Accepted Manuscript

The problem of drinking water access: A review of disinfection technologies with

an emphasis on solar treatment methods

N. Pichel, M. Vivar, M. Fuentes

PII: S0045-6535(18)32312-9

DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.205

Reference: CHEM 22689

To appear in: Chemosphere

Received Date: 04 June 2018

Accepted Date: 29 November 2018

Please cite this article as: N. Pichel, M. Vivar, M. Fuentes, The problem of drinking water access: A
review of disinfection technologies with an emphasis on solar treatment methods, Chemosphere
(2018), doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.205

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 The problem of drinking water access: A review of disinfection technologies with

2 an emphasis on solar treatment methods

4 N. Pichela,*, M. Vivarb, M. Fuentesa,b

5 a IMDEA Water Institute, Alcalá de Henares 28805, Spain.

6 b Grupo IDEA, EPS Linares, Universidad de Jaén, Linares 23700, Spain

7 *Corresponding author e-mail: natalia.pichel@imdea.org

9 Abstract

10

11 The lack of access to safe drinking water is one of the biggest challenges facing

12 humanity in the 21th century. Despite the collective global effort that has been made, the

13 drinking water sources of at least 2 billion people are faecally contaminated, resulting in

14 more than half a million diarrhoeal deaths each year, with the majority occurring in

15 developing countries. Technologies for the inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms

16 in water are therefore of great significance for human health and well-being. However,

17 conventional technologies to provide drinking water, although effective, present

18 limitations that impede their global application. These treatment methods often have

19 high energy and chemical demands, which limits their application for the prevention of

20 waterborne diseases in the most vulnerable regions. These shortcomings have led to

21 rapid research and development of advanced alternative technologies. One of these

22 alternative methods is solar disinfection, which is recognised by the World Health

23 Organization as one of the most appropriate methods for producing drinkable water in

24 developing countries. This study reviews conventional technologies that are being

25 applied at medium to large scales to purify water and emerging technologies currently

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

26 in development. In addition, this paper describes the merits, demerits, and limitations of

27 these technologies. Finally, the review focuses on solar disinfection, including a novel

28 technology recently developed in this field.

29

30 Keywords: drinking water, waterborne diseases, conventional technologies, emerging

31 technologies, SODIS, SOLWAT

32

33 1. Introduction

34

35 All organisms, including humans, require water for their survival. Therefore, ensuring

36 adequate water supply is fundamental for human well-being. However, the lack of

37 access to safe drinking water is still one of the main challenges that humanity is facing

38 in the 21th century (WWAP, 2009). This problem, rather than being solved, could be

39 aggravated in the future by climate change, which directly affects the hydrological cycle

40 and the quantity and quality of water resources (DelGenio et al., 1991; Loaciga et al.,

41 1996; Trenberth, 1999; Held and Soden, 2000; Arnell et al., 2001; Oki and Kanae,

42 2006; IPCC, 2014).

43

44 Other factors such as demographic processes, economic growth, social change,

45 technological innovation, policies, and laws also exert pressure on water resources

46 (WWAP, 2009). Increasing human population and industrialisation have led to a wide

47 range of physico-chemical contaminants and pathogens within the water bodies.

48 Unfortunately, the alteration of water masses endangers human health, which is greatly

49 affected by unsafe water, and prevents adequate sanitation and hygiene (Fenwick,

50 2006), which in turn increases the risk of contracting and transmitting waterborne

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

51 diseases. The consumption of water contaminated with faeces, poor faecal disposal, and

52 poor hygienic practices favour the spread of pathogenic microorganisms, including

53 viruses, bacteria, and parasites (Fig. 1). These microorganisms are responsible for

54 various waterborne illnesses, and they have become a leading cause of malnutrition due

55 to poor digestion of food eaten by people stricken by faecal bacteria and enteric viruses,

56 reduction of resistance to infections, and impaired physical growth and cognitive

57 development (Shannon et al., 2008; Guerrant et al., 2013). Therefore, the same water

58 that is essential to life may be the cause of illnesses that could lead to suffering, chronic

59 disability, and death.

60

61 On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly

62 formally recognised the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human

63 right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights

64 (A/RES/64/292). The World Health Organization defined ‘drinking water’ as water that

65 ‘does not represent any significant risk to health over a lifetime consumption, including

66 different sensitivities that may occur between life stages’ (WHO, 2011). In accordance

67 with this resolution, everybody has the right to sufficient, continuous, safe, clean,

68 physically accessible, and affordable water for personal and domestic use (to sustain life

69 and health and meet basic needs for drinking, cooking, and hygiene) and to sanitation.

70 In this context, sanitation is defined as facilities that ensure hygienic separation of

71 human excreta from human contact (WHO, 2016).

72

73 To achieve universal access, there is a need to guarantee adequate water supply,

74 sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) given the huge implications of these issues for public

75 health, food security, poverty reduction, and equality. Nonetheless, nowadays, access to

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

76 a safe source of drinking water is a distant dream to many around the world.

77

78
79 Fig. 1. Transmission of viruses, bacteria, and parasites that are responsible for waterborne diseases due to

80 the lack of sanitation facilities, poor hygienic practices, and the intake of faecally contaminated water

81 (Vivar et al., 2017a).

82

83 In recent years, much progress has been made. In 2000, the Members States of the

84 United Nations signed the Millennium Declaration adopting a set of eight Millennium

85 Development Goals (MDGs). The MDG7, to ensure environmental sustainability,

86 challenged the international community to halve the proportion of populations without

87 safe drinking water and basic sanitation between 1990 and 2015. In 1990, the global

88 coverage of improved drinking water access and sanitation facilities stood at 76% and

89 54%, respectively. The MDG targets for these improvements were 88% and 77%,

90 respectively, by 2015 (WHO/UNICEF, 2015). The target for drinking water was met

91 since 89% of the global population at that time used an improved drinking water source

92 (WHO/UNICEF, 2017). However, what qualified as ‘improved’ drinking water sources

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

93 under the international monitoring criteria (protected wells and springs, public taps,

94 household connections, rainwater harvesting) do not necessarily correspond to potable

95 water sources; hence, the population with a true access to safe drinking water is likely to

96 be significantly lower than the reported estimate (UNESCO, 2015). On the other hand,

97 during the MDG period, the use of improved sanitation facilities rose from 54% to 68%

98 (WHO/UNICEF, 2017). Although the MDG target was missed, significant progress was

99 made since 2.1 billion people gained access to toilets or covered latrines

100 (WHO/UNICEF, 2017). In 2015, the United Nations adopted a new sustainable

101 development agenda, and among its 17 Sustainable Developments Goals was included

102 the achievement of universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water

103 for all (SDG6) over the next 15 years (Sustainable Development Goals, UN).

104

105 Behind the global headlines, the problems relating to WASH differ between

106 industrialised and developing countries. In high-income countries, complete access to

107 drinking water and sanitation has been nearly achieved, and thus, the predominant

108 objectives are the maintenance and replacement of water supply infrastructures and the

109 improvement of wastewater treatment from urban and industrial discharge (UNESCO,

110 2015). On the other hand, in developing countries, the provision of drinking water and

111 sanitation does not cover all the population, and thus, the main challenge continues to

112 be ensuring global access (UNESCO, 2015). Furthermore, disparities also exist within

113 developing countries between urban and rural areas. One out of every three people who

114 live in rural environments is still without improved drinking water sources, and two out

115 of every five of these people are without improved sanitation facilities (WHO/UNICEF,

116 2017). Moreover, due to the rapid growth of the slum populations in the developing

117 world, it is estimated that the urban areas in developing countries will be more

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

118 vulnerable in the near future (UNESCO, 2015).

119

120 The countries with the lowest levels of progress are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa

121 (Fig. 2), where nearly half of the population use unimproved drinking water sources,

122 and the majority of the population uses rivers, lakes, ponds, and irrigations canals as

123 their main water source (WHO/UNICEF, 2017). These sources are probably faecally

124 contaminated since 80% of wastewater resulting from human activities in these areas is

125 discharged into surface waters without treatment (Egli and Wehrli, 2010; WWAP, 2017;

126 UNESCO, 2018), thereby exacerbating the risk of waterborne diseases.

127

128
129 Fig. 2. Proportion of county populations using an improved drinking water source in 2015 (Global Health

130 Observatory Map Gallery, WHO).

131

132 To address the need for safe drinking water, a variety of technologies have been

133 developed and exploited since the 19th century. These treatment methods are widely

134 described in the literature. However, most of the published papers have focus on a

135 specific issue of a particular technology (Fujishima and Honda, 1972; Maness et al.,

136 1999; Jyoti and Pandit, 2001; Rizzo, 2009; Ray and Jain, 2014;). Although some

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

137 technical manuals and reviews have complied different disinfection treatment methods

138 (EPA, 2011; WHO, 2017a; WHO, 2017b; National Research Council, 1980; National

139 Research Council, 1987; Gadgil, 1998; Pandit and Kumar, 2012; Zhang et al, 2018),

140 they do not offer an overall vision of available technologies (developed and currently

141 under development). Thus, the present status of drinking water treatment technologies is

142 not clearly known. On the other hand, regarding the high energy consumption required

143 for treating water in conventional drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) (Gude,

144 2015; Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido, 2017) and the global energy crisis driven by

145 the increasing demand for energy, the depletion of many oil reserves and emission of

146 large amounts of greenhouse gases. A sustainable drinking water supply technology

147 cannot be achieved without considering the energy required in the treatment process. In

148 this regard, solar energy is the most abundant renewable energy source (Blanco et al.,

149 2009), and coincidentally, it is most abundant in the regions that need clean water and

150 electricity. Thus, technologies for integrating solar energy could address the lack of

151 access to safe drinking water and electricity. The main objective of this work is to

152 summarise the current knowledge of the major issues and challenges relating to the lack

153 of access to safe drinking water, and to provide a summary of conventional drinking

154 water treatment technologies. In addition, this work highlights the emerging research

155 directions on potable water treatment, with emphasis on solar energy technologies.

156

157 2. The problem of drinking water access

158

159 2.1 Water quality and health

160

161 Few issues carry as great an importance to public health as does water. Despite the great

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

162 efforts that have been made, currently, at least 2 billion people globally use a drinking

163 water source that is contaminated with faeces (WHO, 2018), and 2.3 billion people still

164 lack improved sanitation facilities (WHO/UNICEF, 2017). These are ideal conditions

165 for contracting and transmitting waterborne diseases, which remain the major cause of

166 morbidity and mortality in the world at more than 2.2 million deaths per year, the

167 majority of which occurs in developing countries (WHO, 2009) and in children under

168 five years of age (Efstratiou et al., 2017).

169

170 Cholera (Vibrio cholera), typhoid fever (Salmonella typhi), dysentery (Shigiella),

171 helminthic infections (e.g. Ascaris lumbricoides), protozoan infections (e.g.

172 Cryptosporidium parvum), hepatitis A virus, trachoma (Chlamydia trachomatis), and

173 schistosomiasis (Schistosoma) are among the diseases commonly transmitted through

174 faecal contamination of water (Fanucchi, 2017). Most of these diseases are manifested

175 as acute diarrhoea, which is responsible for 1.5 million deaths per year, of which more

176 than half a million are specifically produced by the consumption of water contaminated

177 with faeces (WHO, 2018). Escherichia coli, Intestinal enterococci, and Clostridium

178 perfringens are also common bacteria related to faecal microbiological contamination of

179 water. These bacteria, despite being present in the normal intestinal flora of humans and

180 animals, may cause infections when they enter into other parts of the body via ingestion.

181

182 Regarding developing countries, health risks are mainly associated with water

183 contaminated with faeces (Gadgil, 1998). Indeed, it is indicated that most of the

184 wastewater generated in these countries is discharged without any form of treatment,

185 thereby polluting surface waters and generating the perfect environment for the

186 transmission of waterborne diseases (UNESCO, 2018). Furthermore, health problems

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

187 could be aggravated in the future by an increase in the frequency and intensity of

188 tropical storms, floods, and droughts due to climate change (Oki and Kanae, 2006). The

189 distribution of pathogens and the incidence of waterborne disease outbreaks are closely

190 linked to environmental and climatic conditions. In the 20th century, one third of the

191 population was affected by natural disasters, of which 86% were caused by floods and

192 droughts (ISDR, 2007). Flooding is associated with an increased risk of diarrhoea

193 illness through the contamination of drinking water facilities by the dispersion of faecal

194 pollutants. Water shortages due to drought can increase these health problems. In

195 addition, natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) can also impact

196 electricity supply facilities, which in turn hinder drinking water supply, sanitation,

197 hospital operations, industrial process, and many other aspects of daily life. Developing

198 countries, which have the fewest resources for disaster mitigation and adaptation, are

199 the most vulnerable to these impacts.

200

201 On the other hand, in developed countries, an enormous amount of wastewater is

202 generated by industry and municipalities (Egli and Wehrli, 2010). Although 5095% of

203 these amounts passes through wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) (Egli and Wehrli,

204 2010), municipal treatment aims at eliminating nutrients (carbon, nitrogen, and

205 phosphorous), but not the pathogenic microorganisms because of high costs and lack of

206 municipal financial resources. The discharge of un-disinfected treated water becomes

207 relevant when such water is reused for irrigated agriculture. The main disadvantage is

208 that the presence of pathogens can pose health risks to the farmers and the consumers of

209 the products irrigated with treated sewage (Al- Sa`ed, 2007). Bacteria, viruses, and

210 parasites can survive in the environment sufficiently long to pose health risks

211 (WHO/UNEP, 2006a: WHO/UNEP, 2006b), and in fact, disease outbreaks have been

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

212 associated with the use of treated effluent for the irrigation of vegetables (WHO/UNEP,

213 2006a: WHO/UNEP, 2006b). In addition, the lack of adequate tertiary treatment also

214 threatens communities situated downstream or near to the municipal sewage outfalls

215 and endangers recreational users since these receiving water bodies may become a

216 source of waterborne diseases either by ingestion or contact.

217

218 The availability of freshwater is currently a high priority issue for society. Accelerated

219 population growth, hydrological variability and growing agricultural and industrial

220 needs increase dependence on water, turning the reuse of treated wastewater into a

221 highly valued water source, especially in regions where it is scarce. This problem,

222 occurring even in regions currently considered water-rich, is expected to worsen in the

223 coming decades (Fenwick, 2006), highlighting the need to reuse this limited resource.

224 Hence, finding technologies suitable for water recycling, which provide water that does

225 not contain microorganisms, but not necessarily of potable quality, are fundamental to

226 reduce freshwater consumption and wastewater discharges.

227

228 2.2 Energy issues associated with the production of drinking water

229

230 Water and energy are two essential, inseparable, and inextricably linked resources that

231 cannot be produced or supplied without one involving the other (Gude, 2015). The

232 interconnection between water and energy, the energywater nexus (Fig. 3) (Gleick,

233 1994), has recently received growing attention because of concerns about the increasing

234 demand of energy in the water sector and the increasing demand of water in the energy

235 sector (Scott et al., 2011; Bazilian et al., 2011; Marsh, 2008; Carrillo and Frei, 2009;

236 Siddiqi and Anadon, 2011, Bartos and Chester, 2014; Zhou et al., 2013; Rasul, 2014;

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

237 Macknick et al., 2012, Li et al., 2011 and Chavez-Rodriguez and Nebra, 2014).

238

239 Energy for water refers to water consumed in the construction, operation, and

240 maintenance phases of the water sector. Urban water systems require a significant

241 amount of energy. In the process of providing drinking water to the population, energy

242 is required to pump freshwater from its source, to treat raw water in DWTPs, which are

243 energy intensive facilities, and to supply water to consumers over different distances

244 and infrastructures (Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido, 2017). The energy requirements

245 of water treatment depend on the initial water quality (groundwater treatment demands

246 less energy than surface water), technology, and age of the infrastructure. Conventional

247 DWTPs (chemical coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and

248 chlorination) require 0.251 kWh/m3 (Gude, 2015), which is about 2–3% of worldwide

249 energy consumption. This consumption is likely to grow to meet the increasing demand

250 for higher levels of water quality and the increasing demand for drinking water

251 (Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido, 2017).

252

253 Given the relevance of energy for treating raw water in conventional DWTPs, currently,

254 access to safe drinking water usually depends on the link between the DWTP and the

255 local electricity network. However, energy production to feed the electrical grid is also

256 strongly affected by freshwater resources. Energy is tightly interlinked with water since

257 all sources of energy require water in their production process (e.g. for fuel extraction,

258 transportation, refining and processing of fossil fuels, thermal processing, cooling

259 during power generation, and irrigation of biofuels feedstock crops), which are

260 generally water intensive (UNESCO, 2018). The energy sector is the 2nd largest user of

261 water in the world (Hightower and Pierce, 2008). It was estimated that 15% of global

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

262 water withdrawals was used in the energy sector in 2010 (IEA, 2012), and the demand

263 for freshwater is expected to grow by 2030% as a result of the increasing demand for

264 energy, which is expected to grow by more than 70% by 2035 (UNESCO, 2018). The

265 amount of water required for energy production varies significantly with energy

266 processes and technologies, from negligible quantities used for wind (0.004 L/kWh),

267 solar photovoltaic (PV) (0.11 L/kWh) (Saidur et al., 2011), and geothermal energy

268 generation, to the vast amounts used for the cultivation of biofuel feedstock crops

269 (Hightower and Pierce, 2008). Therefore, increasing the capacity of renewable sources

270 of energy will be a key to mitigating the stress on freshwater resources, other users of

271 water, and the environment owing to the influence of energy production on regional

272 water uses (Fthenakis and Kim, 2010; Mulder et al., 2010; IEA, 2012).

273

ENERGY

Water Water Water End water Wastewater Wastewater Water

extraction treatment distribution use collection treatment recycling

Mineral and Thermal Fuel Biofuels Hydropower

fuel extraction processing processing production

WATER

274 Fig. 3. The waterenergy nexus: energy demand throughout the water cycle (from extraction to recycling)

275 and water usage in the energy production process (Wakeel et al., 2016).

276

277 Despite the increasing demand for energy worldwide, access to energy is still limited.

278 About 1.2 billion people still lack access to electricity, and more than 2.7 billion people

279 rely on the traditional use of biomass for cooking, a practice that is associated with

280 approximately 3.5 million deaths annually from indoor air pollution (IEA, 2012). The

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

281 close association between respiratory diseases and waterborne diseases indicates that

282 people who lack access to electricity also lack access to safe drinking water (UNESCO,

283 2015). This finding shows the close link between water and energy and illustrates the

284 alarming situation of populations without access to basic resources.

285

286 3. Drinking water disinfection technologies

287

288 Disinfection generally constitutes the final step in the drinking water treatment process,

289 and its purpose is to eliminate pathogenic microorganisms that are responsible for

290 waterborne diseases. This step can be controlled through physical and chemical

291 methods that substantially reduce the total number of viable microorganisms within the

292 water, thereby contributing to public health protection.

293

294 Conventional drinking water treatment technologies include physical methods such as

295 flocculation and sedimentation, filtration, ultraviolet (UV) radiation and pasteurisation,

296 and chemical methods that consist of the addition of chemicals (e.g. chlorination,

297 chloramination, chlorine dioxide treatment, and ozonation). However, only radiation,

298 heat, and chemical methods can technically be called disinfection, because they

299 inactivate or destroy the pathogenic microorganisms instead of simply removing them.

300 Two kinds of disinfection are possible: primary disinfection to eliminate pathogens in

301 the raw water supply, and secondary disinfection to minimise the effects of re-

302 contamination during storage and distribution.

303

304 The suitability of any disinfection technology can be evaluated according to its efficacy

305 against waterborne pathogens, ability to provide residual activity, formation of

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

306 disinfection byproducts (DBPs), costs (construction, operation, and maintenance),

307 applicability to large-scale operations, and the final quality of the treated water

308 (National Research Council, 1987). Regarding water quality, verification is carried out

309 by the analysis of faecal indicator microorganisms. Escherichia coli has traditionally

310 been used to monitor the microbiological water quality, because it provides conclusive

311 evidence of recent faecal pollution (WHO, 2011). International guidelines, such as the

312 WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (4th edition) (WHO, 2011), establish

313 Escherichia coli and thermotolerant coliform bacteria as faecal indicators. The

314 European Union (Council Directive 98/83/EC) establishes E. coli and Enterococcus

315 spp. as indicators, while the Spanish legislation (Spain, RD 140/2003), with more

316 stringent regulations, establishes E. coli, total coliforms, Enterococcus spp., and

317 Clostridium perfringens (including their spores) as faecal indicators of drinking water

318 quality. Drinking water should contain no faecal organisms; so, in all cases ‘no

319 detection’ in any 100 ml of sample is required to identify a water source as safe to drink

320 (Table 1).

321

322 Table 1. Requirements for the verification of the microbiological quality of water intended for human

323 consumption, as established by the WHO, European Union, and Spanish legislation.

WHO European Union Spain

Escherichia coli 0 CFU/100 ml 0 CFU/100 ml 0 CFU/100 ml

Thermotolerant coliforms 0 CFU/100 ml - -

Total coliforms - - 0 CFU/100 ml

Enterococcus spp. - 0 CFU/100 ml 0 CFU/100 ml

Clostridium perfringens - - 0 CFU/100 ml

324

325 In spite of their immense contribution to public health protection, traditional drinking

326 water disinfection techniques are not always effective in eliminating some pathogens,

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

327 such as Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts. Chemical disinfection can result in

328 the formation of DBPs, which have become a serious concern since their first detection

329 in 1974 because of their potential teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and

330 even endocrine disruption proprieties (Gadgil, 1998; Rook, 1974). Furthermore, their

331 implementation in developing regions (currently the most vulnerable to waterborne

332 infectious diseases) is limited due to their dependence on access to chemicals (which is

333 difficult or expensive) and electricity, high costs (of infrastructure, operation, and

334 maintenance), lack of trained operators, and social rejection of water after treatment

335 because of its unsatisfactory taste and odour. These limitations have led to rapid

336 research and development of advanced alternative technologies for use in the field of

337 water intended for human consumption. Some of the specific issues being addressed

338 include energy efficiency, avoiding chemical addition, avoiding harmful DBPs

339 formation, and overcoming bacteria resistance.

340

341 3.1 Conventional technologies

342

343 Conventional disinfection technologies are those with widely proven and accepted

344 effectiveness for drinking water treatment. They are often chemically, energetically, and

345 operationally intensive and focused on large systems that require considerable infusion

346 of capital, engineering expertise, and infrastructure. Currently, they are widely

347 implemented at large and medium scales and have successfully protected public health

348 against waterborne diseases throughout the world for decades. The main conventional

349 disinfection technologies are reviewed next.

350

351 3.1.1. Chlorination

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

352

353 Chlorination (Fig. 4) is the most widely used method for drinking water disinfection. It

354 consists of the addition of chlorine or chlorine byproducts (sodium hypochlorite or

355 calcium hypochlorite) to water, where chlorine reacts to form hypochlorous acid

356 (HOCl) and hypochlorite ion (OCl−), usually termed ‘free chlorine’; both products are

357 capable of eliminating pathogenic microorganisms.

358

359 Chlorine is a strong oxidising disinfectant and its use is recommended when water is not

360 turbid (< 1 NTU) and the pH is below 8.0. The main advantage of chlorination is that

361 chloride persists in water as residual chlorine after dosing, so its disinfectant activity

362 continues within the distribution and storage systems (WHO, 2017a; National Research

363 Council, 1980).

364

365

366
367
368
369
370
371
372 Fig. 4. Chlorination injection system for drinking water treatment (Clean Water Store, 2017).

373

374 Nevertheless, despite its great effectiveness as a water disinfection method, chlorination

375 has disadvantages such as unsatisfactory taste and odour, ineffectiveness against cysts

376 and eggs of protozoa (Cryptosporidium and Giardia) and helminths eggs

377 (Drancunculus medinesis and Schistosoma) (WHO, 2017a; EPA, 2011), and the

378 formation of more than 40 different DBPs, with trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

379 acids (HAAs) being the most abundant (Zhai et al., 2017). Furthermore, conventional

380 automated chlorine-dosing plants that use chlorine gas require highly trained operators,

381 engineers, and repair and maintenance infrastructures (Gadgil, 1998); on the other hand,

382 plants that use diluted chlorine are relatively simple and cost effective and do not

383 require technical expertise.

384

385 3.1.2. Chloramination

386

387 In chloramination treatment, ammonia and chlorine are dosed in a controlled manner to

388 react and form monochloramine (NH2Cl), which must be generated at the point of

389 treatment. Its type of disinfection is less effective than chlorination (by about 200

390 times), and as such, it is generally used as a secondary disinfectant during distribution,

391 rather than for primary disinfection (EPA, 2011).

392

393 Chloramination requires similar dosing equipment and trained operators as chlorination,

394 but produces less taste and odour issues and does not form THMs.

395

396 3.1.3. Chlorine dioxide

397

398 Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is a more powerful oxidising agent than chlorine and

399 chloramines. Its disinfectant action is less pH-dependent than that of chorine and it

400 provides a long-lasting residual activity (WHO, 2017a). Because chlorine dioxide is

401 unstable, its application requires on-site synthesis by the action of chlorine or an acid on

402 sodium chlorine, which are then dosed together into the water (WHO, 2017a; EPA,

403 2011). This process requires constant vigilance, monitoring, and control, and it is much

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

404 more expensive than chlorination (WHO, 2017a).

405

406 Chlorites and chlorates are the main DBPs formed during water treatment with chorine

407 dioxide (EPA, 2011; Korn, 2002), and both contribute to the development of

408 methemoglobinemia and haemolytic anaemia in humans (Al-Otoum et al., 2016).

409 However, THMs and HAAs are formed in lower concentrations in water when using

410 ClO2 versus chlorine. Other disadvantages of ClO2 include low level of effectiveness

411 against Cryptosporidium oocysts and taste and odour issues, which limit its use as

412 secondary disinfectant.

413

414 3.1.4. Ozonation

415

416 Ozone (O3), generated on-site by passing dry oxygen or air through a system of high-

417 voltage electrodes (tens of thousands of volts) (Gadgil, 1998; Pandit and Kumar, 2012),

418 is currently the most widely used drinking water disinfectant next to chlorine (Gadgil,

419 1998). It is a very powerful oxidant and much more effective as disinfectant than

420 chlorine and chlorine dioxide. Ozone require less contact time and lower concentrations

421 than chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide to achieve disinfection. Ozone is

422 particularly effective against spores and cysts, and it is the only chemical that can

423 effectively inactivate either Giardia or Cryptosporidium (EPA, 2011). However, its

424 concentration in water decays more rapidly than other disinfectants; so, it does not

425 provide residual protection against re-contamination in the distribution system. Thus,

426 ozone is suitable as primary disinfectant, but must be coupled with a secondary

427 disinfectant (EPA, 2011).

428

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

429 Ozonation is an expensive technology in terms of capital and operation costs (EPA,

430 2011). It requires high energy input, on-site generation, highly skilled maintenance, and

431 post treatment to remove the high levels of assimilable and biodegradable organic

432 carbon formed by the oxidation process. Furthermore, ozone is known to react with

433 natural organic matters and bromide ion Br− to produce a range of byproducts, including

434 bromate, aldehydes, ketones, and quinones (EPA, 2011). However, THMs and HAAs

435 are not formed, and their formation can be reduced if chlorine is used as a secondary

436 disinfectant.

437

438 3.1.5. UV lamps

439

440 UV disinfection of water is normally achieved by passing the water through tubes lined

441 with UV lamps using a wavelength of light around 254 nm (National Research Council,

442 1980; EPA, 2011). The germicidal effect of UV light occurs because it directly acts on

443 the DNA of the microorganisms to disable them from growing or replicating (National

444 Research Council, 1980; EPA, 2011).

445

446 In contrast to many of the chemical disinfectants, UV treatment imparts no taste and

447 odours to the water, and it presents no risk due to overdosing or formation of harmful

448 byproducts (Gadgil, 1998; National Research Council, 1980). Only nitrite can be

449 formed from the reaction of UV light with nitrate. However, UV treatment does not

450 leave a residual in treated water, and thus, it offers no protection against biological re-

451 contamination in the distribution network (EPA, 2011). Moreover, although thoroughly

452 effective against viruses, spores, and cysts, high UV doses are required to inactivate

453 Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts (Gadgil, 1998).

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

454

455 Furthermore, compounds present in the water can foul the external surfaces of the lamp

456 sleeves, thereby reducing the applied UV intensity and, consequently, the disinfection

457 efficiency (EPA, 2011). Chemical fouling and biological film formation require

458 periodic cleaning with chemical and mechanical methods, which makes maintenance

459 complex and expensive (Gadgil, 1998). In addition, the treatment efficiency can be

460 reduced by inadequate water transmittance. Therefore, supplementary processes are

461 required upstream to clarify the water and significantly improve the effectiveness of the

462 UV disinfection. Such process may include coagulation and filtration to reduce colour

463 and the dissolved organic fraction (EPA, 2011).

464

465 The major concern of UV disinfection is that the lamps require significant amounts of

466 energy throughout their lifetime, including their fabrication and operation (they need

467 continuous electricity supply to work), maintenance, and disposal. Regarding

468 maintenance, UV lamps should be replaced every 6–12 months (EPA, 1999), which

469 implies frequent replacements and use of additional energy for manufacturing and

470 transportation. Moreover, the discarded lamps generate a waste management problem

471 because they contain mercury, which is hazardous. The environmental impact of lamps

472 must therefore be reduced by recycling to recover reusable materials and control

473 mercury emissions to the environment. Because the lamps must be replaced every year,

474 recycling represents a significant increase in the use of energy by UV disinfection

475 systems. Another limitation is the low efficiency of the mercury UV lamps, which is

476 around 1540% (EPA, 1999). Taking into account the electrical conversion efficiency

477 of operating the lamps (35%), the final efficiency would be in the range of 5–15%.

478

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

479 3.1.6. Pasteurisation

480

481 Boiling is the oldest method for obtaining safe drinking water, and it is mostly used in

482 developing countries (Gadgil, 1998). Heating water to the boiling point (100 ºC) is

483 strictly not necessary for disinfection; maintaining the water temperature at 70 ºC for six

484 minutes is sufficient. However, owing to the lack of thermometers for household use,

485 the WHO recommends bringing the water to a vigorous roiling boil for a minute (WHO,

486 2017b) or for five minutes if turbid water is used, as the boiling point is easily

487 recognised by the formation of bubbles.

488

489 This method requires a lot of fuel. The WHO (WHO, 2017b) indicates that about 1 kg

490 of wood is needed to boil 1 L of water, while Gadgil (1998) reported that with a cook

491 stove efficiency of 12%, 1 kg of wood can disinfect 3 L of water. In terms of costs,

492 Clasen et al. (2008b) reported a monthly cost of US$ 0.272 for wood collectors and

493 US$ 1.68 for wood purchasers (6 times greater) in rural Vietnam. Regarding urban and

494 peri-urban areas, Psutka et al. (2011) reported that in urban Zambia, the potential cost of

495 fuel and electricity for boiling water is about 5% and 7% of family income,

496 respectively, while in semi-urban India, boiling water costs US$ 0.88 per month for

497 households using liquid petroleum gas and US$ 0.69 for those using wood (Clasen et al.

498 2008a). In any case, gathering wood for boiling water is a heavy burden on hundreds of

499 millions of women in the developing word, and it is an economically unrealistic and

500 environmentally unsustainable method for daily disinfection of water (WHO, 2017b;

501 Gilman and Skillicorn, 1985).

502

503 3.1.7. Filtration

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

504

505 Filtration consists of the physical removal of microorganisms from water, and despite it

506 not being strictly classified within the group of disinfection technologies, filtration is

507 widely used in developing countries as a way to obtain safe drinking water. During

508 filtration, water passes through a porous structure made up of different bed materials or

509 through a thin film (membrane filtration). Depending on the filter pore size, suspended

510 particles, and consequently some microorganisms, present in water are retained by the

511 filter (Betancourt and Rose, 2004).

512

513 Simple point-of-use household filters include ceramic filters, stone filters, and sand

514 filters (WHO, 2017b). These filters remove suspended particles by straining through the

515 pores in the filter bed, adsorption of particles to the filter grains, sedimentation of

516 particles while in the media pore, and coagulation while travelling through the pores

517 (Betancourt and Rose, 2004). The efficiency of these filters varies widely, and it is very

518 important to clean them regularly because a dirty filter can add more contamination to

519 the water. For small communities, slow or rapid sand filters are more suitable for water

520 supply because they are more efficient at removing pathogens, despite being more

521 complex and difficult to operate (WHO, 2017b).

522

523 In membrane filtration, water is passed through a thin film, which removes pathogens

524 by size exclusion; hence, microbes with sizes greater than the membrane pore size are

525 eliminated from the water. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an established and effective

526 membrane-based technology for both desalination and potable water production and has

527 been widely used in areas with scarce water supplies (as a means of brackish water and

528 seawater desalination). RO is a pressure-driven process whereby a semi-permeable

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

529 membrane rejects ions, proteins, and organic chemicals present in the feed water

530 (Malaeb and Ayoub, 2011; Sachit and Veenstra, 2014). Although microorganisms can

531 also be removed by RO, it is not recommended for that use (Dvorak and Skipton, 2014)

532 since membrane deterioration can occur due to the recalcitrant biofilms formed by

533 bacteria on membrane surface (Ivnitsky et al., 2005; Tran et al., 2007; Stoica et al.,

534 2018). Currently, this is a critical issue for the operation and cost-effectiveness of

535 membrane systems, which require chemical cleaning and membrane replacement.

536 Furthermore, despite the fact that energy efficiency of RO has significantly increased

537 over the last 40 years (Fritzmann et al., 2007; National Research Council, 2008; Busch

538 and Mickolas, 2004), it still requires a high energy input due to the high consumption of

539 electricity when pressurising the feed flow. The production of one cubic metre of fresh

540 water from brackish water requires 0.52.5 kWh, while 310 kWh is required if

541 produced from seawater (Ghaffour et al., 2013; Darwish and Al-Najem, 1897; Zotalis et

542 al., 2014).

543

544 Another form of membrane filtration involves straining water through a cloth. While

545 this technique is used at the household level in developing countries, it is not considered

546 an appropriate method for drinking water treatment (Sobsey, 2002).

547

548 3.1.8. Summary

549

550 Chlorination has been the most widely used practised drinking water disinfection

551 method. However, because of the potential toxicity of chlorine byproducts, chlorination

552 has become less attractive; this has increased the focus on alternative disinfectants,

553 including chlorine dioxide, ozone, and UV irradiation lamps, which are now being

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

554 promoted at a larger scale. Table 2 shows the main advantages and disadvantages of the

555 traditional disinfection technologies.

556

557 Table 2. Main advantages and disadvantages of conventional water disinfection technologies.

Advantages Disadvantages/limitations

Chlorination - Extremely effective for bacteria and - DBPs formation

virus inactivation - Ineffective against Cryptosporidium

- Residual protection against re- and Giardia cysts

contamination - Unsatisfactory taste and odour

- Calcium and sodium hypochlorite - Less effective in turbid and organic-rich

require simple equipment and waters

instrumentation - Dependence on pH

- Chorine gas is hazardous and extremely

corrosive

- Requires trained operators

- Sodium and calcium hypochlorite are

more expensive than chlorine gas

- Dependence on chemical access

Chloramination - Lower DBPs than chlorine - Must be manufactured on-site

- Residual protection against re- - Less disinfection capability than other

contamination methods

- Effective against biofilms formation - Chloramines are harmful for patients

in the distribution system undergoing dialysis, aquariums, and fish

farming enterprises

Chloramination - Less taste and odour concerns - Requires trained operators

- Dependence on chemical access

Chlorine dioxide - Less dependence on pH than chlorine - Requires on-site production

- Long-lasting residual activity - More expensive than chlorine

- Effective against Giardia - Chlorites and chlorates formation

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

- Low level of inactivation of

Cryptosporidium

- Unsatisfactory taste and odour

- Dependence on chemical access

Ozonation - Effective against bacteria, viruses and - Requires on-site generation

protozoa (Giardia and - Does not provide residual activity

Cryptosporidium) - Associated costs are high compared to

- No dependence on chemical access other chemical disinfectants

- Expensive to operate

- Requires high energy input

- Requires highly skilled maintenance

- Formation of DBPs (bromate)

UV lamps - Effective against virus, spores, and - Low energy efficiency system

cysts - Lamps should be replaced every 6–12

- No taste and odour concerns months

- No harmful byproducts formation - Lamps contain mercury, which is toxic

- No dependence on chemical access - Discarded lamps generate a waste

management problem

- Does not provide residual activity

- Effectiveness of disinfection decrease

because of chemical fouling, biological

film formation, and inadequate

transmittance of water

Pasteurisation - Simple to operate - Requires a lot of fuel

- No dependence on chemical access - Economically and environmental

unsustainable

Filtration - Reduces water turbidity and - Pathogens elimination depends on the

microorganism content filter pore size

- No dependence on chemical access - Filters must be cleaned regularly

- RO: high water quality output - RO: high energy consumption, high

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

costs, chemicals addition for membranes

cleaning

- RO: not recommended for

microorganism elimination

558

559 3.2 Emerging technologies

560

561 Non-conventional water treatment technologies include techniques that are currently in

562 development and those with limited application at large or medium scales. The

563 development of these methods has been driven by discovery of harmful DBPs resulting

564 from the conventional chemical treatments (e.g. chlorination), increasing requirements

565 for higher levels of drinking water quality, and costs associated with conventional

566 methods. Because a universal solution for microbial treatment of potable water does not

567 yet exist, safer, economical, and efficient technological innovations for water treatment

568 are being investigated and developed. While some entirely new methods are being

569 proposed, some other emerging technologies have come from variations of the

570 conventional technologies.

571

572 3.2.1. Solar pasteurisation

573

574 Solar thermal pasteurisation is a simple and cheap method of producing drinking water.

575 It relies on the use of energy from the sun to heat water to a sufficiently high

576 temperature for a certain period of time, thereby inactivating or destroying pathogenic

577 microorganisms (Ray and Jain, 2014). This method is well known in developing

578 countries, where electricity or firewood is not available, and it can be implemented

579 using devices as simple as often water containers placed in a dark box and covered by a

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

580 transparent material (Fig. 5a), as first developed by Ciochetti and Metcalf (1984).

581 However, many hours are required to disinfect small amounts of water.

582

583 3.2.2. Solar disinfection

584

585 Solar disinfection (SODIS) makes use of the bactericidal effect of solar radiation to

586 purify water. It is based on the germicidal effect of UV radiation, the oxidative activity

587 associated with dissolved oxygen, and thermal heating. The method, which depends on

588 radiation intensity, temperature, water turbidity, and water height, is simple and

589 inexpensive. It consisting of placing water into transparent plastic bottles (usually

590 polyethylene terephthalate, PET) under the sun for at least six hours (Downes and

591 Blunt, 1877; Acra et al, 1984). Solar disinfection was recently recognised as an

592 appropriate treatment method for water disinfection by the WHO (Sobsey, 2002). A

593 detailed description of this technology is presented in Section 4.

594

595 3.2.3. Photocatalysis

596

597 Photocatalysis has recently emerged as an alternative or complementary technology to

598 current drinking water treatment methods (Fig. 5b) (Fujishima and Honda, 1972;

599 Matsunaga et al., 1985). In photocatalysis, electron hole pairs (e-/h+) are generated when

600 catalytic semiconductor particles are illuminated with UV lamps or sunlight near UV

601 radiation (λ < 400 nm). These pairs can migrate to form oxidising species (·OH) that

602 exhibits strong bactericidal activity (Rizzo, 2009; Maness et al., 1999). TiO2 is the most

603 widely used photocatalyst owing to its stability and low energy ban-gap (Fujishima et

604 al., 2000; Gaya and Abdullah, 2008). The ability of this advance oxidation technology

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

605 to inactivate microorganisms in water has been widely demonstrated (Domínguez et al.,

606 1998; Marugán et al., 2006; Marugán et al., 2007: Rincon and Pulgarin, 2004).

607 However, to date, the application of photocatalysis for industrial water treatment faces

608 some challenges. In slurry TiO2 systems, an additional step is needed for post-recovery

609 of the catalyst particles from the treated water to avoid the loss of catalyst particles and

610 the introduction of new pollutants into the treated water (Yang and Li, 2007). However,

611 if the catalyst is fixed into an inert substrate, the catalytic active areas are reduced and

612 the photon penetration may not reach every single surface site for photonic activation;

613 this feature reduces the level of disinfectant activity (Pozzo et al., 1997). Operational

614 costs associated with photocatalysis vary depending on the spectrum for catalyst

615 activation; the higher-end of the UV spectrum corresponds to high operational costs

616 (Chong et al., 2010).

617

a b

618
619 Fig. 5. (a) Solar-thermal pasteurisation using an opaque vessel with a solar reflector; (b) photocatalytic

620 reactor using compound parabolic collectors (the photocatalyst is built into the glass tubes) (Fernández et

621 al., 2005).

622

623 3.2.4. UV-LEDs

624

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

625 Ultraviolet light-emitting diodes (UV-LED) technology (Fig. 6a) have emerged in

626 recent decades with a number of benefits compared to traditional UV mercury lamps.

627 UV-LEDs offer several advantages such as being environmentally friendly (no

628 mercury), compactness and robustness (more durable), potentially less energy

629 consumption, and longer lifetime (Würtele et al., 2011; Ibrahim et al., 2014). These

630 features make this technology a promising alternative to the conventional UV mercury

631 lamps for drinking water disinfection. However, UV-LEDs are currently not

632 economically viable for water disinfection applications, although their prices are

633 expected to decrease in the coming years.

634

635 Although investigations on the application of UV-LEDs to water disinfection are scarce,

636 the few published works show that UV-LEDs, especially those emitting around 260 nm,

637 are more effective than UVB and UVA-LEDs for microorganism inactivation.

638 However, the germicidal effect of UV radiation is highly dependent on the spectral

639 sensitivity of the microorganisms, which does not necessarily follow the DNA

640 absorbance spectrum (254 nm) (Chen et al., 2009; Mamane-Gravetz et al., 2005; Linden

641 et al., 2001; Vilhunen et al., 2009). Therefore, UV wavelength is an essential factor for

642 microbial inactivation, and its effectiveness of UV-LEDs may vary for different

643 microorganisms (Linden et al., 2001; Vilhunen et al., 2009).

644

645 3.2.5. Cavitation

646

647 Cavitation refers to the formation, growth, and collapse of microbubbles within a liquid,

648 which lead to the generation of high pressure and temperature that causes cellular

649 damage (Jyoti and Pandit, 2001). Acoustic cavitation or ultrasonication occurs when

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

650 microbubbles are formed due to the passage of high frequency sound waves through

651 water, and hydrodynamic cavitation (Fig. 6b) occurs when such bubbles are formed by

652 pressure variations in the liquid due to changes in the geometry of the flowing system

653 (Jyoti and Pandit, 2001). The effects of cavitation on the elimination of bacteria from

654 water have been widely demonstrated by Stanley (2004), Mezule et al. (2010), Arrojo et

655 al. (2008), Loraine et al. (2012), and Balasundaram and Harrison (2006). This

656 technology does not result in the formation of toxic byproducts, but is expensive when

657 compared to chemical disinfectants, does not have the capacity to treat large volumes of

658 water, requires continuous supply of energy, and present high operational costs (Dular

659 et al., 2016). Cavitation is still at the laboratory stage of development for water

660 disinfection.

661

a b

662
663 Fig. 6. (a) UV-LED disinfection reactor: 35 UV LEDs (282 nm) positioned in three concentric circles

664 placed on the base of the water disinfection module (Würtele et al., 2011); (b) ‘shear induced’

665 hydrodynamic cavitation reactor (cavitation forms between the counter rotating teeth of the rotors) (Dular

666 et al., 2016).

667

668 3.2.6. Electrochemical disinfection

669

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

670 Electrochemical disinfection involves the inactivation of microorganisms by passing an

671 electric current through the water by means of suitable electrodes. Electrodes (at least

672 one anode and one cathode) are inserted directly into the volume of water to be

673 disinfected, and a direct current (DC) voltage is applied between them (Mills and Hunte,

674 1997; Tryk et al., 2000; Bergmann et al., 2002; Bahnemann, 2004). A voltage in the

675 range 1–1500 V is required, depending on the characteristics of the anode and the water

676 (Martínez-Huitle and Brillas, 2008). Two categories of electrochemical disinfection can

677 be distinguished: direct electrolysers, which interface directly with the contaminated

678 water and produce disinfecting species from the water itself, and mixed oxidant

679 generators, which use a concentrated brine solution to generate a mixture of strong

680 oxidising species (e.g. chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and ozone). The latter category has

681 been reported to successfully inactivate Cryptosporidium oocysts (Venczel et al., 1997).

682 In addition, electrochemical disinfection offers the benefits of on-site generation and

683 avoiding the handling and storage hazards of chlorine gas. Furthermore,

684 electrochlorination (the most popular electrochemical disinfection system) has reported

685 more than 50% reduction in THMs compared to chlorination alone (Venczel et al.,

686 1997); however, other byproducts such as chlorate and perchlorate could be formed,

687 depending on the material used in the electrodes (Palmas et al., 2007). This technology

688 has other disadvantages such as variable electrode lifetimes (RuO2-coated Ti electrodes

689 should be replaced every 3 months, while Ti electrodes may last up to eight years before

690 replacement (Kraft, 2008)) and the formation of calcareous deposits on the electrodes,

691 which limit its efficiency. Furthermore, electrochemical disinfection requires

692 continuous supply of electricity.

693

694 3.2.7. Summary

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

695

696 Table 3 shows the main advantages and drawbacks of the emerging disinfection

697 technologies.

698

699 Table 3. Main advantages and disadvantages of emerging water disinfection technologies.

Advantages Disadvantages/limitations

Solar pasteurisation - Simple to use and inexpensive - Dependence on climatic

- No dependence on electricity conditions

- No harmful byproducts - Relatively long time to treat

formation water

- No dependence on chemical - Does not provide residual

access activity

Solar disinfection - Simple to use and inexpensive - Dependence on climatic

- No costs to the user after conditions

obtaining PET bottles - Relatively long time to treat

- No dependence on electricity water

- Potentially effective against - Need for pre-treatment in highly

bacteria, viruses, and protozoa turbid waters

- Minimal changes in taste and - Does not provide residual

odour activity

- No harmful byproducts

formation

- No dependence on chemical

access

Photocatalysis - Exhibits strong bactericidal - Dependence on chemical access

activity - Disadvantages of UV lamps, if

used (see Table 2)

- Dependence on climatic

conditions, if sunlight is used

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

- Presents operational challenges

for industrial applications

UV-LEDs - Longer lifetime than UV - Economically unfeasible

conventional lamps - Requires continuous energy

- More compact and robust than supply

UV lamps

- Environmentally friendly (no

mercury)

- Less energy consumption

- No harmful byproducts

formation

- No dependence on chemical

access

Cavitation - No harmful byproducts - Expensive, compared to

formation chemical disinfectants

- No dependence on chemical - Still at the laboratory stage of

access development

- Requires continuous energy

supply

Electrochemical disinfection - Direct electrolyser: no - Requires continuous energy

dependence on chemical access supply

- Electrodes lifetime

- Mixed oxidant generator:

dependence on chemical access

- Efficiency limited by calcareous

deposits on electrodes

700

701 4. Solar disinfection (SODIS)

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

702 The solar irradiance reaching the earth’s surface in a typical cloudless atmosphere in

703 summer at the equator is about 1120 W/m2 (McGuigan et al., 2012); hence, 1.12 kJ/m2

704 of free natural energy from the sun is available for use every second. However, this

705 value varies with position (decreasing as latitude increases away from the equator),

706 season (because of the earth’s angle of tilt), and time of the day. In addition, not all the

707 radiation received at the outer layer of the atmosphere reaches the earth’s surface. Water

708 vapour, CO2, ozone, oxygen, and pollutants present in the atmosphere absorb and

709 scatter various proportions of the solar irradiance. Specifically, UVC radiation (100–

710 280 nm) and a proportion of UVB radiation (280–320 nm) is absorbed by the

711 atmosphere. Thus, solar disinfection activity is limited to wavelengths of more than

712 290 nm, which includes UVA (320 – 400 nm); this is the main range of UV radiation

713 reaching the earth’s crust.

714

715 The disinfecting abilities of sunlight have been known for many years (SODIS has been

716 carried out since Egyptian times), but only during the last few decades has this idea

717 come to practice. Solar disinfection was first studied and reported in the late 1870s by

718 Downes and Blunt (1877), who also indicated the importance of parameters such as

719 sunlight intensity, solar exposure time, and wavelength (with the shorter being more

720 effective) for inactivating bacteria. However, it was not until the 1980s that Aftim Acra

721 and co-workers at the University of Beirut rediscovered solar disinfection as an

722 effective and low-cost method for drinking water treatment (Acra et al, 1984).

723

724 Solar disinfection, based on the exclusive utilisation of solar radiation, is a simple,

725 environmentally sustainable, and inexpensive method for drinking water treatment that

726 inactivates pathogenic microorganisms using the germicidal effect of UV radiation and

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

727 thermal heating (pasteurisation). The technique consists of placing raw water into

728 transparent plastic containers (normally 12 L PET bottles) under direct sunlight for at

729 least 6 h if it is a sunny day, or 23 days if cloudy, after which time it is safe to drink

730 (SODIS, 2002). Fig. 7 shows a simple guidance for the use of SODIS (SODIS, 2017;

731 Byrne et al., 2011). The main benefits of solar disinfection include no dependence on

732 chemical components and electric sources, low operation and maintenance costs (cost to

733 the user are associated with obtaining the PET bottles that must be replaced every six

734 months), minimal changes in the taste and odour of the water, and no generation of

735 residue (SODIS, 2002). From the user’s point of view, it is simple to operate, safe, and

736 does not require heavy maintenance (Acra et al, 1984). However, it presents several

737 drawbacks, such as many hours needed to treat small volumes of water, dependence on

738 environmental conditions (sunlight intensity, ambient temperature, time of sun

739 exposure, nature of the microbiological contamination, water turbidity levels, and water

740 composition and nutrients present), and the characteristics of the container (optical

741 transmittance, shape, volume and depth influence on the water temperature, and UV

742 penetration). Furthermore, because SODIS does not provide residual activity, the treated

743 water must be consumed within a day in order to prevent microbial regrowth (Sobsey,

744 2002). Moreover, sunlight can transform the plastic material into photoproducts that can

745 migrate from the containers into water. This constitutes a significant barrier to the

746 increasing usage of SODIS, despite the fact that PET plastic photodegradation products

747 or other harmful or genotoxic substances have not been detected in concentrations

748 above the limit set for drinking water quality (Wegelin et al., 2001; Schmid et al., 2008;

749 Ubomba-Jaswa et al., 2010a).

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Wash the bottle well

the first time you use it 3. Place the bottles on
a black iron sheet or on
the roof

2. Fill the bottle

with water

5. The water is now

ready for consumption

4. Expose the bottle to

direct sunlight for at
least six hours
750
751 Fig. 7. Graphical description of the SODIS process for household water treatment (SODIS, 2017; Byrne

752 et al., 2011).

753

754 Regarding the mechanisms for pathogen inactivation, solar UV can cause damage

755 through direct inactivation, UV photons acting directly on the DNA of microorganisms,

756 or by photosensitisation mechanisms, whereby the UV light is absorbed by endogenous

757 (indirect endogenous inactivation) or exogenous (indirect exogenous inactivation)

758 sensitisers (Fig. 8). When DNA is irradiated with UV light, some of this energy is

759 absorbed by pyrimidine rings of thymine and cytosine bases in the DNA, which leads to

760 the formation of pyrimidine dimers that hinder DNA replication, thus preventing the

761 microorganism from reproducing (Goodsell, 2001). Although UVA radiation is not

762 sufficiently energetic to directly modify DNA bases, it is absorbed by photosensitisers

763 present in the water (humic acids and chlorophylls), which react with oxygen to produce

764 reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as singlet oxygen, superoxide, hydrogen peroxide,

765 and hydroxyl radical. Furthermore, endogenous photosensitisers within cells, such as

766 porphyrins, flavins, quinones, NADH/NADPH, and others, also contribute to the

767 formation of intracellular ROS. These highly reactive oxygen molecules have a

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

768 disinfectant effect by causing damage to DNA and oxidising amino acids in proteins

769 and polyunsaturated fatty acids in lipids, thereby inducing cellular membrane damage

770 (SODIS, 2017). However, the cell damage can be repaired by photo-reactivation

771 (Thoma, 1999; Sancar, 1994; Kim et al., 1994; Sancar, 1996b; Todo et al., 1997) or

772 dark repair mechanisms (Lindahl and Wood, 1999; Prakash et al., 1993; Sancar, 1996a;

773 Lehmann, 1995, Seeber et al., 1995); cell damage can also be prevented by antioxidant

774 enzymes (Halliwell and Gutteridge, 1989; Fridovich, 1995; Özben, 1998; Cabiscol et

775 al., 2000). Some enzymes can repair pyrimidine dimers in the presence of blue light or

776 even enable the cell to scavenge reactive oxygen species. Moreover, the affected

777 pyrimidine bases or nucleotides can be removed, and both strands of DNA containing a

778 large number of pyrimidine dimers can be cut to be repaired.

779

UVC

UVC
UVB UVA
UVA UVC UVB

Atmosphere

UVB UVA

Photosensitizer

ROS
DNA DNA damage
repair
Protein and
lipid oxidation

Antioxidant
repair system
Microorganism inactivation
780

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

781 Fig. 8. Mechanisms for inactivation of microorganisms by UV radiation: direct inactivation through

782 direct DNA damage and photosensitisation mechanisms (indirect endogenous/exogenous inactivation)

783 (Svobodova et al., 2006).

