TAØI LIEÄU ÑÖÔÏC CUNG CAÁP TAÏI ÑÒA CHÆ DIEÃN ÑAØN

WWW.MOITRUONG.CO.NR
Disinfection
Disinfection processes

General removal of pathogenes in a municipal

WWTP

Filtration

Chlorination

Liming

UV

UVStar® description
General removal of pathogenes in a
municipal WWTP

Most Bacteria an viruses are attached/adsorbed to the
supended solids – Means supended solids removal =
disinfection

In an Activated sludge plant many Pathogens will stay
so long with out Host that they will die and other will be
grassed by protozoae.
TSS E-Coli Removal efficiency Removal efficiency
Mg/l Ufc/100 ml treatment stage acumulated

Raw sewage 300 5 x10^6

After primary 180 3.5 x10^6 30% (0.15 log 10) 30% (0.15 log 10)

After Activated sludge 20 3.5 x10^4 99% (2 log 10) 99.3% (2 log 10)
extended aeration

After Sandfiter 5 5.6 x10^3 97% (0,85 log 10) 99.89% (2.95 log 10)
Filtration
ST Microscope Scanning Electron Microscope Optical Microscope Visible To Naked Eye

Macro Molecular
Micrometers Ionic Range Molecular Range
Range
Micro Particle Range Macro Particle Range
(Log Scale) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000

Angstorm Units 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7
(Log Scale)
App. Molecular 100 200 1000 10,000 20,000 100,000 500,000
Wt.
Aqueous Giardia
Giardia
AqueousSalt
Salt Human
HumanHair
Hair
Cyst
Cyst
Beach
BeachSand
Sand
Relative Metal
MetalIon
Ion Virus
Virus Bacteria
Bacteria Mist
Mist
Size of Coal Dust Coal Dust
Pin
Pin
Common Red
Red
Blood
Point
Point
Blood
Cell
Materials Sugar
Sugar
Cell
Granular
Granular
Atomic
Atomic Activated
Activated
Radius
Radius Carbon
Carbon

Process
for R/ O Ultra Particle Filtration
Separation
Nano Micro

Membrane Sand filter

BioReactor
Chlorination

Dosage of Chlorine as Gas or as NaOCl (3-5

g/m3)

Chlorine contact basin with 30 min retention
time

Eventual dosage of Bisulphate for de-
chlorination

Advantage
Very efficient disinfectant
Works also with turbid water

Disadvantages
Chlorine gas is Toxic
Liming

Dosage of lime as CaO or Ca(OH)2 to reach pH >

12 (200- 400 g/m3)

Flocculation 20 min + Tertiary Settling

Advantage
Efficient disinfectant
Works also with turbid water
Removes also Phosphorous

Disadvantages
High chemical cost
High Sludge production
High Civil cost
 UV disinfection :
Process & Technology
UV disinfection principle

Electromagnetic spectrum comprising

the UV
315 < λ < 400 nm : UV-A (Bronzing)
280 < λ < 315 nm : UV-B (Burning)
200 < λ < 280 nm : UV-C (Cancer)
100 < λ < 200 nm : far UV
Disinfection mechanism

The UV-C radiations are absorbed by DNA

Maximum efficiency @ 260 nm

2 types of effect :
Separation of the double links of DNA, by
absorption of UV photon and creation of a
dimer, preventing DNA from replication
(bacteriostatic effect)
Destruction of micro-organism (bactericidal
effect)
Disinfection technology

Worldwide spread technology

Hg vapour lamps

Hg atoms are excited by electrical energy

The emitted UV intensity depends on pressure and
temperature in the lamp

Filling gaz : generally, argon

Make the electrical shock start-up easier, as well as the
Hg ionization
Low-pressure lamps
16

Spectral Emittance (rel)

12

Monochromatic 0
200 250 300 350 400

Pressure : around 100 Pa wavelength / nm

Unit power supply : 10 to 400 W

UV efficiency = 25 - 35 %

Life time : up to 16 000 h (loss of about 15-20%)

Plasma temperature : around 40°C
Medium-pressure lamps

16

Spectral Emittance (rel)

12

Polychromatic 0
200 250 300 350 400

Pressure: 1 to 3.105 Pa wavelength / nm

Unit power supply = 1 to 15 kW

UV efficiency = 10 to 15% (Germicide eq 254 nm)

Life time = 3000 to 8000 h

Plasma temperature = around 720°C
LP / MP : advantages / disadvantages
LP lamps MP lamps

Life time 16 000 h 8 000 h

Number of lamps high low
UV efficiency 25 – 35% 10 – 15%
Fouling risk low Higher
Electrical low high
consumption
Main parameter : the UV dose

UV dose (J.m-2) = I (W.m-2) * I : UV intensity emitted

τ (s) by the lamp
τ : hydraulic retention
time in the UV reactor

Process efficiency depending on the
applied UV dose

UV dose depending on the micro-
organism
Important parameters for UV
disinfection

UV transmission
10 mm 20 mm 30 mm 40 mm 50 mm

100%
100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100%

90% 81% 73% 65% 60% 60%

Important parameters for UV
disinfection

By-pass of 1% of the flow rate = loss of 2

removal log
How to maintain the process efficiency?

Limitation of level above the lamps

Equal velocity in the section of the channel
Important parameters for UV
disinfection

Efficiency of lamps at the end of life

Loss of 15- 20% of the nominal power

Deposit of mineral foulants on sleeves

Loss of UV efficiency
Automatic cleaning device is necessary
Manual acid cleaning
UVStar® description
Situation on the line treatment

UV = tertiary treatment

Tertiary filtration required if :
retention of eggs requested
Very low level of guarantee : 100 UFC/100 ml of TC
UVStar general description

Installation of lamps in
open channel

Lamps
Unit power supply : 400
W

Lamps are grouped in
banks
Bigger bank = 180
lamps (72 kW)

1 to 2 banks per
channel
UV channel

Control of the level

necessary to obtain the
performances
Penstock valve at the outlet
of the channel
Controlled by level
measurement

Channel can be isolated
by stop logs (inlet / outlet)

Perforated plate at the
inlet of the channel (if
several channels)
Banks

Lamps are grouped in a bank

Other equipments (on every bank) :
Automatic cleaning system

Limitation of the fouling due to waste water material
Safety protection against UV damaging
On-line measurement of UV intensity
Description of a bank
Module with U.V. lamps
Quartz sleeve

U.V. LAMP

Module
Cleaning system
One cleaning system for one bank
2 screws for cleaning system
Automatic breakable
cleaning system with
springs

Motor for
cleaning system

Support
frame
Cleaning system

Cleaning system
 Placement of the modules in the bank

Inlet cable
for pair
modules

Inlet cable for impair modules

Photo of UVStar
Photo of UVSTAR Showing lamps
power
Trials

Trials conducted by TD and AR on 2
sites
Mantes
Bonneuil
Quality of the water to be treated

3 main indicators (values given in
log/100 ml)
Total coliforms
E. Coli (fecal coliforms)
Enterococci
Colif. E.coli Entéro.
MANTES 6,13 5,63 5,25
BONNEUIL 5,43 4,69 4,37
Différence : 0,70 0,95 0,88
UV transmission during trials
60

55

50
TUV (%)

45

MANTES
BONNEUIL
40

35
7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 11/03 12/03 1/04 2/04 3/04 4/04 5/04 5/04 6/04
TSS during the trials
35

30
MANTES
25 BONNEUIL
MES (mg/L)

20

15

10

0
7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 11/03 12/03 1/04 2/04 3/04 4/04 5/04 5/04 6/04
Total coliforms removal
1E+7

1E+6 M Colif.
Coliformes (npp/100mL)

B Colif.
1E+5

1E+4

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Dose UV (J.m-2)
 E. Coli removal
1E+7

1E+6 M E. coli
B E. coli
E Coli (npp/100mL)

1E+5

1E+4

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Dose UV (J.m-2)
Enterococci removal
1E+7

1E+6 M Entero.
Entérocoques (npp/100mL)

B Entero.
1E+5
M Entero.>
1E+4

1E+3

1E+2

1E+1

1E+0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Dose UV (J.m-2)
List of references

Project Country Supplier Type Flow TrUV Guarantee µ-organismes Start-up

rate (%) (UFC/100
(m³/h) ml)
St. Cyprien System A France BP 850 40 1000 FC 1995
St. Cyprien System B France BP 150 40 200 FC 1995
Outreau/Le Portell France Trojan BP 250 50 200 FC 1994
Abbeville France Wedeco BP 1 200 50 1000 FC 2000
Auch France VWS MP 1 500 50 10 000 FC 1998
Barcelonette France VWS MP 825 50 100 FC 1999
Boulogne sur mer France Wedeco BP 3 000 45 100 EC 2003
Bonneuil en France France VWS BP 300 45 100 EC 2002
Draguignan France VWS BP 1 470 50 1 000 FC 2 006
Nabatiyeh Liban VWS BP 1 000 50 2 000 FC 2 005
Ras Nabi Younes Liban VWS BP 1 320 50 2 000 FC 2 006
TAØI LIEÄU ÑÖÔÏC CUNG CAÁP TAÏI ÑÒA CHÆ DIEÃN ÑAØN

WWW.MOITRUONG.CO.NR