Seawater Desalination?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11605-:d:916070. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.