784

785 On the other hand, bacteria disinfection by thermal inactivation has been attributed to

786 the high absorption of far-infrared radiation by water, whereby temperature triggers

787 both synergetic and antagonist effects between optical and thermal processes. A strong

788 synergistic effect has been observed when water temperature exceeds 45 ºC (McGuigan

789 et al., 1998; Wegelin et al., 1994; Vivar et al., 2017b; Vivar et al., 2017c); this effect

790 was attributed to a slow pasteurisation effect and the inhibition of the DNA repair

791 mechanisms (McGuigan et al., 1998), while temperatures of 20–40 ºC were reported to

792 enhance the bacteria growth, thus hindering the disinfection process (Vivar et al.,

793 2017b; Giannakis et al., 2015).

794

795 The solar disinfection technique has been shown to be highly effective against a wide

796 range of waterborne pathogens, such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa, including

797 Giardia and Cryptosporidium (Wegelin et al., 1994; Sommer et al., 1997; Boyle et al.,

798 2008; Heaselgrave et al., 2006; Harding and Schwab, 2012; Mendez-Hermida et al.,

799 2005; Mendez-Hermida et al., 2007; Gomez-Couso et al., 2010; Gomez-Couso et al.,

800 2009a; Gomez-Couso et al., 2009b, McGuigan et al., 2006; Meierhofer and Landolt,

801 2009). However, the treatment time required varies, depending on the resistance from

802 the microbes. Under approximately 1000 W/m2 of global irradiance, 20 min of

803 treatment is sufficient for inactivation of Campylobacter jejuni, 2.5 h for Escherichia

804 coli DH5 a, and 4 h for Giardia muris cysts, while 8 h of SODIS treatment is required

805 for Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (Malato et al., 2009).

806

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

807 Besides microorganism resistance, the main parameters that affect the disinfection

808 treatment include the amount of UV radiation received, water temperature, container

809 characteristics, and water composition (Acra et al., 1984). Another important factor is

810 the external configuration used for the bottles, which can improve the effectiveness of

811 the process by increasing the UV radiation received or by raising the water temperature.

812 Water within conventional PET bottles (Fig. 9a) rarely reaches the synergetic threshold

813 temperature and usually remains in the range of the optimal growth temperature for the

814 enteric bacteria (20–40 ºC). To accelerate the thermal inactivation process, the use of

815 absorptive materials and painting the underside of the SODIS containers black (Fig.9b)

816 were proposed as ways to enhance in the absorption of solar radiation (Mani et al.,

817 2006; Mustafa et al., 2013). Other designs have focused on increasing the radiation that

818 enters the bottles by using locally available reflective surfaces such as metallic

819 corrugated laminates (Encinas et al., 2005; Vivar et al., 2015) or reflective paper

820 attached to the back of the bottles (Mustafa et al., 2013; Kehoe et al., 2001; Navntoft et

821 al., 2008). More advanced configurations have used compound parabolic concentrators

822 (CPC) and glass tubes of different volumes, NS or EW oriented, and tilted to the

823 latitude location angle (Fig. 9c) (Navntoft et al., 2008; Rincon and Pulgarin, 2004;

824 Ubomba-Jaswa et al., 2010b; Alrousan et al., 2012; Nalwanga et al., 2014). The main

825 results obtained show that absorptive or reflective rear surfaces and concentrators

826 achieve faster inactivation rates than that of conventional SODIS treatment. However,

827 they involve additional costs to the users; in particular, the high cost of the CPC reactors

828 makes them unfeasible for household drinking water treatment (McGuigan et al., 2012).

829

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

b c d

830
831 Fig. 9. Different solar disinfection configurations: (a) conventional SODIS treatment (SODIS, 2017); (b)

832 bottles painted half black (Civil Engineering Home, 2017); (c) 25-L batch SODIS reactor made with a

833 glass tube of 18 cm external diameter and a CPC reflector (Ubomba-Jaswa et al., 2010b); (d) PET bag

834 (Lawrie et al., 2015).

835

836 PET bags (Fig. 9d) have also been used as a solution to maximise the volume of treated

837 water and the area of photon collection, thereby minimising the water layer and

838 improving light penetration (Lawrie et al., 2015; Gutiérrez-Alfaro et al., 2017). These

839 bags can be easily transported and stored in large quantities, which makes them more

840 suitable for emergency situations than PET bottles, as the lack of plastic bottles after a

841 disaster can limit the application of SODIS. Other alternatives such as chemical

842 additives where also studied as a possible improvement of solar inactivation. The

843 additives that were tested include photocatalysts such as TiO2 (see Section 3.2), sodium

844 percarbonate in combination with citric acid or coper plus ascorbate, lemon juice or

845 pulp, and riboflavin (Harding and Schwab, 2012; Fisher et al., 2012; Heaselgrave and

846 Kilvington, 2010; Heaselgrave and Kilvington , 2011).

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

847

848 SODIS has been repeatedly shown to be effective in the elimination of microbial

849 pathogens from water, thus decreasing the risk of waterborne diseases. It can be applied

850 in treating wastewater from industrial effluents and emergency situations at community

851 level. However, the most widespread application is at the household level in rural areas

852 of the developing world, where solar disinfection in clear plastic bottles is one of the

853 most adequate technologies for drinking water treatment, as recognised and promoted

854 by the WHO (Sobsey, 2002). In fact, currently, solar disinfection is used daily by 4.5

855 million people in 50 countries mainly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia (Fig. 10)

856 (McGuigan et al., 2012; Byrne et al., 2011; Meierhofer and Landolt, 2009), and this

857 method is contributing to the 1657% reduction in the incidence of diarrhoea and

858 cholera in the communities that adopt this practice (Meierhofer and Landolt, 2009).

859

860
861 Fig. 10. Countries where SODIS was used daily in 2009 (McGuigan et al., 2012).

862

863 5. Photovoltaicphotochemical hybrid system (SOLWAT)

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

864 Despite the technological advancement in water disinfection and the increasing efforts

865 devoted to providing safe drinking water worldwide, there is still no optimal solution to

866 disinfecting water efficiently. Indeed, no single solution is easily accessible to entire

867 populations (including small communities, developing countries, and in emergencies) at

868 low cost, safely, and with low energy consumption and low environmental impact.

869

870 A short-term approach to developing water disinfection systems that operate with at

871 least the same efficiency as current systems, but with less energy requirements and

872 lower costs, would be through the introduction of renewable energy technologies. Solar

873 energy is considered to be the only practically inexhaustible source of renewable energy

874 that offers feasible solutions to water disinfection at low cost and high efficiency and at

875 a global level. Disinfection systems that rely exclusively on natural UV light have a

876 high potential in using clean energy with no environmental impact. However, these

877 systems use only the UV region of the solar spectrum, which constitutes only 5% of the

878 total available solar energy (Fig. 11). Thus, the efficiency of UV disinfection systems,

879 including solar photovoltaic systems and SODIS PET bottles, is reduced. Therefore, the

880 development of more energy efficient solar water disinfection systems will only be

881 feasible if the solar spectrum is used in the most efficient way possible by taking full

882 advantage of the energy contained in each spectral band.

883
884 Fig. 11. Solar radiation spectrum at sea level (CIE, 2017).

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

885

886 In this regard, a new technology for water disinfection and simultaneous electricity

887 generation, based exclusively on the use of solar energy, has been proposed recently by

888 Vivar et al. (2010). This technology uses different conversion mechanisms: photovoltaic

889 effect for electricity generation, and thermal and UV light for disinfection. The new

890 system has low energy usage and high performance, and it provides other benefits,

891 including no dependence on electrical energy or chemical components, generation and

892 use of renewable energy, and no production of residues; in addition it offers compact

893 and long-lasting system characteristics within a simple, low-cost design (Vivar et al.,

894 2010).

895

896 The new technology consists of a hybrid solar water purification and photovoltaic (PV)

897 system (SOLWAT) that is fully integrated into a single unit and uses the solar spectrum

898 more efficiently. The SOLWAT system combines the germicidal effects of UV light

899 and the thermal pasteurisation effects of far-infrared light to achieve bacteria

900 disinfection; it also uses the visible and near-infrared light for solar PV electricity

901 generation. In general, the SOLWAT system consists of two modules, with one stacked

902 above the other. The PV module serves as the base of the water purification module

903 with a layer of water on top; the layer of water is transparent to visible and near-infrared

904 light. Water disinfection occurs between the glass cover of the water purification

905 module and the PV module (Fig. 12).

906

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

907
908 Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of the SOLWAT system (Vivar et al., 2010) showing the integration of the

909 PV module on the bottom with the water disinfection reactor on the top and the use of the full solar

910 spectrum (the UV and far-infrared portions are used for water disinfection, and the visible and near-

911 infrared portions are used for electricity generation).

912

913 The feasibility of this concept has been demonstrated in previous studies (Pichel et al.,

914 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Pichel et al., 2017), which found that the disinfection results of

915 the SOLWAT system are always higher than the traditional and most widespread

916 SODIS container (PET bottles). In addition, these studies found that the hybrid system

917 (photovoltaic + disinfection) achieves the same results as two independent systems

918 (photovoltaic module and disinfection reactor, separately), with the same disinfection

919 capability and equal energy production from the PV modules during 6 h of experiments.

920 This last result shows that the PV module beneath the disinfection reactor did not suffer

921 from major losses due to the reduced solar irradiation received (lower I), as these losses

922 are compensated by the cooling effect of the water layer on top of the module (higher

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

923 V). Thus, this hybrid module could even produce more energy than a single PV module

924 if appropriately optimised.

925

926 This combined system can be scaled up for use in the tertiary treatment of both drinking

927 water and wastewater. The use of such improved systems will have a major impact in

928 remote or rural areas of industrialised and developing countries. The SOLWAT system

929 can provide large populations with access to drinking water, while also improving the

930 implementation of wastewater treatment to serve these populations. An innovative

931 aspect of this proposal is the integration of novel autonomous UV disinfection models

932 that can be used where there is no electricity supply. The SOLWAT system would be

933 especially suitable in countries located within a large area called the ‘sun belt’ zone,

934 which lies between latitudes 35º N and 35º S, where irradiance conditions are more

935 favourable for the use of the SOLWAT technology (Fig. 13). Incidentally, this area also

936 covers the majority of populations that need clean drinking water and electricity.

937

938
939 Fig. 13. World map of the annual sum of global irradiance showing the regions with the best conditions

940 for solar energy applications (Meteonorm, 2017).

941

942 6. Conclusions

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

943

944 This paper addresses the problem of access to drinking water and presents a detailed,

945 intensive review of conventional and advanced water treatment technologies. The paper

946 also describes solar disinfection as one of the most appropriate methods for drinking

947 water treatment in developing countries, including the SOLWAT system, a novel

948 technology developed in this field.

949

950 It has been observed that conventional drinking water treatment technologies present

951 serious limitations that impede their global application, mainly because they are

952 chemically and energetically intensive. Electricity consumption for the production of

953 potable water is a major contributor to the environmental impact of water supply. Many

954 factors that could limit the provision of drinkable water include lack of a functional

955 local electricity network, unbearable costs of electricity consumption, and inaccessible

956 and expensive treatment chemicals (especially in developing countries). These

957 limitations can lead to social rejection of poorly treated water due to unsatisfactory taste

958 and odour. These shortcomings have led to rapid research and development of advanced

959 alternative technologies to provide water intended for human consumption at low cost,

960 low energy usage, and low environmental impact. In this regard, solar disinfection has

961 been found to be one of the most appropriate methods for drinking water treatment,

962 mainly because it is inexpensive and not dependent on electricity or chemicals. SODIS

963 is exclusively based on solar energy utilisation, and its effectiveness for the elimination

964 of pathogens from water has been widely demonstrated. Furthermore, new research

965 studies have shown that if solar water disinfection is properly integrated with solar

966 photovoltaic technology, a more efficient system in terms of solar spectrum utilisation

967 could be obtained. Moreover, the generation of clean energy contributes to mitigating

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

968 the environmental impacts and costs of potable water supply, while also providing

969 electricity for used at the household or community level.

970

971 Finally, despite increasing efforts to develop new drinking water treatment technologies

972 to overcome the disadvantages and limitations of conventional methods, substantial

973 work remains to be done to address high demand for electricity and chemicals. If

974 properly optimised, solar disinfection is a promising approach to producing drinkable

975 water without the use of electricity or chemicals.

976

977 Acknowledgements

978

979 M. Vivar acknowledges funding from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and

980 Competitiveness, ‘Ramon y Cajal’ Programme, Grant number RYC-2015-17306.

981

982 References

983

984 A/RES/64/292. The Human Right to Water and Sanitation. Resolution 64/292 adopted

985 by the General Assembly on 28 July 2010. Last access 09/05/2017. URL:

986 http://www.un.org/es/comun/docs/?symbol=A/RES/64/292&lang=E

987

988 Acra A., Raffoul Z., Karahagopian Y., 1984: Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water and

989 Oral Rehydration Solutions: Guidelines for Household Application in Developing

990 Countries. Department of Environmental Health Faculty of Health Science - American

991 University of Beirut. UNICEF.

992

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

993 Al- Sa`ed R., 2007: Pathogens Assessment in Reclaimed Effluent Used for Industrial

994 Crops Irrigation. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 5, 68-75.

995

996 Al-Otoum F., Al-Ghouti M.A., Ahmed T.A., Abu-Dieyeh M., Ali M., 2016:

997 Disinfection by-products of chlorine dioxide (chlorite, chlorate, and trihalomethanes):

998 Occurrence in drinking water in Qatar. Chemosphere 164, 649-656.

999

1000 Alrousan D., Polo-López M., Dunlop P., Fernández-Ibáñez P., Byrne J., 2012: Solar

1001 photocatalytic disinfection of water with immobilised titanium dioxide in re-circulating

1002 flow CPC reactors. App. Catal. B-Enviro.128, 126-134.

1003

1004 Arnell N.W., Liu C., Compagnucci R., da Cunha L., Hanaki K., Howe C., Mailu G.,

1005 Shiklomanov I., Stakhiv E., 2001: Hydrology and Water Resources. J.J. McCarthy, O.F.

1006 Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, K.S. White (Eds.), IPCC Climate Change 2001:

1007 Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability, The Third Assessment Report of Working Group

1008 II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1000, Cambridge

1009 University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 133-191.

1010

1011 Arrojo S., Benito Y., Martínez-Tarifa A., 2008: A parametrical study of disinfection

1012 with hydrodynamic cavitation. Ultrason. Sonochem. 15(5), 903-908.

1013

1014 Bahnemann D., 2004: Photocatalytic water treatment: solar energy applications. Sol.

1015 Energy 77(5), 445–459.

1016

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1017 Balasundaram B. and Harrison S.T.L., 2006: Study of physical and biological factors

1018 involved in the disruption of E. coli by hydrodynamic cavitation. Biotechnol. Prog.

1019 22(3), 907-913.

1020

1021 Bartos M.D. and Chester M.V., 2014: The conservation nexus: valuing the

1022 interdependent water and energy savings in Arizona. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48(4),

1023 2139-2149.

1024

1025 Bazilian M., Rogner H., Howells M., Hermann S., Arent D., Gielen D., et al., 2011:

1026 Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling

1027 approach. Energ. Policy 39, 7896-7906.

1028

1029 Bergmann H., Iourtchouk T., Schops K., Bouzek K., 2002: New UV irradiation and

1030 direct electrolysis - promising methods for water disinfection. Chem. Eng. J. 85, 111-

1031 117.

1032

1033 Betancourt W.Q. and Rose J.B., 2004: Drinking water treatment process for removal of

1034 Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Vet. Parasitol. 126, 219-234.

1035

1036 Blanco J., Malato S., Fernández-Ibáñez P., Alarcón D., Gernjak W., Maldonado M.I.,

1037 2009: Review of feasible solar energy applications to water processes. Renew. Sust.

1038 Energ. Rev. 13, 1437-1445.

1039

1040 Boyle M.A., Sichel C., Fernández-Ibáñez P., Arias-Quiroz G.B., Iriarte-Puña M.,

1041 McGuigan K.G., 2008: Identifying the bactericidal limits of Solar Disinfection (SODIS)

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1042 of water under real sunlight conditions. Appl. Environ. Microb. 74, 2997–3001.

1043

1044 Busch M. and Mickols W.E., 2004: Reducing energy consumption in seawater

1045 desalination. Desalination 165, 299-312.

1046

1047 Byrne J.A., Fernández-Ibáñez P.A., Dunlop P.S.M., Alrousan D.M.A., Hamilton J.W.J.,

1048 2011: Photocatalytic Enhancement for Solar Disinfection of Water: A Review. Int. J.

1049 Photoenergy 2011, 1-12.

1050

1051 Cabiscol E., Tamarit J., Ros J., 2000: Oxidative stress in bacteria and protein damage by

1052 reactive oxygen species. Int. Microbiol. 3, 3-8.

1053

1054 Carrillo A.M.R. and Frei C., 2009: Water: a key resource in energy production. Energ.

1055 Policy 37, 4303-4312.

1056

1057 Chavez-Rodriguez M.F. and Nebra S.A., 2014: Assessing GHG emissions, ecological

1058 footprint, and water linkage for different fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(24), 9252-

1059 9257.

1060

1061 Chen R.Z., Craik S.A., Bolton J.R., 2009: Comparison of the action spectra and relative

1062 DNA absorbance spectra of microorganisms: information important for the

1063 determination of germicidal fluence (UV dose) in an ultraviolet disinfection of water.

1064 Water Res. 43(20), 5087-5096.

1065

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1066 Chong M.N., Jin B., Chow C.W.K., Saint C., 2010: Recent developments in

1067 photocatalytic water treatment technology: A review. Water Res. 44, 2997-3027.

1068

1069 CIE, 2017. Comission Interniatonale de l’Eclairage. Last access: 31/07/2017. URL:

1070 http://www.cie.co.at/

1071

1072 Ciochetti S.A. and Metcalf R.H., 1984: Pasteurization of Naturally Contaminated Water

1073 with Solar Energy. Appl. Environ. Microb. 47(2), 223-228.

1074

1075 Civil Engineering Home, 2017. Last access 19/07/2017. URL:

1076 https://theconstructor.org/water-resources/water-quality-checks-in-rainwater-

1077 harvesting/5427/

1078

1079 Clasen T., McLaughlin C., Nayaar N., Boisson S., Gupta R., Desai D., Shah N., 2008a:

1080 Microbiological effectiveness and cost of disinfecting water by boiling in semi-urban

1081 India. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 79(3), 407-413.

1082

1083 Clasen T.F., Thao H., Boisson S., Shipin O., 2008b: Microbiological effectiveness and

1084 cost of boiling to disinfect drinking water in rural Vietnam. Environ. Sci. Technol.

1085 42(12), 4255-4260.

1086

1087 Clean Water Store, 2017. Last access 31/07/2017. URL:

1088 http://www.cleanwaterstore.com/

1089

51
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1090 Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on The Quality of Water Intended for

1091 Human Consumption. Official Journal of the European Communities L 330, 32-98. Last

1092 access 19/05/2017. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

1093 content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998L0083&from=ES

1094

1095 Darwish M.A. and Al-Najem N.M., 1987: Energy consumption and costs of different

1096 desalting systems. Desalination 64, 83-96.

1097

1098 DelGenio A.D., Lacis A.A., Ruedy R.A., 1991: Simulations of the effect of a warmer

1099 climate on atmospheric humidity. Nature 351, 382-385.

1100

1101 Domínguez C., García J., Pedraz M.A., Torres A.A., M.A. Galán, 1998: Photocatalytic

1102 oxidation of organic pollutants in water. Catal. Today 40(1), 85-101.

1103

1104 Downes A. and Blunt P., 1877: Researches on the Effect of Light upon Bacteria and

1105 other Organisms. P. R. Soc. London 26, 488-500.

1106

1107 Dular M., Griessler-Bulc T., Gutierrez-Aguirre I., Heath E., Kosjek T., Klemenc A. K.,

1108 Oder M., Petkovšek M., Racki N., Ravnikar M., Šarc A., Širok B., Zupanc M., Zitnik

1109 M., Kompare B., 2016: Use of hydrodynamic cavitation in (waste)water treatment.

1110 Ultrason. Sonochem. 29, 577-588.

1111

1112 Dvorak B.I. and Skipton S.O., 2014: Drinking Water Treatment: Reverse Osmosis.

1113 Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

52
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1114 Extension. Last access: 21/08/2018. URL:

1115 http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1490.pdf

1116

1117 Efstratiou A., Ongerth J.E., Karanis P., 2017: Waterborne transmission of protozoa

1118 parasites: Review of worldwide outbreaks – An update 2011-2016. Water Res. 114, 14-

1119 22.

1120

1121 Egli T. and Wehrli B., 2010: Global Water Pollution and Human Health. Annu. Rev.

1122 Env. Resour. 35, 109-136.

1123

1124 Encinas P.J., Iriarte M., Wegelin M., Toranzos G., 2005: Evaluación de la Eficiencia del

1125 Método SODIS en la Inactivación de Coliformes Fecales en las Tres Regiones de

1126 Bolivia (Valle, Altiplano y Trópico). Desinfección Solar del Agua, de la Investigación a

1127 la Aplicación, 21-24.

1128

1129 EPA, 1999. The Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet

1130 – Ultraviolet Disinfection. Office of Water, Washington D.C., EPA 832-F-99-064,

1131 September 1999. Last access 22/06/2017. URL:

1132 https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/uv.pdf

1133

1134 EPA, 2011. Water Treatment Manual: Disinfection. ISBN 978-184095-421-0.

1135

1136 Fanucchi M.V., 2017. Drinking Water and Sanitation. In: International Encyclopaedia

1137 of Public Health, 2nd edition. Quah, S.R. (Eds.). Publisher: Elsevier. ISBN:

1138 9780128036785.

53
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1139

1140 Fenwick A., 2006: Waterborne Infectious diseases-Could they be consigned to history?

1141 Science 313, 1077-1081.

1142

1143 Fernández P., Blanco J., Sichel C., Malato S., 2005: Water disinfection by solar

1144 photocatalysis using compound parabolic collectors. Catal. Today 101(3-4), 345-352.

1145

1146 Fisher M.B., Iriarte M., Nelson K.L., 2012: Solar water disinfection (SODIS) of

1147 Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., and MS2 coliphage: effects of additives and

1148 alternative container materials. Water Res. 46,1745–1754.

1149

1150 Fridovich I., 1995: Superoxide radicals and superoxide dismutases. Annu. Rev.

1151 Biochem. 64, 97-112.

1152

1153 Fritzmann C., Lowenberg J., Wintgens T., Melin T., 2007: State-of-the-art of reverse

1154 osmosis desalination. Desalination 216(1-3), 1-76.

1155

1156 Fthenakis V. and Kim H.C., 2010: Life-cycle uses of water in US electricity generation.

1157 Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14, 2039-2048.

1158

1159 Fujishima A. and Honda K., 1972: Electrochemical photolysis of water at a

1160 semiconductor electrode. Nature 238, 37-38.

1161

1162 Fujishima A., Rao T.N., Tryk D.A., 2000: Titanium dioxide photocatalysis. J. Photoch.

1163 Photobio. C 1, 1-21.

54
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1164

1165 Gadgil A., 1998: Drinking water in developing countries. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env. 23,

1166 253-286.

1167

1168 Gaya U.I. and Abdullah A.H., 2008: Heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of

1169 organic contaminants over titanium dioxide: a review of fundamentals, progress and

1170 problems. J. Photoch. Photobio. C 9, 1-12.

1171

1172 Ghaffour N., Missimer T.M., Amy G.L., 2013: Technical review and evaluation of the

1173 economics of water desalination: current and future challenges for better water supply

1174 sustainability. Desalination 309,197-207.

1175

1176 Giannakis S., Darakas E., Escalas-Cañellas A., Pulgarin C., 2015: Temperature-

1177 dependent change of light dose effects on E. coli inactivation during simulated solar

1178 treatment of secondary effluent. Chem. Eng. Sci. 126, 483-487.

1179

1180 Gilman R.H. and Skillicorn P., 1985: Boiling of drinking-water: can a fuel-scarce

1181 community afford it? B. World Health Organ. 63 (1), 157-163.

1182

1183 Gleick P.H., 1994: Water and Energy. Annu. Rev. Energ. Env. 19, 267-299.

1184

1185 Global Health Observatory Map Gallery. World Health Organization (WHO). Last

1186 access 24/08/2018. URL:

1187 http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/app/searchResults.aspx

1188

55
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1189 Gomez-Couso H., Fontan-Sainz M., Ares-Mazas E., 2010: Thermal contribution to the

1190 inactivation of Cryptosporidium in plastic bottles during solar water disinfection

1191 procedures. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 82, 35–39.

1192

1193 Gomez-Couso H., Fontan-Sainz M., Fernandez-Alonso J., Ares-Mazas E., 2009a:

1194 Excystation of Cryptosporidium parvum at temperatures that are reached during solar

1195 water disinfection. Parasitology 136, 393–399.

1196

1197 Gomez-Couso H., Fontan-Sainz M., Sichel C., Fernandez-Ibáñez P., Ares-Mazas E.,

1198 2009b: Efficacy of the solar water disinfection method in turbid waters experimentally

1199 contaminated with Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts under real field conditions. Am.

1200 J.Trop. Med. Hyg. 14, 620–627.

1201

1202 Goodsell D.S., 2001: The molecular perspective: ultraviolet light and pyrimidine

1203 dimmers. Oncologist 6, 298-299.

1204

1205 Gude V. G., 2015: Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and power

1206 generation systems. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 45, 52-68.

1207

1208 Guerrant R.L., DeBoer M.D., Moore S.R., Scharf R.J., Lima A.M., 2013: The

1209 impoverished gut – a triple burden of diarrhoea, stunting and chronic diseases. Nat. Rev.

1210 Gastro. Hepat. 10(4), 220-229.

1211

56
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1212 Gutiérrez-Alfaro S., Acevedo A., Figueredo M., Saladin M., Manzano M.A., 2017:

1213 Accelerating the process of solar disinfection (SODIS) by using polymer bags. J. Chem.

1214 Technol. Biot. 92(2), 298-304.

1215

1216 Halliwell B. and Gutteridge J.M.C., 1989. Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine.

1217 Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN: 9780198717485.

1218

1219 Harding A.S. and Schwab K.J., 2012: Using limes and synthetic psoralens to enhance

1220 solar disinfection of water (SODIS): a laboratory evaluation with norovirus, Escherichia

1221 coli, and MS2. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 86, 566–572.

1222

1223 Heaselgrave W. and Kilvington S., 2010: Antimicrobial activity of simulated solar

1224 disinfection against bacterial, fungal, and protozoan pathogens and its enhancement by

1225 riboflavin. App. Environ. Microb. 76, 6010– 6012.

1226

1227 Heaselgrave W. and Kilvington S., 2011: The efficacy of simulated solar disinfection

1228 (SODIS) against Ascaris, Giardia, Acanthamoeba, Naegleria, Entamoeba and

1229 Cryptosporidium. Acta Trop. 119, 138–143.

1230

1231 Heaselgrave W., Patel N., Kehoe S.C., Kilvington S., McGuigan K.G., 2006: Solar

1232 disinfection of poliovirus and Acanthamoeba polyphaga cysts in water – a laboratory

1233 study using simulated sunlight. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 43, 125–130.

1234

1235 Held I.M. and Soden B.J., 2000: Water vapor feedback and global warming. Annu. Rev.

1236 Energ. Env. 25, 441-475.

57
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1237

1238 Hightower M. and Pierce S.A., 2008: The energy challenge. Nature 452 (7185), 285-

1239 286.

1240

1241 Ibrahim M.A.S., MacAdam J., Autin O., Jefferson B., 2014: Evaluating the impact of

1242 LED bulb development on the economic viability of ultraviolet technology for

1243 disinfection. Environ. Technol. 35 (4), 400-406.

1244

1245 IEA, 2012. International Energy Agency. Water for Energy, Is Energy Becoming a

1246 Thirstier Resource? Excerpt from the World Energy Outlook, 2012. Last access

1247 28/08/2018. URL:

1248 https://www.iea.org/media/publications/weo/WEO_2012_Water_Excerpt.pdf

1249

1250 IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Working

1251 Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

1252 Climate Change. Cambridge, UK/New York, Cambridge University Press. Last access:

1253 23/08/2018. URL: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

1254

1255 ISDR, 2007. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Words Into Action: A Guide

1256 for Implementing the Hyogo Framework. Last access 30/05/2017. URL:

1257 http://www.preventionweb.net/files/594_10382.pdf

1258

1259 Ivnitsky H., Katz I., Shimoni E., Chen Y., Tarchitzky J., Semiat R., Dosoretz C.G.,

1260 2005: Characterization of membrane biofouling in nanofiltration processes of

1261 wastewater treatment. Desalination 185, 255-268.

58
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1262

1263 Jyoti K.K. and Pandit A.B., 2001: Water disinfection by acoustic and hydrodynamic

1264 cavitation. Biochem. Eng. J. 7, 201-212.

1265

1266 Kehoe S.C., Joyce T.M., Ibrahim P., Gillespie J.B., Shahar R.A., McGuigan K.G.,

1267 2001: Effect of agitation, turbidity, aluminium foil reflectors and volume on inactivation

1268 efficiency of batch-process solar disinfectors. Water Res. 35(4), 1061-1065.

1269

1270 Kim S.T., Malhotra K., Smith C.A., Taylor J.S., Sancar A., 1994: Characterization of

1271 (6-4) photoproduct DNA photolyase. J. Biol. Chem. 269, 8535–8540.

1272

1273 Korn C., Andrews R.C., Escobar M.D., 2002: Development of chlorine dioxide related

1274 by-product models for drinking water treatment. Water Res. 36, 330-342.

1275

1276 Kraft A., 2008: Electrochemical Water Disinfection: A Short Review. Platin. Met. Rev.

1277 52, 177-185.

1278

1279 Lawrie K., Mills A., Figueredo-Fernández M., Gutiérrez-Alfaro S., Manzano M.,

1280 Saladin M., 2015: UV dosimetry for solar water disinfection (SODIS) carried out in

1281 different plastic bottles and bags. Sensor Actuat. B-Chem. 208, 608-615.

1282

1283 Lehmann A.R., 1995: Nucleotide excision repair and the link with transcription. Trends

1284 Biochem. Sci. 20, 402–405.

1285

59
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1286 Li H., Chien S.H., Hsieh M.K., Dzombak D.A., Vidic R.D., 2011: Escalating water

1287 demand for energy production and the potential for use of treated municipal wastewater.

1288 Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4195-4200.

1289

1290 Lindahl T. and Wood R. D., 1999: Quality control by DNA repair. Science 286, 1897–

1291 1905.

1292

1293 Linden K.G., Shin G., Sobsey M.D., 2001: Comparative effectiveness of UV

1294 wavelengths for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in water. Water

1295 Sci. Technol. 43 (12), 171-174.

1296

1297 Loaciga H.A., Valdes J.B., Vogel R., Garvey J., Schwarz H., 1996: Global warming and

1298 the hydrologic cycle. J. Hydrol. 174, 83-127.

1299

1300 Loraine G., Chahine G., Hsiao C.T., Choi J.K., Aley P., 2012: Disinfection of gram-

1301 negative and gram-positive bacteria using DynaJets® hydrodynamic cavitating jets.

1302 Ultrason. Sonochem. 19 (3), 710-717.

1303

1304 Macknick J., Newmark R., Heath G., Hallett K.C., 2012: Operational water

1305 consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of

1306 existing literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 1-10.

1307

1308 Malaeb L. and Ayoub G.M., 2011: Reverse osmosis technology for water treatment:

1309 State of the art review. Desalination 226(1), 1-8.

1310

60
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1311 Malato S., Fernández-Ibáñez P., Maldonado M.I., Blanco J., Gernjak W., 2009:

1312 Decontamination and disinfection of water by solar photocatalysis: Recent overview

1313 and trends. Catal. Today 147(1), 1-59.

1314

1315 Mamane-Gravetz H., Linden K.G., Cabaj A., Sommer R., 2005: Spectral sensitivity of

1316 Bacillus subtilis spores and MS2 coliphage for validation testing of ultraviolet reactors

1317 for water disinfection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(20), 7845-7852.

1318

1319 Maness P.C., Smolinski S., Blake D.M., Huang Z., Wolfrum E.J., Jacoby W.A., 1999:

1320 Bactericidal Activity of Photocatalytic TiO2 Reaction: toward an Understanding of its

1321 Killing Mechanism. Appl. Environ. Microb. 65, 4094-4098.

1322

1323 Mani S.K., Kanjura R., Singha I.S.B., Reed R.H., 2006: Comparative effectiveness of

1324 solar disinfection using small-scale batch reactors with reflective, absorptive and

1325 transmissive rear surfaces. Water Res., 40(4), 721-727.

1326

1327 Marsh D.M., 2008: The Water–Energy Nexus: A Comprehensive Analysis In The

1328 Context of New South Wales. PhD dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney,

1329 Australia.

1330

1331 Martínez-Huitle C.A. and Brillas E., 2008: Electrochemical Alternatives for Drinking

1332 Water Disinfection. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 47(11), 1998-2005.

1333

61
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1334 Marugán J., Aguado J., Gernjak W., Malato S., 2007: Solar photocatalytic degradation

1335 of dichloroacetic acid with silica-supported titania at pilot-plant scale. Catal. Today 129,

1336 59-68.

1337

1338 Marugán J., Lopez-Muñoz M.J., Gernjak W., Malato S., 2006: Fe/TiO2/pH interactions

1339 in solar degradation of imidacloprid with TiO2/SiO2 photocatalysts at pilot-plant scale.

1340 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45, 8900-8908.

1341

1342 Matsunaga T., Tomoda R., Nakajima T., Wake H., 1985: Photoelectrochemical

1343 sterilization of microbial cells by semiconductor powders. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 29(1-

1344 2), 211-214.

1345

1346 McGuigan K.G., Conroy R.M., Mosler H.J., du Preez M., Ubomba-Jaswa E.,

1347 Fernández-Ibáñez P., 2012: Solar water disinfection (SODIS): A review from bench-top

1348 to roof-top. J. Hazard. Mater. 235-236, 29-46.

1349

1350 McGuigan K.G., Joyce T.M., Conroy R.M., Gillespie J.B., Elmore-Meegan M., 1998:

1351 Solar disinfection of drinking water contained in transparent plastic bottles:

1352 characterizing the bacterial inactivation process. J. Appl. Microbiol. 84, 1138-1148.

1353

1354 McGuigan K.G., Méndez-Hermida F., Castro-Hermida J.A., Ares-Mazás E., Kehoe

1355 S.C., Boyle M., Sichel C., Fernández-Ibáñez P., Meyer B.P., Ramalingham S., Meyer

1356 E.A., 2006: Batch solar disinfection (SODIS) inactivates oocysts of Cryptosporidium

1357 parvum and cysts of Giardia muris in drinking water. J. Appl. Microbiol. 101, 453–463.

1358

62
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1359 Meierhofer R. and Landolt G., 2009: Factors supporting the sustained use of solar water

1360 disinfection – Experiences from a global promotion and dissemination programme.

1361 Desalination 248, 144-151.

1362

1363 Mendez-Hermida F., Ares-Mazas E., McGuigan K.G., Boyle M., Sichel C., Fernández-

1364 Ibáñez P., 2007: Disinfection of drinking water contaminated with Cryptosporidium

1365 parvum oocysts under natural sunlight and using the photocatalyst TiO2. J. Photoch.

1366 Photobio. B 88, 105–111.

1367

1368 Mendez-Hermida F., Castro-Hermida J.A., Ares-Mazas E., Kehoe S.C., McGuigan

1369 K.G., 2005: Effect of batch-process solar disinfection on survival of Cryptosporidium

1370 parvum oocysts in drinking water. Appl. Environ. Microb. 71, 1653–1654.

1371

1372 Meteonorm, 2017. Last access 25/07/2017. URL: www.meteonorm.com

1373

1374 Mezule L., Tsyfansky S., Yakushevich V., Juhna T., 2010: A simple technique for

1375 water disinfection with hydrodynamic cavitation: effect on survival of Escherichia coli.

1376 Desalination 251, 152-159.

1377

1378 Mills A. and Le Hunte S., 1997: An overview of semiconductor photocatalysis. J.

1379 Photoch. Photobio. A 108(1), 1–35.

1380

1381 Molinos-Senante M. and Sala-Garrido R., 2017: Energy intensity of treating drinking

1382 water: Understanding the influence of factors. Appl. Energ. 202, 275-281.

1383

63
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1384 Mulder K., Hagens N., Fisher B., 2010: Burning water: a comparative analysis of the

1385 energy return on water invested. Ambio 39, 30-9.

1386

1387 Mustafa A., Scholz M., Khan S., Ghaffar A., 2013: Application of solar disinfection for

1388 treatment of contaminated public water supply in a developing country: field

1389 observation. J. Water Health 11(1), 135-145.

1390

1391 Nalwanga R., Quilty B., Muyanja C., McGuigan K.G., Fernández-Ibáñez P., 2014:

1392 Evaluation of solar disinfection of E. coli under Sub-Saharan field conditions using a

1393 25 L borosilicate glass batch reactor fitted with a compound parabolic collector. Sol.

1394 Energy 100, 195-202.

1395

1396 National Research Council, 1980. Drinking Water and Health, Volume 2. Washington,

1397 DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1904.

1398

1399 National Research Council, 1987. Disinfection Methods and Efficacy. Drinking Water

1400 and Health: Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-Products: Volume 7. National Research

1401 Council (US) Safe Drinking Water Committee. Washington (DC): National Academies

1402 Press (US); 1987.

1403

1404 National Research Council, 2008. Committee on Advancing Desalination Technology,

1405 Desalination: A National Perspective (National Academies Press, Washington, DC,

1406 2008).

1407

64
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1408 Navntoft C., Ubomba-Jaswa E., McGuigan K.G., Fernández-Ibáñez P., 2008:

1409 Effectiveness of solar disinfection using batch reactors with non-imaging aluminium

1410 reflectors under real conditions: natural well-water and solar light. J. Photoch. Photobio.

1411 B 93(3), 155-161.

1412

1413 Oki T. and Kanae S., 2006: Global Hydrological Cycles and World Water Resources.

1414 Science 313, 1068-1072.

1415

1416 Özben T., 1998. Free Radicals, Oxidative Stress and Antioxidants: Pathological and

1417 Physiological Significance. (Nato ASI Series A, Vol. 296.) Plenum Press, New York.

1418

1419 Palmas S., Polcaro M., Vacca A., Mascia M., Ferrara F., 2007: Influence of the

1420 operating conditions on the electrochemical disinfection process of natural waters at

1421 BDD electrodes. J. Appl. Electrochem. 37, 1357-1365.

1422

1423 Pandit A.B. and Kumar J.K., 2012. Drinking Water Disinfection Techniques. CRC

1424 Press, Taylor and Francis Group. ISBN: 9781439877401.

1425

1426 Pichel N., Vivar M., Fuentes M., 2016: Performance analysis of a solar photovoltaic

1427 hybrid system for electricity generation and simultaneous water disinfection of wild

1428 bacteria strains. Appl. Energ. 171, 103-112.

1429

1430 Pichel N., Vivar M., Fuentes M., 2017: Performance study of a hybrid photovoltaic and

1431 solar water disinfection system considering climatic variations over a year. Energ.

1432 Convers. Manage. 144, 312-321.

65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1433

1434 Pozzo R.L., Baltanás M.A., Cassano A.E., 1997: Supported titanium dioxide as

1435 photocatalyst in water decontamination: state of the art. Catal. Today 39, 219-231.

1436

1437 Prakash S., Sung P., Prakash L., 1993: DNA repair genes and proteins of

1438 Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Annu. Rev. Genet. 26, 33–70.

1439

1440 Psutka R., Peletz R., Michelo S., Kelly P., Clasen T., 2011: Assessing the

1441 microbiological performance and potential cost of boiling drinking water in urban

1442 Zambia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (14), 6095-6101.

1443

1444 Rasul G., 2014: Food, water, and energy security in South Asia: a nexus perspective

1445 from the Hindu Kush Himalayan region. Environ. Sci. Policy 39, 35-48.

1446

1447 Ray C. and Jain R., 2014. Chapter 3 – Solar Pasteurization. Low Cost Emergency Water

1448 Purification Technologies, Integrated Water Security Series, 31-53. ISBN: 978-0-12-

1449 411465-4.

1450

1451 Rincon A. and Pulgarin A., 2004: Field solar E. coli inactivation in the absence and

1452 presence of TiO2: is UV solar dose and appropriate parameter for standardization of

1453 water solar disinfection? Sol. Energy 77, 635-648.

1454

1455 Rizzo L., 2009: Inactivation and injury of total coliform bacteria after primary

1456 disinfection of drinking water by TiO2. J. Hazard. Mater. 165, 48-51.

1457

66
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1458 Rook J.J., 1974: Formation of haloforms during chlorination of natural waters. J. Water

1459 Treat. Exam. 23, 234-243.

1460

1461 Sachit D.E. and Veenstra J.N., 2014: Analysis of reverse osmosis membrane

1462 performance during desalination of simulated brackish surface waters. J. Membrane Sci.

1463 453, 136-154.

1464

1465 Saidur R., Rahim N.A., Islam M.R., Solangi K.H., 2011: Environmental impact of wind

1466 energy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 14459-14467.

1467

1468 Sancar A., 1996a: DNA excision repair. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 65, 43–81.

1469

1470 Sancar A., 1996b: No “end of history” for photolyases. Science 272, 48–49.

1471

1472 Sancar A., 1994: Structure and function of DNA photolyase. Biochemistry 33, 2–9.

1473

1474 Schmid P., Kohler M., Meierhofer R., Luzi S., Wegelin M., 2008: Does the reuse of

1475 PET bottles during solar water disinfection pose a health risk due to the migration of

1476 plasticisers and other chemicals into the water? Water Res. 42(20), 5054-5060.

1477

1478 Scott C.A., Pierce S.A., Pasqualetti M.J., Jones A.L., Montz B.E., Hoover J.H., 2011:

1479 Policy and institutional dimensions of the water–energy nexus. Energ. Policy 39, 6622-

1480 6630.

1481

1482 Seeberg E., Eide L. and Bjørås M., 1995: The base excision repair pathway. Trends

67
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1483 Biochem. Sci. 20, 391–397.

1484

1485 Shannon M.A., Bohn P.W., Elimelech M., Georgiadis J.G., Mariñas B.J., Mayes A.M.,

1486 2008: Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades. Nature 45,

1487 301-320.

1488

1489 Siddiqi A. and Anadon L.D., 2011: The water–energy nexus in Middle East and North

1490 Africa. Energ. Policy 39, 4529-4540.

1491

1492 Sobsey M.D.: Managing Water in the Home: Accelerated Health Gains from Improved

1493 Water Supply. World Health Organization (WHO) reference number

1494 WHO/SDE/WSH/02.07. Genove, 2002.

1495

1496 SODIS, 2002. Solar Water Disinfection – A Guide for the Application of SODIS.

1497 SANDEC, Eawag, Duebendorf, 2002.

1498

1499 SODIS, 2017. SODIS Safe Drinking Water for All. How Does it Work? Last access

1500 17/07/2017. URL: http://www.sodis.ch/methode/anwendung/index_EN

1501

1502 Sommer B., Marino A., Solarte Y., Salas M.L., Dierolf C., Valiente C., Mora D.,

1503 Rechsteiner R., Setter P., Wirojanagud W., Ajarmeh H., AlHassan A., Wegelin M.,

1504 1997: SODIS – an emerging water treatment process. J. Water Supply Res. T. 46, 127–

1505 137.

1506

68
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1507 Spain, RD 140/2003. Real Decreto 140/2003, de 7 de febrero, por el que se Establecen

1508 los Criterios Sanitarios de la Calidad del Agua de Consumo Humano. Boletín Oficial

1509 del Estado, 21 de febrero de 2003, núm. 45, 7228 a 7245.

1510

1511 Stanley K., 2004: Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes

1512 by High-Intensity Ultrasound in the Presence of Salts (Thesis). University of

1513 Tennessee-Knoxville.

1514

1515 Stoica I.M., Vitzilaiou E., Røder H.L., Burmølle M., Thaysen D., Knochel S., den Berg

1516 F., 2018: Biofouling on RO-membranes used for water recovery in the dairy industry.

1517 J. Water Proc. Eng. 24, 1-10.

1518

1519 Sustainable Development Goals. The United Nations (UN). Last access 03/04/2018.

1520 URL: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300

1521

1522 Svobodova A., Walterova D., Vostalova J., 2006: Ultraviolet light induced alteration to

1523 the skin. Biomed. Pap. Med. Fac. Univ. Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 150(1), 25-38.

1524

1525 Thoma F., 1999: Light, dark in chromatin repair: repair of UV-induced DNA lesions by

1526 photolyase and nucleotide excision repair. EMBO J. 18, 6585–6598.

1527

1528 Todo T., Kim S.T., Hitomi K., Otoshi E., Inui T., Morioka H., Kobayashi H., Ohtsuka

1529 E., Toh H. and Ikenaga M., 1997: Flavin adenine dinucleotide as a chromophore of the

1530 Xenopus (6-4) photolyase. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 764–768.

1531

69
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1532 Tran T., Bolto B., Gray S., Hoang M., Ostarcevic E., 2007: An autopsy study of a

1533 fouled reverse osmosis membrane element used in a brackish water treatment plant.

1534 Water Res. 41, 3915-3923.

1535

1536 Trenberth K.E., 1999: Conceptual framework for changes of extremes of the

1537 hydrological cycle with climate change. Climatic Change 42, 327-339.

1538

1539 Tryk D.A., Fujishima A., Honda K., 2000: Recent topics in photoelectrochemistry:

1540 achievements and future prospects. Electrochim. Acta 45(15-16), 2363–2376.

1541

1542 Ubomba-Jaswa E., Fernández-Ibáñez P., McGuigan K.G., 2010a: A preliminary Ames

1543 fluctuation assay assessment of the genotoxicity of drinking water that has been solar

1544 disinfected in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. J. Water Health 8(4), 712-719.

1545

1546 Ubomba-Jaswa E., Fernández-Ibáñez P., Navntoft C., McGuigan K.G., 2010b:

1547 Investigating the microbial inactivation efficiency of a 25 L batch solar disinfection

1548 (SODIS) reactor enhanced with a compound parabolic collector (CPC) for household

1549 use. J. Chem. Technol. Biot. 85(8), 1028-1037.

1550

1551 UNESCO, 2015. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015. Water

1552 for a Sustainable World. ISBN 978-92-3-100071-3

1553

1554 UNESCO, 2018. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018. Nature-

1555 Based Solutions for Water. ISBN 978-92-3-100264-9

70
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1556 Venczel L.V., Arrowood M., Hurd M., Sobsey M.D., 1997: Inactivation of

1557 Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts and Clostridium perfringens spores by a mixed-

1558 oxidant disinfectant and by free chlorine. Appl. Environ. Microb. 63(4), 1598-1601.

1559

1560 Vilhunen S., Sarkka H., Sillanpaa M., 2009: Ultraviolet light-emitting diodes in water

1561 disinfection. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 16(4), 439-442.

1562

1563 Vivar M., Fuentes M., Castro J., García-Pacheco R., 2015: Effect of common rooftop

1564 materials as support base for solar disinfection (SODIS) in rural areas under temperate

1565 climates. Sol. Energy 115, 204-216.

1566

1567 Vivar M., Pichel N., Fuentes M., 2017a. Drinking-Water Access and Health in Refugee

1568 Camps. In: Handbook of Famine, Starvation, and Nutrient Deprivation: From Biology

1569 to Policy. Victor R. Preedy; Vinood B. Patel (Eds.). Springer International Publishing.

1570 ISBN: 978-3-319-55386-3.

1571

1572 Vivar M., Pichel N., Fuentes M., López-Vargas A., 2017b: Separating the UV and

1573 thermal components during real-time solar disinfection experiments: The effect of

1574 temperature. Sol. Energy 146, 334-341.

1575

1576 Vivar M., Pichel N., Fuentes M., 2017c: Solar disinfection of natural river water with

1577 low microbiological content (10-103 CFU/100 ml) and evaluation of the thermal

1578 contribution to water purification. Sol. Energy 141, 1-10.

1579

71
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1580 Vivar M., Skryabin I., Everett V., Blakers A., 2010: A concept for a hybrid solar water

1581 purification and photovoltaic system. Sol. Energ. Mat. Sol. C. 94, 1772-1782.

1582

1583 Wakeel M., Chen B., Hayat T., Alsaedi A., Ahmad B., 2016: Energy consumption for

1584 water use in different countries: A review. Appl. Energ. 178, 868-885.

1585

1586 Wang Y., Jin Y., Huang Q., Zhu L., Vivar M., Qin L., Sun Y., Cui Y., Cui L., 2016:

1587 Photovoltaic and disinfection performance study of a hybrid photovoltaic-solar water

1588 disinfection system. Energy 106, 757-767.

1589

1590 Wegelin M., Canonica S., Alder A.C., Marazuela D., Suter M.J-F., Bucheli T.D.,

1591 Haefliger O.P., Zenobi R., McGuigan K.G., Kelly M.T., Ibrahim P., Larroque M., 2001:

1592 Does sunlight change the material and content of polyethulene terephthalate (PET)

1593 bottles? J. Water Supply Res. T. 50, 125-133.

1594

1595 Wegelin M., Canonica S., Mechsner K., Fleischmann T., Pesaro F., Metzler A., 1994:

1596 Solar water disinfection: scope of the process and analysis of radiation experiments. J.

1597 Water Supply Res. T. 43(4), 154-169.

1598

1599 WHO, 2009. Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Diseases Attributable to

1600 Selected Major Risks. World Health Organization (WHO). ISBN 978 92 4 156387 1.

1601

1602 WHO, 2011. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality (4th edition). Last access

1603 09/05/2017. URL:

1604 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44584/1/9789241548151_eng.pdf

72
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1605

1606 WHO, 2016. Sanitation. Last access 11/05/2017. URL:

1607 http://www.who.int/topics/sanitation/en/

1608

1609 WHO, 2017a. Fact Sheet 2.16. Fact Sheets on Environmental Sanitation. Disinfectants.

1610 Last access 19/06/2017. URL: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/sanitation-

1611 waste/fs2_16.pdf?ua=1

1612

1613 WHO, 2017b. Fact Sheet 2.34. Fact Sheets on Environmental Sanitation. Household

1614 Water Treatment and Storage. Last access 22/06/2017. URL:

1615 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/sanitation-waste/fs2_34.pdf?ua=1

1616

1617 WHO, 2018. Fact Sheet 391. Drinking Water. Last access 03/04/2018. URL:

1618 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs391/en/

1619

1620 WHO/UNEP, 2006a. WHO Guideline for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and

1621 Greywater. Volume 1: Policy and Regulatory Aspects. World Health Organization

1622 (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2006. Last access

1623 18/05/2017. URL:

1624 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78265/1/9241546824_eng.pdf

1625

1626 WHO/UNEP, 2006b. WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and

1627 Greywater. Volume 2: Wastewater Use in Agriculture. World Health Organization

1628 (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2006. Last access

73
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1629 18/05/2017. URL:

1630 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/gsuweg2/en/

1631

1632 WHO/UNICEF, 2015. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update and

1633 MDG Assessment. Last access: 11/05/2017. URL:

1634 https://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-Update-report-

1635 2015_English.pdf

1636

1637 WHO/UNICEF, 2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017

1638 Update and SDB Baselines. Joint Monitoring Program. ISBN 978-92-4-151289-3

1639

1640 Würtele M.A., Kolbe T., Lipsz M., Külberg A., Welyers M., Kneissl M., Jekel M.,

1641 2011: Application of GaN-based ultraviolet-C light emitting diodes - UV LEDs – for

1642 water disinfection. Water Res. 45(3), 1481-1489.

1643

1644 WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme), 2009. The United

1645 Nations World Water Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World. Paris:

1646 UNESCO, and London: Earthscan. Last access: 24/07/2017. URL:

1647 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001819/181993e.pdf

1648

1649 WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme), 2017. The United

1650 Nations World Water Development Report 2017. Wastewater: The Untapped Resource.

1651 Paris, UNESCO. Last access: 23/08/2018. URL: www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-

1652 sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/2017-wastewater-the-untapped-resource/.

1653

74
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1654 Yang G.C.C. and Li C.J., 2007: Electrofiltration of silica nanoparticle-containing

1655 wastewater using tubular ceramic membranes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 58, 159-165.

1656

1657 Zhai H., He X., Zhang Y., Du T., Adeleye A.S., Li Y., 2017: Disinfection by-products

1658 formation in drinking water sources: A case study of Yuqiao reservoir. Chemosphere

1659 181, 224-231.

1660

1661 Zhang Y., Sivakumar M., Yang S., Enever K., Ramezanianpour M., 2018: Application

1662 of solar energy in water treatment processes: A review. Desalination 428, 116-145.

1663

1664 Zhou Y.C., Zhang B., Wang H.K., Bi J., 2013: Drops of energy: conserving urban water

1665 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 10753-10761.

1666

1667 Zotalis K., Dialynas E.G., Mamassis N., Angelakis A.N., 2014: Desalination

1668 technologies: hellenic experience. Water 6(5), 1134-1150.

75
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 Current state of drinking water access and the related health and energy issues.
 A thorough review on conventional and emerging drinking water treatment
technologies.
 New solar disinfection technologies: a promising option to purify water.