Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ultraviolet (UV)‐based methods of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), such as UV/hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), can be used for removal of taste and odor contaminants in drinking water. However, significant disadvantages to UV/H 2 O 2 include incurred chemical costs associated with the addition of peroxide and quenching residual peroxide and the operational challenge of balancing peroxide quenching with secondary disinfection needs. Recent work has shown that H 2 O 2 can be replaced with chlorine (Cl2) for UV‐AOP and produce advantageous oxidation efficiencies for synthetic organic contaminants under certain conditions. This article uses modeling of the photochemistry of UV/H 2 O 2 and UV/Cl 2 to compare emerging and state‐of‐the‐art UV‐AOPs for control of the taste and odor‐inducing compounds geosmin and 2‐methylisoborneol. Although UV/H 2 O 2 has a decided advantage with respect to oxidation efficiency in surface waters at neutralto‐ basic pH, UV/C 12 can provide a cost‐effective AOP alternative, with a low risk of added trihalomethane and haloacetic acid formation in some surface waters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watts et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: