The purpose of this project was to perform a careful evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) removal. Specifically, the first objective of this project was to identify and fill data gaps related to the implementation and operation of AOPs with respect to MTBE removal. The second objective was to select and optimize the design of the most promising AOP(s) as a function of water quality parameters. The third objective was to determine conceptual-level engineering costs for these selected AOPs. The AOP technologies that were evaluated as part of this study included ozone/peroxide, continuous wave UV/peroxide, pulsed UV/peroxide, and E beam. The AOP technologies were compared with treatment costs, qualitative factors (e.g., technology reliability, flexibility), and influent and treated water quality considerations. Based on the comparative analysis, it was concluded that all the AOP technologies that were evaluated in this study are capable of removing MTBE at 95% or higher efficiencies. Ozone/peroxide and continuous UV/peroxide appear to be the most feasible technologies for AOP treatment of MTBE in drinking water sources. Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003
The objective of this project was to perform an overall feasibility analysis of point of use (POU) and point of entry (POE) systems for arsenic treatment, and to develop industry-wide recommendations for use of such systems as an alternative to centralized treatment, considering factors such as costs, process reliability, public perception, liability, and regulatory acceptance. The researchers also planned to assess water quality criteria that may limit the performance of POU/POE systems and determine at what size POU/POE treatment systems are cost-effective. Given the operational, financial, and implementation constraints of arsenic removal for very small systems, installation of "under the sink" POU devices may be a more viable and cost-effective option. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments allow the use of POU and POE devices for compliance with certain MCLs (e.g., inorganics, organics, radionuclides) for small and rural systems. Since ingestion is the only exposure route of concern for arsenic, whole house treatment would not be necessary.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.