Advertisement

Environmental assessment of sewage effluent disinfection system: electron beam, ultraviolet, and ozone using life cycle assessment

  • Kun-Mo LeeEmail author
  • Seungho Yu
  • Yo-Han Choi
  • Myunjoo Lee
SIMPLIFIED LCA

Abstract

Purpose

This study assesses the impacts of three different disinfection processes of sewage effluent, namely the electron beam (E-beam), ultraviolet (UV), and ozone systems, on the environment by using life cycle assessment (LCA).

Methods

The LCA employed was the comparative LCA which consists of three parts according to life cycle stages. Electricity consumption was the reference flow that can yield 99% disinfection efficiency for microorganisms present in a 1 × 105 m3 day−1 sewage treatment plant effluent over 20 years.

Results

The comparison of the LCA results indicated that the environmental impact of the UV disinfection system was the lowest, followed by the E-beam and ozone disinfection systems. The key issues of the E-beam, UV, and ozone disinfection systems are electricity consumption and SF6 usage, electricity consumption and UV lamp, and electricity consumption and liquid oxygen feeding system, respectively.

Conclusions

Electricity consumption is the key input parameter that determines the LCA results.

Keywords

Disinfection Electron beam LCA Ozone UV 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Sincere thanks are extended to Mr. Tae-Hun Kim for his assistance in this research.

References

  1. Chang JC, Ossoff SF, Lobe DC, Dorfman MH, Dumais CM, Qualls RG, Johnson JD (1985) UV inactivation of pathogenic and indicator microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:1361–1365Google Scholar
  2. Cho M (2005) Quantitative evaluation of inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts and indicator microorganisms and investigation of inactivation mechanisms in water disinfection treatment. Doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea Google Scholar
  3. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE, Franson MAH (eds) (2005) Standard methods: for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. APHA/AWWA/WEF, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Galal-Gorchev H (1996) Chlorine in water disinfection. Pure Appl Chem 68:1731–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ghodke SR, Barnwal R, Kumar M, Jayaprakash D, Supriya B, Mishra R, Lawangare N, Nanu K, Puthran G, Veer VS, Abdullah KK, Kailash CM (2007) SF6 Gas handling system for 3 MeV, 30 kW electronic beam accelerator at the EBC, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, APAC 2007. Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology(RRCAT), IndoreGoogle Scholar
  6. Glaze WH, Lay Y, Kang J (1995) Advanced oxidation processes: a kinetic model for the oxidation of 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane in water by the combination of hydrogen peroxide and UV radiation. Ind Eng Chem Res 34:2314–2323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001a) The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. PRe consultants B.V, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  8. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001b) The Eco-indicator 99: manual for designers. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. PRe consultants B.V, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  9. IPCC, Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. ISO (2006) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. Kurucz CN, Waite TD, Cooper WJ (1995) The Miami electron beam research facility: a large scale wastewater treatment application. Radiat Phys Chem 45:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee KM, Lee SY, Hur T (2004) Life cycle inventory analysis for electricity in Korea. Energy 29:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liltved H, Landfald B (2000) Effects of high-intensity light on ultraviolet-irradiatied and non-irradiated fish pathogenic bacteria. Water Res 34:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MoCT (2005) Sewage facility standards. Korea Water and Wastewater Works Association, Seoul, Korea, in KoreanGoogle Scholar
  15. MoE (2008) Statistics of sewerage 2007. Ministry of Environment, Seoul, Korea, in KoreanGoogle Scholar
  16. Ozone Engineering (2010) Ozone generator model LAB2B. http://www.ozone-engineering.com/lab2b-lab-gen.html. Accessed on 24 Feb 2010
  17. Rakness KL, DeMers LD, Blank BD, Henry DJ (1996) Gas phase ozone concentration comparisons from a commercial UV meter and KI wet-chemistry tests. Ozone Sci Eng 18:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sampa MHO, Borrely SI, Silva BL, Vieira JM, Rela PR, Calvo WAP, Nieto RC, Duarte CL, Perez HEB, Somessari ES, Lugao AB (1995) The use of electronbeam accelerator for the treatment of erinking water and wastewater in Brazil. Radiat Phys Chem 46:1143–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmidt WP, Beyer HM (1999) Environmental considerations on battery-housing recovery. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spriensma R (2004) SimaPro database manual: the BUWAL 250 library. PRe Consultants, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Zel L (2003) SF6 and the environment: guidelines for electric utility substations. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), CaliforniaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun-Mo Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seungho Yu
    • 2
  • Yo-Han Choi
    • 1
  • Myunjoo Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Environmental EngineeringAjou UniversitySuwonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Advanced Radiation Technology InstituteKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteJeollabukSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations