Accepted Manuscript

Application of ultraviolet light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) for water disinfection: A

review

Kai Song, Madjid Mohseni, Fariborz Taghipour

PII: S0043-1354(16)30130-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.003
Reference: WR 11887

To appear in: Water Research

Received Date: 28 October 2015

Revised Date: 29 February 2016
Accepted Date: 1 March 2016

Please cite this article as: Song, K., Mohseni, M., Taghipour, F., Application of ultraviolet light-
emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) for water disinfection: A review, Water Research (2016), doi: 10.1016/
j.watres.2016.03.003.

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

A new UV Standardized protocol

point source is required

PT
Compactness and Flexible and novel
portability reactor designs

RI
Wavelength Tailored irradiation for
diversity improved inactivation
UV-LED

SC
Water
Adjustable pulsed Selected frequency for disinfection
illumination enhanced disinfection

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Application of ultraviolet light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) for water

2 disinfection: A review

3 Kai Song, Madjid Mohseni, Fariborz Taghipour1

PT
4 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 2360

RI
5 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

1
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (604)822 1902; fax: +1 (604) 822 6003.
E-mail address: fariborz.taghipour@ubc.ca (F. Taghipour).

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6 Abstract

7 Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is an effective technology for the inactivation of pathogens in

8 water and is of growing interest for industrial application. A new UV source — ultraviolet light-

PT
9 emitting diode (UV-LED) — has emerged in the past decade with a number of advantages

10 compared to traditional UV mercury lamps. This promising alternative raises great interest in the

RI
11 research on application of UV-LEDs for water treatment. Studies on UV-LED water disinfection

SC
12 have increased during the past few years. This article presents a comprehensive review of recent

13 studies on UV-LEDs with various wavelengths for the inactivation of different microorganisms.

U
14 Many inconsistent and incomparable data were found from published studies, which underscores
AN
15 the importance of establishing a standard protocol for studying UV-LED inactivation of

16 microorganisms. Different UV sensitivities to UV-LEDs and traditional UV lamps were

M

17 observed in the literature for some microorganisms, which requires further investigation for a

18 better understanding of microorganism response to UV-LEDs. The unique aspects of UV-LEDs

D

19 improve inactivation effectiveness by applying LED special features, such as multiple

TE

20 wavelengths and pulsed illumination; however, more studies are needed to investigate the

influencing factors and mechanisms. The special features of UV-LEDs offer the flexibility of
EP

21

22 novel reactor designs for a broad application of UV-LED reactors.

C

23 Keywords: UV disinfection, ultraviolet light-emitting diode (UV-LED), water treatment,

AC

24 inactivation effectiveness

25

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

26 1. Introduction

27 Drinking water safety is an important issue worldwide, especially in most developing

28 countries and rural areas. Millions of people around the world lack access to a safe drinking

PT
29 water source and are threatened by waterborne diseases annually (Hatami, 2013; WHO, 2014).

30 The development of efficient water treatment technologies, especially inactivation of pathogenic

RI
31 microorganisms in water, is of great significance for human health and well-being.

SC
32 Ultraviolet (UV) radiation can effectively inactivate various microorganisms in water

33 (Hijnen et al., 2006) and has been increasingly used for water disinfection. UV radiation has

U
34 numerous advantages over conventional chemical disinfection (e.g., chlorination or ozonation),
AN
35 such as no chemical addition, no harmful disinfection by-products (DBPs) formation, and no

36 introduction of disinfectant-resistance to bacteria (Mori et al., 2007). UV disinfection has been

M

37 recommended as a substitute for chemical additives for surface water treatment (USEPA, 2006).
D

38 Currently, there are more than 7,000 municipal UV disinfection installations in the world (Muller,
TE

39 2011), and small household UV disinfection systems are also available (Brownell et al., 2008). It

40 is estimated that the global market for UV disinfection equipment has a potential to reach $2.8
EP

41 billion by 2020 (Allied Analytics LLP, 2014). The main UV sources for current UV disinfection

42 systems are low- or medium-pressure mercury lamps (Chevremont et al., 2013a). Although these
C

43 lamps are widely used in water treatment systems, there are still many issues with them. The
AC

44 major concern is that the UV lamps are fragile and contain toxic mercury, which is hazardous to

45 the environment and requires proper disposal (Chevremont et al., 2013b; Close et al., 2006).

46 Moreover, these lamps require significant amounts of energy to operate due to a low wall plug

47 efficiency of around 15–35% and have a relatively short lifetime of about 10,000 hours (Autin et

48 al., 2013; Chatterley and Linden, 2010).

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

49 In the past few years, with the rapid development and improvement of the semiconductor

50 industry, UV light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) have emerged as a new source for UV radiation

51 generation. An LED is a semiconductor device that utilizes semiconducting materials to create a

52 p-n junction (hole and electron). The electrons and holes recombine at the junction to emit

PT
53 radiation, and the wavelength of the radiation depends on the semiconducting materials.

RI
54 Commercial visible LEDs have been available for nearly 50 years and have diverse applications,

55 especially in the lighting industry, due to the increasingly higher efficiency and lower cost

SC
56 (Ibrahim et al., 2014). Recently, the newly emerging UV-LEDs have followed a similar track and

57 are expected to be economically viable in the coming years (Harris et al., 2013).

U
AN
58 UV-LEDs at various wavelengths can be manufactured using different semiconducting

59 materials. The most frequently used materials are III-nitride, including gallium nitride (GaN),
M

60 aluminium gallium nitride (AlGaN), and aluminum nitride (AlN) (Khan et al., 2005). The

61 wavelength of GaN-based UV-LEDs can be as short as 365 nm, which is in the near UV region
D

62 (Taniyasu et al., 2006b). However, the AIN UV-LEDs are reported to emit UV radiation at 210
TE

63 nm (deep UV), which is the shortest wavelength among semiconductors (Taniyasu et al., 2006a).

64 A wavelength from 210 to 365 nm (covering from deep UV to near UV regions) is available
EP

65 from the emission of AlGaN, which consists of AIN and GaN in appropriate proportions

(Taniyasu and Kasu, 2010). Because the wavelength is found to be an essential factor for water
C

66
AC

67 disinfection efficiency (Vilhunen et al., 2009), the ability of UV-LEDs to offer a variety of

68 wavelengths is well aligned with the needs of efficient disinfection, making it a potential option.

69 In addition to diversity in wavelengths, UV-LEDs possess several unique advantages such

70 as environmental friendliness (no mercury), compactness and robustness (more durable), faster

71 start-up time (no warm-up time), potentially less energy consumption, longer lifetime, and the

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

72 ability to turn on and off with high frequency (Wurtele et al., 2011). It is predicted that by 2020,

73 UV-LEDs will operate at 75% wall plug efficiency with a lifetime longer than 100,000 hours,

74 comparable to the operating parameters of current visible LEDs (Autin et al., 2013; Ibrahim et al.,

75 2014). All these factors make UV-LEDs a promising alternative to conventional UV mercury

PT
76 lamps for water disinfection. However, due to the substantial differences between the traditional

RI
77 mercury lamps and newly emerging UV-LEDs, the numerous research results and established

78 methodologies on water disinfection by mercury lamps, such as experimental protocols, reactor

SC
79 designs, and inactivation kinetics, may not apply directly to UV-LEDs. Moreover, few studies

80 currently exist that investigate the application of UV-LEDs to water disinfection. Therefore, a

81
U
comprehensive research on UV-LEDs for water disinfection is essential to better understand the
AN
82 feasibility and future applications of this technology.
M

83 This review presents and discusses published data from the literature, aiming to give an

84 overall understanding of UV-LED water disinfection. Using the results of this review, some of
D

85 the main future research directions are identified. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is
TE

86 the first review paper on the application of newly emerging UV-LEDs for water disinfection.

2. Inactivation effectiveness of UV-LEDs at various wavelengths

EP

87

88 There has been a lack of uniformity in research materials and methods reported for UV-
C

89 LED disinfection studies over the last decade, making comparisons difficult. Table 1 summarizes
AC

90 the main results from the published work on UV-LED water disinfection. The data on UV dose

91 and log inactivation were obtained from each study, and the UV dose response, as the value of

92

 

  
(unit: mJ/cm2 per log inactivation), was calculated to evaluate and compare the

93 effectiveness of disinfection among different studies.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

94 The germicidal efficiency of UV radiation was reported to be highly dependent on the

95 wavelength, and the spectral sensitivity of microorganisms was found to not necessarily follow

96 the DNA absorbance spectrum (Chen et al., 2009, Mamane-Gravetz et al., 2005). Therefore, UV

97 wavelength is an essential factor for microorganism inactivation, and the effectiveness may vary

PT
98 from microorganism to microorganism (Linden et al., 2001, Vilhunen et al., 2009). Different UV

RI
99 wavelengths in the range of 315–400 nm (UVA), 280–315 nm (UVB), and <280 nm (UVC) have

100 been applied for microorganism inactivation by UV-LEDs. From the published data, sorted by

SC
101 wavelength (Table 1), the influence of UV-LED wavelengths on inactivation effectiveness can

102 be evaluated.

U
AN
103 Hamamoto et al. (2007) and Mori et al. (2007) applied UVA radiation with 365-nm UVA-

104 LEDs on E. coli and obtained UV dose responses of 55,263 and 13,846 mJ/cm2 per log
M

105 inactivation, respectively (Table 1). These values are high considering that typically the UV dose

106 required by 254-nm mercury lamps for 4 log E. coli inactivation is about 8 mJ/cm2, which makes
D

107 the UV dose response only 2 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation (Bolton and Cotton, 2008). With the
TE

108 help of titanium dioxide (TiO2), Xiong and Hu (2013) established a photocatalytic disinfection

109 system using 365-nm UV-LEDs, and the results still showed a high UV dose response of 229
EP

110 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation for E. coli inactivation. These results demonstrated that 365-nm

UVA-LEDs alone are not effective for microorganism inactivation.

C

111
AC

112 Oguma et al. (2013) used 310-nm UVB-LEDs for E. coli inactivation and reported a UV

113 dose response of 94.8 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation, which is much lower than that required for

114 365-nm UVA-LEDs. Nonetheless, this result was far greater than the values reported for UVC-

115 LEDs for various microorganisms, which ranged from 1.0 to 30.5 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

116 (Table 1). Therefore, UVB-LEDs alone are also not highly effective for microorganism

117 inactivation.

118 Aoyagi et al. (2011) selected 255-nm and 280-nm UVC-LEDs to study the inactivation

PT
119 effects on bacteriophages φX174, Qβ, and MS2. The results showed that the UV dose responses

120 at 280 nm for these three microorganisms were 2.8, 28.7, and 30.5 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation,

RI
121 respectively (Table 1), which were all higher than those at 255 nm (1.7, 12.5, and 12.8 mJ/cm2

122 per log inactivation, respectively). The results indicated that UVC-LEDs at 255 nm could be

SC
123 more effective than at 280 nm for the inactivation of bacteriophages φX174, Qβ, and MS2.

U
124 Another study on UVC-LEDs at 255 nm and 275 nm was reported by Bowker et al. (2011)
AN
125 for the inactivation of three microorganisms: MS2, T7, and E. coli. Similar UV dose responses

126 were obtained from this study for the 255-nm and 275-nm wavelengths (26.1, 5.1, and 3.3
M

127 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation versus 28.6, 4.3, and 2.4 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation for MS2, T7,

128 and E. coli, respectively; Table 1). For MS2, the UV dose response at 255 nm was slightly lower
D

129 than that at 275 nm, indicating that UVC-LED at 255 nm was more effective than at 275 nm.
TE

130 However, for T7 and E. coli, 255 nm resulted in slightly higher UV dose responses than at 275

131 nm, suggesting that 275 nm was more effective. The results for MS2 and T7 were consistent with
EP

132 their action spectra, considering that the action spectrum of MS2 has a peak around 260 nm and
C

133 the peak for T7 is around 270 nm (Mamane-Gravetz et al., 2005, Ronto et al., 1992, Beck et al.,
AC

134 2015). The results did not agree with the E. coli action spectrum given that 255 nm is closer to

135 the peak around 260–265 nm and therefore 255 nm is expected to be more effective than 275 nm

136 (Bolton and Cotton, 2008). The higher effectiveness of 275 nm may be attributed to the higher

137 output power of the 275-nm UV-LEDs, resulting in a higher fluence rate and shorter exposure

138 time to reach the same UV dose, which is proposed to be more effective for E. coli inactivation

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

139 than the combination of a lower fluence rate and longer exposure time (Bowker et al., 2011,

140 Harm, 1980, Sommer et al., 1998). Basically, UV inactivation of microorganisms is believed to

141 follow the Bunsen–Roscoe reciprocity law, which states that the photochemical effect depends

142 only on the total energy dose, i.e., the product of fluence rate and exposure time (Murata and

PT
143 Osakabe, 2013). This was verified by Sommer et al. (1998) who reported that for inactivation of

RI
144 bacteriophages MS2, φX174, and B40-8 by mercury UV lamps, log inactivation is the same as

145 long as the product of fluence rate and exposure time is the same. At the same time, these authors

SC
146 found a deviation from the reciprocity law for E. coli inactivation that showed a higher fluence

147 rate and shorter exposure time resulted in a higher log inactivation than a lower fluence rate and

148
U
a longer exposure time despite the total UV fluence (UV dose) being the same. This phenomenon
AN
149 could be attributed to UV disinfection depending not only on photochemical reactions but also

on biological processes (Harm, 1980). Therefore, the deviation from the reciprocity law may
M

150

151 occur on certain microorganisms, like E. coli, because the biological processes induced by UV
D

152 radiation may vary with different microorganisms, and some of the organisms may be more
TE

153 sensitive to the fluence rate.

154 Although some of the UV-LED dose responses reported from different studies are in
EP

155 agreement, there are many cases where the results are inconsistent. One such example is the

inconsistency in results between studies by Aoyagi et al. (2011) and Bowker et al. (2011). Both
C

156
AC

157 studies used 255-nm UVC-LEDs for MS2 inactivation. However, in the former case, a 41-

158 mJ/cm2 UV dose provided a 3.2 log inactivation, whereas in the latter, a 60-mJ/cm2 UV dose

159 achieved only 2.3 log inactivation. Similar inconsistent results were also observed between the

160 studies by Chatterley and Linden (2010) and Oguma et al. (2013), where both applied 265 nm to

161 E. coli and reported UV dose responses of 5.9 and 2.7 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation, respectively.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

162 These disagreements might result from the differences among materials and experimental

163 conditions in the different studies. Different UV-LEDs in these studies have various radiation

164 patterns, such as emission spectra, viewing angle, and radiation distribution. Various apparatuses

165 were applied for UV-LED water disinfection, and different methods were used to determine the

PT
166 UV dose from the UV-LEDs. Currently, there is no consistent methodology for obtaining the

RI
167 UV-LED dose response of microorganisms, and there is no standard protocol for determining the

168 UV dose delivered by UV-LEDs to a sample solution. Therefore, the discrepancy among

SC
169 different studies is inevitable.

U
170 The standardized protocol for microorganism inactivation by conventional UV mercury
AN
171 lamps has been well established, and the results under the standardized procedure are comparable

172 (Bolton and Linden, 2003, Kuo et al., 2003). However, the UV lamp protocol is not expected to
M

173 be directly applicable to UV-LEDs because of the substantial differences between mercury lamps

174 and UV-LEDs. The bench-scale UV disinfection experiments for mercury lamps usually utilize a
D

175 collimated beam apparatus (Fig.1A). The key part of this apparatus—a collimated beam—is used
TE

176 to provide a uniform irradiation field on a surface area by collimating a parallel beam to

177 vertically project on the water surface, so that the irradiance on the surface of the sample can be
EP

178 accurately measured by a radiometer, enabling the UV dose to be determined with necessary

corrections (Bolton and Linden, 2003). To ensure the uniformity of the beam and accuracy of the
C

179
AC

180 measurement, the length of the collimated beam has to be at least 20 cm (Blatchley, 1997). Such

181 a long collimated beam is not practical for UV-LEDs due to their low radiant power. Currently,

182 the output power of a UVC-LED is only several milliwatts, which is much lower than that of

183 low-pressure mercury UV lamps (typically 40 W) or high-output medium-pressure mercury

184 lamps (up to 30 kW). As a result, the UV-LEDs have to be close to a water sample in which

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

185 inactivation is performed for deliverable UV energy. Various apparatus can be applied for UV-

186 LED inactivation of microorganisms. Typically, the UV-LEDs are located directly above the

187 water sample (Fig.1B), and the distance between UV-LEDs and the water sample is usually no

188 more than 2 cm (Chevremont et al., 2012a, Chevremont et al., 2012b, Hamamoto et al., 2007,

PT
189 Hwang et al., 2013, Li et al., 2010, Mori et al., 2007, Oguma et al., 2013, Vilhunen et al., 2009).

RI
190 Considering that a UV-LED is a point source and emits hemispheric radiation, the UV emission

191 from a UV-LED is neither parallel nor vertical to the water surface within such a short distance

SC
192 between the UV-LED and the water sample (Fig.1B). As a result, uniform irradiance is not

193 expected on the water sample surface, which leads to difficulties for the accurate determination

194
U
of UV dose. Further, the radiant power of UV-LEDs can be significantly affected by operating
AN
195 parameters, such as the applied current and voltage, and by thermal management during the

operation. Therefore, there is a need for the development of a standardized protocol for a UV-
M

196

197 LED-based inactivation study of microorganisms, especially for the accurate determination of
D

198 UV dose and the proper operation of the system. This necessity has been recognized by
TE

199 researchers and industry leaders in the field of UV-LEDs. Recently, an International Ultraviolet

200 Association (IUVA) initiative has been announced, undertaken by a working group of the IUVA
EP

201 Manufacturers Council, to present a consistent methodology for the determination and

202 benchmarking of UVC output from LEDs (IUVA, 2015).

C
AC

203 Chevremont et al. (2012a) studied the inactivation effect of coupled UVA- and UVC-LEDs

204 on mesophilic bacteria. The UV dose responses for UVA alone at 365 nm and 405 nm were 12.5

205 and 88 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation, which are much higher than those for the UVC alone at 254

206 nm and 280 nm (both 1.0 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation). However, when combining UVA- and

207 UVC-LEDs, the UV dose responses at 254/365 nm, 280/365 nm, 254/405 nm, and 280/405 nm

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

208 all sharply decreased (2.1, 1.6, 11.9, and 7.7 mJ/cm2 per log inactivation, respectively),

209 indicating that the combination of UVA- and UVC-LEDs is more efficient than UVA-LEDs

210 alone. Moreover, in terms of log inactivation, it was found that the combination of 280 nm and

211 365 nm provided higher log inactivation than the sum of each alone (3.5 > 1.4 + 0.3 = 1.7). The

PT
212 other three combinations showed similar phenomena: 254/365 nm (2.4 > 0.8 + 0.3 = 1.1),

RI
213 254/405 nm (2.2 > 0.8 + 0.3 = 1.1), and 280/365 nm (3.5 > 1.4 + 0.3 = 1.7). This synergistic

214 effect from the wavelength combinations was also reported by Nakahashi et al. (2014), who

SC
215 combined 254 nm with 365 nm for Vibrio parahaemolyticus inactivation. However, Oguma et al.

216 (2013) combined 265-nm, 280-nm, and 310-nm UV-LEDs for E. coli inactivation and did not

217
U
observe a synergistic effect. On the contrary, these researchers found that combined wavelengths
AN
218 were less efficient than each wavelength applied separately, which could have resulted from

different indicator microorganisms and wavelength combinations, as well as an inefficient

M

219

220 thermal management of the experimental setup (Oguma et al., 2013). These studies suggest that
D

221 combination of selected wavelengths might be a promising way to improve the disinfection
TE

222 efficiency of UV-LEDs, but more studies are needed because the experimental setup and

223 conditions may be influential.

EP

224 Although a medium-pressure mercury lamp can provide polychromatic radiation, its

spectrum, which includes UVA, UVB, UVC, and visible light, is fixed and cannot be adjusted.
C

225
AC

226 Different effects and mechanisms for medium-pressure mercury lamp inactivation of

227 microorganisms have been attributed to its polychromatic radiation. However, within the very

228 broad range of wavelengths in its spectrum, it is difficult to identify and distinguish which

229 wavelength or which combination of specific wavelengths the additional effects and mechanisms

230 result from. UV-LEDs provide great flexibility for wavelength combinations and fluence rate

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

231 due to their unique feature of wavelength diversity. This flexibility offers a new approach to

232 tailor wavelength combinations and the radiant power of each peak wavelength for optimal

233 inactivation and to identify the additional mechanism of a particular combination and fluence

234 rate.

PT
235 The ability to turn on and off with a high frequency is another unique feature of UV-LEDs,

RI
236 enabling adjustable UV pulsed illumination. Such a feature makes UV-LEDs desirable for

237 potentially enhancing the inactivation effectiveness by pulsed irradiation. Li et al. (2010)

SC
238 reported enhanced germicidal effects of pulsed UV-LED irradiation by applying UVA-LED at

U
239 365 nm for inactivation of Candida albicans and E. coli biofilms. They found that pulsed
AN
240 irradiation had significantly greater germicidal ability than continuous irradiation with a

241 maximum at 100 Hz and 75% duty rate (the percentage of the exposure time in total operating
M

242 time) under the same UV dose. Wengraitis et al. (2013) applied pulsed UVC radiation by UV-

243 LEDs at 272 nm for E. coli disinfection on agar plates and found it to be more effective than
D

244 continuous illumination; the log inactivation for pulsed UVC radiation at 272 nm with 1 Hz and
TE

245 10% duty rate was 3.8 times higher than that of continuous illumination based on the same UV

246 dose, indicating the high efficiency of pulsed UV radiation.

EP

247 The conventional UV source for generating pulsed UV is a xenon lamp. The enhanced
C

248 germicidal effect of xenon lamp-pulsed UV has been demonstrated by studies for food
AC

249 decontamination and water disinfection (Bohrerova et al., 2008, Elmnasser et al., 2007, Gomez-

250 Lopez et al., 2007, Oms-Oliu et al., 2010). However, the pulses generated by a xenon lamp are

251 different from those of UV-LEDs in terms of spectrum, intensity, frequency, and duty rate. The

252 wavelength distribution of xenon lamp pulses ranges from 100 nm to 1000 nm, including UV,

253 visible light, and infrared with a peak power up to 35 MW. Usually the duration of each pulse is

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

254 from nanoseconds to milliseconds, and typically 1 to 20 pulses are emitted per second (Oms-Oliu

255 et al., 2010). As discussed previously, UV-LEDs have selectable wavelengths with relatively low

256 radiant power and are capable of highly adjustable pulsed illumination with broad ranges for

257 frequency and duty rate. The numerous studies on xenon lamp-pulsed UV reveal that these pulse

PT
258 patterns play important roles for enhanced germicidal effect (Elmnasser et al., 2007). Therefore,

RI
259 due to the differences in pulse patterns, the direct applicability of the findings on xenon lamp-

260 pulsed UV to UV-LED pulsed illumination is not expected, and more studies on UV-LED pulsed

SC
261 illumination are needed to confirm the enhanced germicidal effect.

U
262 3. Microorganism response to UV-LEDs AN
263 Although UV radiation is effective against most pathogenic microorganisms in water,

264 different microorganisms have different responses to UV radiation due to various UV resistances
M

265 and process conditions. The sensitivity of microorganisms to UV radiation can be evaluated by

the inactivation rate constant k (cm2/mJ) from the linear portion of the relationship between log
D

266

267 inactivation and the applied UV dose (Hijnen et al., 2006):

TE

268 Log inactivation = k * UV dose

EP

269 The k values for various microorganisms were calculated based on the data from each study

270 (summarized in Table 1), and are listed in Table 2. The data from conventional UV mercury
C

271 lamps at 254 nm are also shown in Table 2 for comparison. A high k value means the
AC

272 microorganism is UV sensitive and requires a low UV dose for inactivation.

273 The k values for bacteriophage φX174 by 255-nm and 280-nm UV-LEDs were reported as

274 0.578 and 0.360 cm2/mJ, respectively (Aoyagi et al., 2011), which were higher than all other

275 microorganisms in Table 2, suggesting that φX174 is very vulnerable to UVC radiation. The k

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

276 value for φX174 by 254 nm was also much higher than that for most of the other microorganisms

277 in the studies concerning UV lamps. However, the k value of UV lamps at 254 nm was closer to

278 that of UV-LEDs at 280 nm instead of 255 nm. This disagreement may result from the

279 differences between these two UV sources, including the fact that the UV fluence rate of

PT
280 conventional UV lamps is much higher than that for UV-LEDs, which may affect the

RI
281 microorganism responses (Harm, 1980). On the other hand, φX174 inactivation by UV lamps

282 showed no sensitivity to different fluence rates based on the study by Sommer et al. (1998).

SC
283 Nonetheless, further research is needed to investigate the UV-LED wavelength effect given the

284 dearth of literature on this aspect.

U
AN
285 E. coli inactivation was investigated with UVC-LEDs at different wavelengths (255, 265,

286 272, 275, and 280 nm) in several studies (Bowker et al., 2011, Chatterley and Linden, 2010,
M

287 Oguma et al., 2013, Wengraitis et al., 2013). The k values ranged from 0.170 to 0.422 cm2/mJ,

288 which were slightly lower than the values for φX174, indicating that E. coli is quite sensitive to
D

289 UVC radiation. The wide range of k values suggests that UV sensitivity of E. coli largely
TE

290 depends on the wavelength. Moreover, although these studies used E. coli as the indicator

291 microorganism, the strains of E. coli were different, which could be a factor that results in the
EP

292 different inactivation rate constants because UV sensitivity may vary with different strains of a

species, especially for E. coli (Malley, 2004, Sommer et al., 1998, Sommer et al., 2000). The
C

293

average k value from UV lamp studies for E. coli inactivation was 0.506 cm2/mJ, which was
AC

294

295 higher than the values found using UV-LEDs, with 275 nm resulting in the closest value, rather

296 than the 255-nm UV-LED. A possible explanation may be the difference of fluence rate from

297 UV lamps and UV-LEDs since a few studies have found that the fluence rate can affect E. coli

298 inactivation (Bowker et al., 2011, Harm, 1980, Sommer et al., 1998). As previously discussed,

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

299 although UV-LEDs are usually placed very close to the water sample for UV exposure (Fig. 1),

300 the fluence rate is still much lower than that of UV lamps due to the low output power of current

301 UV-LEDs, which could be an influencing factor. Bowker et al. (2011) compared a 254-nm UV

302 lamp with 275-nm and 255-nm UV-LEDs for E. coli inactivation. The fluence rates were 0.34,

PT
303 0.094–0.11, and 0.049–0.060 mW/cm2, respectively. The results showed that log inactivation for

RI
304 the same UV dose increased concurrently with the increase in fluence rate: from the 255-nm UV-

305 LED to the 275-nm UV-LED to the 254-nm UV lamp. These results support the hypothesis that

SC
306 the combination of a higher fluence rate and shorter exposure time may result in higher E. coli

307 inactivation as previously discussed, which could explain the influence of different UV sources.

U
Bacteriophage T7 was found to have k values of 0.195 and 0.235 cm2/mJ by 255-nm and
AN
308

309 275-nm UV-LEDs, respectively (Bowker et al., 2011), which were slightly lower than those of E.
M

310 coli, indicating that T7 was also sensitive to UVC radiation. The k value for 275 nm was slightly

311 higher than that of 255 nm, suggesting that T7 was more sensitive to 275 nm than to 255 nm, in
D

312 agreement with the action spectrum of T7 bacteriophage with a peak around 270 nm (Ronto et al.,
TE

313 1992, Beck et al., 2015). The k value of a UV lamp for T7 was 0.232 cm2/mJ, which was close to

314 that found with the 275-nm UV-LED but far from the 255-nm UV-LED, implying that T7 may
EP

315 also be sensitive to fluence rate, as previously discussed.

C

316 Bacillus subtilis spores were inactivated in two studies (Morris, 2012, Wurtele et al., 2011)
AC

317 by UV-LEDs with three different wavelengths (250, 269, and 282 nm). The k values for 269 nm

318 and 282 nm were 0.148 and 0.120 cm2/mJ, respectively, but the k value decreased dramatically

319 to 0.051 cm2/mJ for 250 nm. These results seemed to be related to the action spectrum of

320 Bacillus subtilis spores, which have a peak around 265 nm and a trough around 240 nm

321 (Mamane-Gravetz et al., 2005). The k value for Bacillus subtilis spores by a UV lamp was 0.059

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

322 cm2/mJ, which was similar to that of a 250-nm UV-LED, showing a consistency in the UV

323 sensitivity of Bacillus subtilis spores between the two different UV sources.

324 Bacteriophage Qβ inactivation by 255-nm and 288-nm UV-LEDs resulted in k values of

0.080 and 0.035 cm2/mJ, respectively (Aoyagi et al., 2011), which were lower than most of the

PT
325

326 microorganisms listed in Table 2, indicating that bacteriophage Qβ was highly resistant to UVC

RI
327 radiation. The k value at 255 nm was significantly higher than that at 280 nm, which agreed well

328 with the action spectrum of Qβ having a peak between 260 and 265 nm (Beck et al., 2015). The k

SC
329 value for the 255-nm UV-LED agreed well with the values from low-pressure UV lamp

inactivation studies for Qβ (0.084 cm2/mJ), implying that Qβ had the same UV sensitivity at

U
330 AN
331 different UV sources.

332 Bacteriophage MS2 inactivation was reported in two studies (Aoyagi et al., 2011, Bowker et
M

333 al., 2011) using UV-LEDs at three different wavelengths (255, 275, and 280 nm). The k values

334 for 280 nm from the former study and 255, 275 nm from the latter study were close (0.033, 0.038,
D

335 and 0.035 cm2/mJ, respectively) and among the lowest of all the microorganisms inactivated by
TE

336 UVC radiation, indicating that MS2 was highly resistant to UVC radiation. The k value for 255

337 nm from the former study was 0.078 cm2/mJ, which was higher than the other values. This result
EP

338 matched the action spectrum of MS2, which has a peak around 260 nm (Mamane-Gravetz et al.,
C

339 2005, Beck et al., 2015). Although these two studies showed different k values for the 255-nm
AC

340 UV-LED on MS2 inactivation, the average was 0.058 cm2/mJ, which was close to that for MS2

341 inactivation by conventional UV lamps (0.055 cm2/mJ). This finding suggested that MS2 might

342 also be insensitive to different fluence rates from UV-LEDs and conventional UV lamps.

343 These studies have demonstrated the diversity of UV responses for different

344 microorganisms to various wavelengths. Because UV response largely depends on the indicator

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

345 microorganisms and applied wavelength by UV-LEDs, a particular wavelength could be much

346 more effective for a specific microorganism. Unlike UV lamps, UV-LEDs can be designed to

347 emit a particular wavelength that targets a specific pathogen of concern. In addition, the selected

348 wavelengths could be combined by applying various UV-LEDs to produce a synergistic effect

PT
349 (Taghipour, 2013). Therefore, a comprehensive investigation of microorganism responses to

RI
350 UV-LEDs with different wavelengths and wavelength combinations is essential to take full

351 advantage of UV-LEDs for water disinfection.

SC
352 Additionally, from the comparison with conventional UV mercury lamps at 254 nm, some

U
353 microorganisms showed different UV sensitivities to different UV sources at the same
AN
354 wavelength, indicating that the characteristics and performance of UV sources, such as the

355 fluence rate, may play important roles in microorganism inactivation. Microorganisms were
M

356 previously shown to exhibit higher UV sensitivities to medium-pressure mercury lamps than to

357 low-pressure mercury lamps (Hijnen et al., 2006). However, few studies compare UV-LEDs and
D

358 UV lamps. Thus, more studies are required to better understand how different UV sources affect
TE

359 microorganism inactivation using UV-LEDs compared with UV lamps.

4. Time-response data on UV-LED disinfection

EP

360

361 Some studies reported time-response data for microorganism inactivation by UV-LEDs
C

362 instead of dose-response data (Table 3). The UV exposure times ranged from 30 seconds to 2
AC

363 hours, and log inactivation ranged from 2 to 7; both results showed a wide range and seemed

364 incomparable. Because no quantitative data on UV dose were provided in these studies, it was

365 difficult to analyze and compare the effectiveness of UV-LED inactivation. The difficulty was

366 most likely caused by the lack of an established standard method for the measurement of UV

367 dose associated with the newly emerging UV-LEDs, which are substantially different from UV

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

368 mercury lamps as discussed previously. This issue demonstrates the significance of UV-LED

369 characterization and the need for standard protocols for UV-LED microorganism inactivation

370 and water disinfection.

PT
371 5. Mechanism of inactivation

372 Many studies have discussed the mechanism of microorganism inactivation by UV-LEDs,

RI
373 and various mechanisms have been proposed. Much like the conventional mercury-based UV

SC
374 lamps, UVC radiation has proven to be efficient for microorganism inactivation, and most

375 studies on UV-LED disinfection used UVC-LEDs. UVC radiation is believed to have direct

U
376 germicidal effects by acting directly on the DNA of microorganisms, leading to the formation of
AN
377 pyrimidine dimers and preventing them from reproducing without intermediate steps (Chatterley

378 and Linden, 2010, Chevremont et al., 2012a, Chevremont et al., 2012b, Hamamoto et al., 2007).
M

379 Because DNA mainly absorbs UV radiation from 200 to 300 nm with an absorbance peak around
D

380 260 nm (Wurtele et al., 2011), UVC-LEDs, especially those with the wavelengths around 260

381 nm, are the most efficient for microorganism inactivation (Table 1). However, direct damage to
TE

382 DNA might be reparable by DNA-repair mechanisms, such as photo-reactivation and dark repair
EP

383 (Oguma et al., 2001, Oguma et al., 2013, Sanz et al., 2007). Since DNA repair is undesirable for

384 microorganism inactivation, it is necessary to weaken or prevent the repair. DNA repair might be
C

385 prevented by damaging the repair enzymes, which are proposed to be more vulnerable to high
AC

386 UV intensities (Sommer et al., 1998). Moreover, the absorption spectrum of protein has a peak

387 around 280 nm, which might help damage repair enzymes and prevent DNA repair (Kalisvaart,

388 2004).

389 Although UVA radiation is poorly absorbed by DNA and is less efficient in inducing

390 damage on DNA (Sinha and Hader, 2002), it still has the ability to inactivate microorganisms

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

391 (Kalisvaart, 2004). The current commercially available UVA-LEDs have much higher output

392 power and energy efficiency than UVC-LEDs (Aoyagi et al., 2011, Harris et al., 2013,

393 Muramoto et al., 2014), resulting in many studies on the application of UVA-LEDs for

394 microorganism inactivation. The inactivation mechanism of UVA radiation has not been studied

PT
395 as widely as UVC radiation because the frequently used UV mercury lamps can only emit UVC

RI
396 radiation at 254 nm. The main mechanism of UVA inactivation involves an indirect effect by

397 reactive intermediates and oxidative damage to DNA and other cellular components (Chatterley

SC
398 and Linden, 2010, Chevremont et al., 2012a, Chevremont et al., 2012b, Hamamoto et al., 2007,

399 Hwang et al., 2013). The reactive intermediates are proposed to be reactive oxygen species

400
U
(ROS), which are created by UVA radiation via photooxidation of oxygen. Studies showed that
AN
401 addition of mannitol and catalase significantly protected microorganisms from 365-nm UVA-
M

402 LEDs radiation by scavenging hydroxyl radicals (OH•) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2),

403 respectively. Therefore, hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide are believed to be the major
D

404 reactive oxygen species involved in UVA disinfection (Hamamoto et al., 2007, Li et al., 2010).
TE

405 These reactive intermediates induce oxidative damage to DNA, proteins, and cell membranes

406 and cause growth delay (Eisenstark, 1987, Oppezzo and Pizarro, 2001, Pizarro, 1995, Pizarro
EP

407 and Orce, 1988, Ramabhadran and Jagger, 1976, Sinha and Hader, 2002). This process takes

408 more time than the direct damage produced by UVC radiation (Chatterley and Linden, 2010).
C

409 Although the indirect damage by UVA radiation is less efficient than the direct damage by UVC
AC

410 radiation for microorganism inactivation, the damage by UVA is believed to be irreparable,

411 whereas the damage by UVC is reparable through DNA-repair mechanisms (Oguma et al., 2013,

412 Xiong and Hu, 2013). UV damage by low-pressure mercury lamps, which emit UVC radiation at

413 254 nm, can be repaired relatively easily, but UV damage induced by medium-pressure mercury

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

414 lamps, which produce UVC and UVA radiation together, is difficult to repair (Oguma et al.,

415 2002, Zimmer and Slawson, 2002). Therefore, the prevention of microorganism self-repair

416 would be an advantage of UVA radiation for microorganism inactivation. Furthermore, UVA

417 radiation has higher penetrability and can penetrate farther into the solution for a better

PT
418 disinfection of turbid water and wastewater (Chevremont et al., 2012a, Mori et al., 2007).

RI
419 UVA radiation alone is less efficient for disinfection, but UVA radiation coupled with TiO2

420 could efficiently produce reactive oxygen species for microorganism inactivation (Marugan et al.,

SC
421 2010). Because UVA-LEDs have high output power, they are desirable for photocatalytic

U
422 disinfection with TiO2. An interesting phenomenon called “residual disinfecting effect” was
AN
423 reported, in which further inactivation of E. coli was observed after a photocatalytic process

424 using a combination of UVA-LEDs and TiO2 (Xiong and Hu, 2013). The mechanism for residual
M

425 disinfecting effect was proposed to be the cumulative damage of cellular components by reactive

426 oxygen species or stable oxidants, such as H2O2, which could prevent the reproduction of
D

427 damaged microorganisms (Pablos et al., 2013, Rincon and Pulgarin, 2004, 2007, Shang et al.,
TE

428 2009).

429 Many studies have been conducted on microorganism inactivation mechanisms using
EP

430 different wavelengths, including UVC and UVA, with a focus on the effect on DNA damage.
C

431 However, there is little information in the literature on DNA damage and inactivation
AC

432 mechanisms using a combination of different UV wavelengths (Nakahashi et al., 2014). Because

433 a few studies have reported the synergistic effect of combining particular wavelengths

434 (Chevremont et al., 2012a, Nakahashi et al., 2014), identifying the mechanisms is essential.

435 Chevremont et al. (2012a) argued that coupled wavelengths combined two UV properties: UVC

436 induces direct damage on DNA, but such DNA damage can be repaired by enzyme photolyase,

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

437 whereas the oxidative damage to bacterial membranes by UVA cannot be repaired. The research

438 on an oxidative DNA product, 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), which was induced by

439 UVA alone, and a thymine dimer, cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs), which was induced by

440 UVC alone, suggested that the combination of UVA and UVC suppressed one or more recovery

PT
441 systems for DNA damage, such as CPDs, and oxidative stress from UVAs may play a key role in

RI
442 this synergistic effect (Nakahashi et al., 2014). It is proposed that the coupled wavelengths of

443 UVA and UVC may also reduce reactivation after exposure due to the combined effects of two

SC
444 types of UV wavelengths (Chevremont et al., 2012a).

U
445 The mechanism of pulsed UV illumination by xenon lamps with high energy and a broad
AN
446 spectrum has been widely studied for inactivation and food decontamination. Yet, its effect is not

447 well understood, and there is little research on pulsed illumination by UV-LEDs. Pulsed UV
M

448 illumination has more instantaneous energy than continuous UV illumination (Li et al., 2010),

449 and additional inactivation mechanisms have been proposed, including photochemical,
D

450 photothermal, and photophysical effects (Elmnasser et al., 2007). Other than DNA damage by
TE

451 UV, it is believed that pulsed UV treatment can prevent DNA repair due to inactivation of the

452 DNA-repair system and other enzymatic functions (Elmnasser et al., 2007). The UV pulse with
EP

453 more instantaneous energy may lead to localized overheating and membrane destruction

(Krishnamurthy et al., 2007). Furthermore, the repeated and constant disturbance from high
C

454
AC

455 intensity pulses could induce cell structure damage such as cell wall rupture, membrane damage,

456 and cellular content leakage (Krishnamurthy et al., 2010). As a result of these additional effects,

457 pulsed UV illumination is reported to be 4 to 6 times faster than continuous UV illumination for

458 equivalent inactivation levels (Fine and Gervais, 2004). These proposed mechanisms are mainly

459 based on studies of xenon lamps pulsed UV illumination with high energy and a broad spectrum.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

460 Due to the different pulses generated by xenon lamps and UV-LEDs, the applicability of these

461 mechanisms for UV-LED pulsed illumination still needs further examination.

462 6. Future research

PT
463 The research on water disinfection by newly emerging UV-LEDs is limited. Because UV-

464 LEDs are believed to be a promising alternative to traditional UV mercury lamps (Muramoto et

RI
465 al., 2014), more research is required to better understand the application of UV-LEDs for water

SC
466 disinfection. Further, some unique features of UV-LEDs such as wavelength diversity and pulsed

467 illumination and their effects on microorganism inactivation must be explored and understood.

U
468 Given that UV-LEDs are compact and the radiation patterns, such as emission wavelength,
AN
469 viewing angle, and radiation distribution, are adjustable, they can enable creative reactor designs

470 through the optimization of flow and radiation distribution, as well as reactor geometry and
M

471 kinetics (Taghipour, 2013). The following are a few suggested areas for further investigation:
D

472 1) UV-LED characterization and a standard protocol for microorganism inactivation are
TE

473 necessary to obtain reliable quantitative information on the effectiveness of UV-LEDs.

474 Specifically, a standard method for UV-dose determination of UV-LEDs is essential for
EP

475 accurate and reliable UV dose-response data, which can be compared among different

476 studies.
C

477 2) Multiple wavelengths and pulsed illumination by UV-LEDs can have significant
AC

478 impacts on inactivation effectiveness, but more studies are required for the fundamental

479 understanding of these phenomena, as well as determining the optimal condition.

480 3) The additional inactivation mechanisms by different wavelength combinations and

481 pulsed illumination require further investigation, which could lead to the design of more

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

482 efficient disinfection systems using tailored combinations of selected wavelengths and

483 pulsation modes by UV-LEDs.

484 4) Research on reactor designs for UV-LED water disinfection system is highly

PT
485 encouraged for the practical application of this technology. The unique characteristics of

486 UV-LEDs compared to traditional UV mercury lamps, such as compactness, portability,

RI
487 robustness, wavelength diversity, and pulsed illumination, provide flexible and diverse

488 options for novel reactor designs, which could also open the door to new applications of

SC
489 UV-LED reactors.

U
490 7. Conclusions
AN
491 Newly emerging UV-LEDs provide a promising alternative for water disinfection due to

492 many advantages over traditional mercury lamps. The comparison of microorganism response to
M

493 UV-LEDs and conventional UV lamps reveals that some microorganisms may be sensitive to
D

494 different UV sources, likely due to the difference in the UV source radiation patterns and the
TE

495 fluence rates. Inactivation studies of several microorganisms using UV-LED of the same

496 wavelengths and comparable fluence rates, however, still show considerable discrepancies
EP

497 among published results. The inconsistent and incomparable reported results on water

498 disinfection by UV-LEDs along with the substantial differences between UV-LEDs and UV
C

499 lamps highlight the importance and necessity of having a standard protocol for UV-LED
AC

500 microbial inactivation studies, especially a standard method for UV-dose determination using

501 UV-LEDs.

502 The unique characteristics of UV-LEDs, particularly multiple wavelengths and pulsed

503 illumination, could improve inactivation effectiveness under optimal conditions. However, the

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

504 influencing factors and mechanisms involved need to be further investigated for a more efficient

505 application of UV-LEDs. The special features of UV-LEDs as small-point UV sources with

506 adjustable radiation patterns provide great flexibility for novel reactor designs and new

507 applications. The design of new UV-LED reactors, however, has to be performed taking into

PT
508 account three phenomena: the reactor hydrodynamics, radiation distribution, and kinetics. Each

RI
509 of these phenomena may be implemented with a higher degree of freedom using UV-LEDs as

510 the radiation source compared to UV lamps.

SC
511 Acknowledgements

U
512 The authors are grateful to the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
AN
513 (NSERC) of Canada for financial support. K. Song is also grateful for a scholarship from the

514 China Scholarship Council (CSC).

M

515 References
D

516 Allied Analytics LLP, 2014. Global UV disinfection equipment market - size, share, global
TE

517 trends, company profiles, analysis, segmentation and forecast, 2013 - 2020. Research and

518 Markets. http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/3066124/

EP

519 Aoyagi, Y., Takeuchi, M., Yoshida, K., Kurouchi, M., Yasui, N., Kamiko, N., Araki, T., Nanishi,
C

520 Y., 2011. Inactivation of bacterial viruses in water using deep ultraviolet semiconductor
AC

521 light-emitting diode. J. Environ. Eng.-ASCE. 137(12), 1215-1218.

522 Autin, O., Romelot, C., Rust, L., Hart, J., Jarvis, P., MacAdam, J., Parsons, S.A., Jefferson, B.,

523 2013. Evaluation of a UV-light emitting diodes unit for the removal of micropollutants in

524 water for low energy advanced oxidation processes. Chemosphere. 92(6), 745-751.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

525 Bak, J., Ladefoged, S.D., Tvede, M., Begovic, T., Gregersen, A., 2010. Disinfection of

526 Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm contaminated tube lumens with ultraviolet C light

527 emitting diodes. Biofouling. 26(1), 31-38.

528 Beck, S.E., Wright, H.B., Hargy, T.M., Larason, T.C., Linden, K.G., 2015. Action spectra for

PT
529 validation of pathogen disinfection in medium-pressure ultraviolet (UV) systems. Water Res.

RI
530 70, 27-37.

531 Blatchley, E.R., 1997. Numerical modelling of UV intensity: application to collimated-beam

SC
532 reactors and continuous-flow systems. Water Res. 31(9), 2205-2218.

U
533 Bohrerova, Z., Shemer, H., Lantis, R., Impellitteri, C.A., Linden, K.G., 2008. Comparative
AN
534 disinfection efficiency of pulsed and continuous-wave UV irradiation technologies. Water

535 Res. 42(12), 2975-2982.

M

536 Bolton, J.R., Cotton, C.A., 2008. The ultraviolet disinfection handbook. American Water Works
D

537 Association, Denver.

TE

538 Bolton, J.R., Linden, K.G., 2003. Standardization of methods for fluence (UV dose)

539 determination in bench-scale UV experiments. J. Environ. Eng.-ASCE. 129(3), 209-215.

EP

540 Bowker, C., Sain, A., Shatalov, M., Ducoste, J., 2011. Microbial UV fluence-response

541 assessment using a novel UV-LED collimated beam system. Water Res. 45(5), 2011-2019.
C

542 Brownell, S.A., Chakrabarti, A.R., Kaser, F.M., Connelly, L.G., Peletz, R.L., Reygadas, F., Lang,
AC

543 M.J., Kammen, D.M., Nelson, K.L., 2008. Assessment of a low-cost, point-of-use,

544 ultraviolet water disinfection technology. J. Water Health. 6(1), 53-65.

545 Chatterley, C., Linden, K., 2010. Demonstration and evaluation of germicidal UV-LEDs for

546 point-of-use water disinfection. J. Water Health. 8(3), 479-486.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

547 Chen, R.Z., Craik, S.A., Bolton, J.R., 2009. Comparison of the action spectra and relative DNA

548 absorbance spectra of microorganisms: information important for the determination of

549 germicidal fluence (UV dose) in an ultraviolet disinfection of water. Water Res. 43(20),

550 5087-5096.

PT
551 Chevremont, A.C., Boudenne, J.L., Coulomb, B., Farnet, A.M., 2013a. Fate of carbamazepine

RI
552 and anthracene in soils watered with UV-LED treated wastewaters. Water Res. 47(17),

553 6574-6584.

SC
554 Chevremont, A.C., Boudenne, J.L., Coulomb, B., Farnet, A.M., 2013b. Impact of watering with

555 UV-LED-treated wastewater on microbial and physico-chemical parameters of soil. Water

556 Res. 47(6), 1971-1982.

U
AN
557 Chevremont, A.C., Farnet, A.M., Coulomb, B., Boudenne, J.L., 2012a. Effect of coupled UV-A

and UV-C LEDs on both microbiological and chemical pollution of urban wastewaters. Sci.
M

558

559 Total Environ. 426, 304-310.

D

560 Chevremont, A.C., Farnet, A.M., Sergent, M., Coulomb, B., Boudenne, J.L., 2012b. Multivariate
TE

561 optimization of fecal bioindicator inactivation by coupling UV-A and UV-C LEDs.

562 Desalination. 285, 219-225.

EP

563 Close, J., Ip, J., Lam, K.H., 2006. Water recycling with PV-powered UV-LED disinfection.

564 Renew. Energy. 31(11), 1657-1664.

C

565 Eisenstark, A., 1987. Mutagenic and lethal effects of near-ultraviolet radiation (290-400 nm) on
AC

566 bacteria and phage. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 10(3), 317-337.

567 Elmnasser, N., Guillou, S., Leroi, F., Orange, N., Bakhrouf, A., Federighi, M., 2007. Pulsed-light

568 system as a novel food decontamination technology: a review. Can. J. Microbiol. 53(7), 813-

569 821.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

570 Fine, F., Gervais, P., 2004. Efficiency of pulsed UV light for microbial decontamination of food

571 powders. J. Food Protect. 67(4), 787-792.

572 Gomez-Lopez, V.M., Ragaert, P., Debevere, J. and Devlieghere, F., 2007. Pulsed light for food

573 decontamination: a review. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 18(9), 464-473.

PT
574 Hamamoto, A., Mori, M., Takahashi, A., Nakano, M., Wakikawa, N., Akutagawa, M., Ikehara,

RI
575 T., Nakaya, Y., Kinouchi, Y., 2007. New water disinfection system using UVA light-

576 emitting diodes. J. Appl. Microbiol. 103(6), 2291-2298.

SC
577 Harm, W., 1980. Biological effects of ultraviolet radiation. Cambridge University Press, New

578 York. 127-130.

579
U
Harris, T.R., Pagan, J., Batoni, P., 2013. Optical and fluidic co-design of a UV-LED water
AN
580 disinfection chamber. ECS Transactions. 45(17), 11-18.

Hatami, H., 2013. Importance of water and water-borne diseases: on the occasion of the world
M

581

582 water day (March 22, 2013). International journal of preventive medicine. 4(3), 243.
D

583 Hijnen, W.A.M., Beerendonk, E.F., Medema, G.J., 2006. Inactivation credit of UV radiation for
TE

584 viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: A review. Water Res. 40(1), 3-22.

585 Hwang, K.S., Jeon, Y.S., Choi, T.I., Hwangbo, S., 2013. Combination of light emitting diode at
EP

586 375 nm and photo-reactive TiO2 layer prepared by electrostatic spraying for sterilization. J.

587 Electr. Eng. Technol. 8(5), 1169-1174.

C

588 Ibrahim, M.A.S., MacAdam, J., Autin, O., Jefferson, B., 2014. Evaluating the impact of LED
AC

589 bulb development on the economic viability of ultraviolet technology for disinfection.

590 Environ. Technol. 35(4), 400-406.

591 IUVA, 2015. Proposed testing protocol for measurement of UV-C LED lamp output. IUVA

592 NEWS. 17(2), 7.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

593 Kalisvaart, B.F., 2004. Re-use of wastewater: preventing the recovery of pathogens by using

594 medium-pressure UV lamp technology. Water Sci. Technol. 50(6), 337-344.

595 Khan, M.A., Shatalov, M., Maruska, H.P., Wang, H.M., Kuokstis, E., 2005. III-nitride UV

596 devices. Jap. J. Appl. Phys. 44(10), 7191-7206.

PT
597 Kim, B.H., Kim, D., Cho, D.L., Lim, S.H., Yoo, S.Y., Kook, J.K., Cho, Y.I., Ohk, S.H., Ko,

RI
598 Y.M., 2007. Sterilization effects of a TiO2 photocatalytic film against a Streptococcus

599 mutans culture. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 12(2), 136-139.

SC
600 Krishnamurthy, K., Demirci, A., Irudayaraj, J.M., 2007. Inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus in

601 milk using flow-through pulsed UV-Light treatment system. J. Food Sci. 72(7), M233-M239.

602
U
Krishnamurthy, K., Tewari, J.C., Irudayaraj, J., Demirci, A., 2010. Microscopic and
AN
603 spectroscopic evaluation of inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed UV light and

infrared heating. Food Bioprocess Tech. 3(1), 93-104.

M

604

605 Kuo, J., Chen, C.L., Nellor, M., 2003. Standardized collimated beam testing protocol for
D

606 water/wastewater ultraviolet disinfection. J. Environ. Eng.-ASCE. 129(8), 774-779.

TE

607 Li, J., Hirota, K., Yumoto, H., Matsuo, T., Miyake, Y., Ichikawa, T., 2010. Enhanced germicidal

608 effects of pulsed UV-LED irradiation on biofilms. J. Appl. Microbiol. 109(6), 2183-2190.
EP

609 Linden, K.G., Shin, G., Sobsey, M.D., 2001. Comparative effectiveness of UV wavelengths for

610 the inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in water. Water Sci. Technol. 43(12),
C

611 171-174.
AC

612 Malley, J.P., Ballester, N.A., Linden, K.G., Mofidi, A., Bolton, J.R., Margolin, A.B., Crozes, G.,

613 Cushing, B., Mackey, E., Lane, J.M., Janex, M.L., 2004. Inactivation of pathogens with

614 innovative UV technologies. American Research Foundation and American Water Works

615 Association.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

616 Mamane-Gravetz, H., Linden, K.G., Cabaj, A., Sommer, R., 2005. Spectral sensitivity of

617 Bacillus subtilis spores and MS2 coliphage for validation testing of ultraviolet reactors for

618 water disinfection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(20), 7845-7852.

619 Marugan, J., van Grieken, R., Pablos, C., Sordo, C., 2010. Analogies and differences between

PT
620 photocatalytic oxidation of chemicals and photocatalytic inactivation of microorganisms.

RI
621 Water Res. 44(3), 789-796.

622 Mori, M., Hamamoto, A., Takahashi, A., Nakano, M., Wakikawa, N., Tachibana, S., Ikehara, T.,

SC
623 Nakaya, Y., Akutagawa, M., Kinouchi, Y., 2007. Development of a new water sterilization

624 device with a 365 nm UV-LED. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 45(12), 1237-1241.

625
U
Morris, J.P., 2012. Disinfection of Bacillus subtilis spores using ultraviolet light emitting diodes.
AN
626 MS Thesis.

Muller, J., 2011. Seeing the light: the benefits of UV water treatment. Water Online.
M

627

628 http://www.wateronline.com/doc/seeing-the-light-the-benefits-of-uv-0001
D

629 Muramoto, Y., Kimura, M., Nouda, S., 2014. Development and future of ultraviolet light-
TE

630 emitting diodes: UV-LED will replace the UV lamp. Semicond. Sci. Tech. 29(8).

631 Murata, Y., Osakabe, M., 2013. The Bunsen-Roscoe reciprocity law in ultraviolet-B-induced
EP

632 mortality of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae. J. Insect Physiol. 59(3), 241-

633 247.
C

634 Nakahashi, M., Mawatari, K., Hirata, A., Maetani, M., Shimohata, T., Uebanso, T., Hamada, Y.,
AC

635 Akutagawa, M., Kinouchi, Y., Takahashi, A., 2014. Simultaneous irradiation with different

636 wavelengths of ultraviolet light has synergistic bactericidal effect on Vibrio

637 parahaemolyticus. Photochem. Photobiol. 90(6), 1397-1403.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

638 Nelson, K.Y., McMartin, D.W., Yost, C.K., Runtz, K.J., Ono, T., 2013. Point-of-use water

639 disinfection using UV light-emitting diodes to reduce bacterial contamination. Environ. Sci.

640 Pollut. Res. 20(8), 5441-5448.

641 Oguma, K., Katayama, H., Mitani, H., Morita, S., Hirata, T., Ohgaki, S., 2001. Determination of

PT
642 pyrimidine dimers in Escherichia coli and Cryptosporidium parvum during UV light

RI
643 inactivation, photoreactivation, and dark repair. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67(10), 4630-

644 4637.

SC
645 Oguma, K., Katayama, H., Ohgaki, S., 2002. Photoreactivation of Escherichia coli after low- or

646 medium-pressure UV disinfection determined by an endonuclease sensitive site assay. Appl.

647 Environ. Microbiol. 68(12), 6029-6035.

U
AN
648 Oguma, K., Kita, R., Sakai, H., Murakami, M., Takizawa, S., 2013. Application of UV light

emitting diodes to batch and flow-through water disinfection systems. Desalination. 328, 24-
M

649

650 30.
D

651 Oms-Oliu, G., Martin-Belloso, O., Soliva-Fortuny, R., 2010. Pulsed light treatments for food
TE

652 preservation: A review. Food Bioprocess Technol. 3(1), 13-23.

653 Oppezzo, O.J., Pizarro, R.A., 2001. Sublethal effects of ultraviolet A radiation on Enterobacter
EP

654 cloacae. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B-Biol. 62(3), 158-165.

655 Pablos, C., Marugan, J., van Grieken, R., Serrano, E., 2013. Emerging micropollutant oxidation
C

656 during disinfection processes using UV-C, UV-C/H2O2, UV-A/TiO2 and UV-A/TiO2/H2O2.
AC

657 Water Res. 47(3), 1237-1245.

658 Pizarro, R.A., 1995. UV-A oxidative damage modified by environmental conditions in

659 Escherichia coli. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 68(3), 293-299.

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

660 Pizarro, R.A., Orce, L.V., 1988. Membrane damage and recovery associated with growth delay

661 induced by near-UV radiation in Escherichia coli K-12. Photochem. Photobiol. 47(3), 391-

662 397.

663 Ramabhadran, T.V., Jagger, J., 1976. Mechanism of growth delay induced in Escherichia coli by

PT
664 near ultraviolet radiation. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 73(1), 59-63.

RI
665 Rincon, A.G., Pulgarin, C., 2004. Bactericidal action of illuminated TiO2 on pure Escherichia

666 coli and natural bacterial consortia: post-irradiation events in the dark and assessment of the

SC
667 effective disinfection time. Appl. Catal. B-Environ. 49(2), 99-112.

668 Rincon, A.G., Pulgarin, C., 2007. Absence of E. coli regrowth after Fe3+ and TiO2 solar

669
U
photoassisted disinfection of water in CPC solar photoreactor. Catal. Today. 124(3-4), 204-
AN
670 214.

Ronto, G., Gaspar, S., Berces, A., 1992. Phage T7 in biological UV dose measurement. J.
M

671

672 Photochem. Photobiol. B-Biol. 12(3), 285-294.

D

673 Sanz, E.N., Davila, I.S., Balao, J.A.A., Alonso, J.M.Q., 2007. Modelling of reactivation after UV
TE

674 disinfection: effect of UV-C dose on subsequent photoreactivation and dark repair. Water

675 Res. 41(14), 3141-3151.

EP

676 Shang, C., Cheung, L.M., Ho, C.M., Zeng, M.Z., 2009. Repression of photoreactivation and dark

677 repair of coliform bacteria by TiO2-modified UV-C disinfection. Appl. Catal. B-Environ.
C

678 89(3-4), 536-542.

AC

679 Sinha, R.P., Hader, D.P., 2002. UV-induced DNA damage and repair: a review. Photochem.

680 Photobiol. Sci. 1(4), 225-236.

681 Sommer, R., Haider, T., Cabaj, A., Pribil, W., Lhotsky, M., 1998. Time dose reciprocity in UV

682 disinfection of water. Water Sci. Technol. 38(12), 145-150.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

683 Sommer, R., Lhotsky, M., Haider, T., Cabaj, A., 2000. UV inactivation, liquid-holding recovery,

684 and photoreactivation of Escherichia coli O157 and other pathogenic Escherichia coli

685 strains in water. J. Food Protect. 63(8), 1015-1020.

686 Taghipour, F., 2013. Is UV-LED the future of ultraviolet water purification? IUVA NEWS.

PT
687 15(4), 23-26.

RI
688 Taniyasu, Y., Kasu, M., 2010. Improved emission efficiency of 210-nm deep-ultraviolet

689 aluminum nitride light-emitting diode. NTT Technical Review. 8(8), 1-5.

SC
690 Taniyasu, Y., Kasu, M., Makimoto, T., 2006a. An aluminium nitride light-emitting diode with a

691 wavelength of 210 nanometres. Nature. 441(7091), 325-328.

692
U
Taniyasu, Y., Kasu, M., Makimoto, T., 2006b. Aluminum nitride deep-ultraviolet light-emitting
AN
693 diodes. NTT Technical Review. 4(12), 54-58.

USEPA, 2006. Ultraviolet disinfection guidance manual for the final long term 2 enhanced
M

694

695 surface water treatment rule. Washington DC, Office of Water, EPA 815-R-06-007.
D

696 Vilhunen, S., Sarkka, H., Sillanpaa, M., 2009. Ultraviolet light-emitting diodes in water
TE

697 disinfection. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 16(4), 439-442.

698 Wengraitis, S., McCubbin, P., Wade, M.M., Biggs, T.D., Hall, S., Williams, L.I., Zulich, A.W.,
EP

699 2013. Pulsed UV-C disinfection of Escherichia coli with light-emitting diodes, emitted at

700 various repetition rates and duty cycles. Photochem. Photobiol. 89(1), 127-131.
C

701 WHO, 2014. Progress on drinking water and sanitation.

AC

702 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112727/1/9789241507240_eng.pdf

703 Wurtele, M.A., Kolbe, T., Lipsz, M., Kulberg, A., Weyers, M., Kneissl, M., Jekel, M., 2011.

704 Application of GaN-based ultraviolet-C light emitting diodes - UV LEDs - for water

705 disinfection. Water Res. 45(3), 1481-1489.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

706 Xiong, P., Hu, J.Y., 2013. Inactivation/reactivation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by a novel

707 UVA/LED/TiO2 system. Water Res. 47(13), 4547-4555.

708 Zimmer, J.L., Slawson, R.M., 2002. Potential repair of Escherichia coli DNA following

709 exposure to UV radiation from both medium- and low-pressure UV sources used in drinking

PT
710 water treatment. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68(7), 3293-3299.

RI
711

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 – Summary of dose response data for water disinfection by UV-LEDs

Dose response
Wavelength Disinfection UV dose Log
Microorganism (mJ/cm2 per log Reference
(nm) medium (mJ/cm2) inactivation
inactivation)
250 B. subtilis Water 59.2 3 19.7 Morris, 2012
mesophilic Chevremont et al.,
254 Water 0.73 0.8 1.0

PT
bacteria 2012a
255 φX174 Water 6.4 3.7 1.7 Aoyagi et al., 2011
255 Qβ Water 30 2.4 12.5 Aoyagi et al., 2011
255 MS2 Water 41 3.2 12.8 Aoyagi et al., 2011

RI
255 MS2 Water 60 2.3 26.1 Bowker et al., 2011
255 T7 Water 20 3.9 5.1 Bowker et al., 2011

SC
255 E. coli Water 9 2.7 3.3 Bowker et al., 2011
Chatterley and
265 E. coli Water 20 3.4 5.9
Linden, 2010
265 E. coli Water 10.8 4 2.7 Oguma et al., 2013

U
Pseudomonas Biofilm in
265 7.8 4 2.0 Bak et al., 2010
aeruginosa tube
AN
269 B. subtilis Water 40 5.9 6.8 Wurtele et al., 2011
275 MS2 Water 60 2.1 28.6 Bowker et al., 2011
275 T7 Water 20 4.7 4.3 Bowker et al., 2011
275 E. coli Water 9 3.8 2.4 Bowker et al., 2011
M

280 E. coli Water 13.8 4 3.5 Oguma et al., 2013

mesophilic Chevremont et al.,
280 Water 1.37 1.4 1.0
bacteria 2012a
D

280 φX174 Water 8.9 3.2 2.8 Aoyagi et al., 2011

280 Qβ Water 43 1.5 28.7 Aoyagi et al., 2011
TE

280 MS2 Water 58 1.9 30.5 Aoyagi et al., 2011

282 B. subtilis Water 60 7.2 8.3 Wurtele et al., 2011
310 E. coli Water 56.9 0.6 94.8 Oguma et al., 2013
EP

Hamamoto et al.,
365 E. coli Water 315000 5.7 55,263
2007
365 E. coli Water 54000 3.9 13,846 Mori et al., 2007
365 E. coli Water/TiO2 688 3 229 Xiong and Hu, 2013
C

mesophilic Chevremont et al.,

365 Water 4.22 0.3 12.5
AC

bacteria 2012a
mesophilic Chevremont et al.,
405 Water 25.58 0.3 88.0
bacteria 2012a
mesophilic Chevremont et al.,
254/365 Water 4.95 2.4 2.1
bacteria 2012a
mesophilic Chevremont et al.,
280/365 Water 5.59 3.5 1.6
bacteria 2012a
mesophilic Chevremont et al.,
254/405 Water 26.31 2.2 11.9
bacteria 2012a
mesophilic Chevremont et al.,
280/405 Water 26.95 3.5 7.7
bacteria 2012a
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 – UV sensitivity of microorganisms for UVC-LEDs and low-pressure UV lamps

Wavelength
Microorganism UV source k (cm2/mJ) Reference
(nm)
φX174 255 UV-LEDs 0.578 Aoyagi et al., 2011
φX174 280 UV-LEDs 0.360 Aoyagi et al., 2011
φX174 254 UV lamps 0.396 Hijnen et al., 2006

PT
E. coli 11229 255 UV-LEDs 0.300 Bowker et al., 2011
Chatterley and Linden,
E. coli K12 29425 265 UV-LEDs 0.170
2010

RI
E. coli K12 IFO 3301 265 UV-LEDs 0.370 Oguma et al., 2013
E. coli 11229 275 UV-LEDs 0.422 Bowker et al., 2011

SC
E. coli K12 IFO 3301 280 UV-LEDs 0.290 Oguma et al., 2013
E. coli 254 UV lamps 0.506 Hijnen et al., 2006
T7 255 UV-LEDs 0.195 Bowker et al., 2011

U
T7 275 UV-LEDs 0.235 Bowker et al., 2011
T7 254 UV lamps 0.232 Hijnen et al., 2006
AN
Bacillus subtilis 250 UV-LEDs 0.051 Morris, 2012
Bacillus subtilis 269 UV-LEDs 0.148 Wurtele et al., 2011
M

Bacillus subtilis 282 UV-LEDs 0.120 Wurtele et al., 2011

Bacillus subtilis 254 UV lamps 0.059 Hijnen et al., 2006
Qβ 255 UV-LEDs 0.080 Aoyagi et al., 2011
D

Qβ 280 UV-LEDs 0.035 Aoyagi et al., 2011

Qβ 254 UV lamps 0.084 Hijnen et al., 2006
TE

MS2 255 UV-LEDs 0.078 Aoyagi et al., 2011

MS2 255 UV-LEDs 0.038 Bowker et al., 2011
EP

MS2 275 UV-LEDs 0.035 Bowker et al., 2011

MS2 280 UV-LEDs 0.033 Aoyagi et al., 2011
MS2 254 UV lamps 0.055 Hijnen et al., 2006
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 – Summary of time-response data for water disinfection by UV-LEDs

Wavelength Disinfection Exposure Log
Microorganism Reference
(nm) medium time inactivation

254 E. coli Water 30 sec 3.5 Chevremont et al., 2012b

260 E. coli Water 50 min 2.5 Nelson et al., 2013

PT
269 E. coli Water 5 min 3-4 Vilhunen et al., 2009
276 E. coli Water 5 min 3-4 Vilhunen et al., 2009

RI
280 E. coli Water 30 sec 7 Chevremont et al., 2012b
365 E. coli Water 30 sec 2.7 Chevremont et al., 2012b

SC
365(Pulse) E. coli Biofilm 1 hour 3 Li et al., 2010
365(Pulse) Candida albicans Biofilm 1 hour 3 Li et al., 2010

U
Vibrio
365 Water 6 min 1 Nakahashi et al., 2014
parahaemolyticus
AN
375 E. coli Biofilm 2 hours 2 Hwang et al., 2013
Streptococcus
375 Water 15 min 4 Kim et al., 2007
mutans
M

405 E. coli Water 30 sec 3.3 Chevremont et al., 2012b

254/365 E. coli Water 30 sec 7 Chevremont et al., 2012b
D

280/365 E. coli Water 30 sec 7 Chevremont et al., 2012b

TE

280/405 E. coli Water 30 sec 7 Chevremont et al., 2012b

C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(A) (B)

UV lamp

PT
Collimated UV-LED
beam

RI
Water sample
container and
stirrer

SC
Water sample
container and
stirrer

U
Fig. 1 – Schematic diagram for typical UV lamp collimated beam apparatus (A) and UV-
AN
LED bench scale apparatus (B)
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

The recent studies on newly emerging UV-LEDs for water disinfection are reviewed.

A standard protocol is needed for UV-LED microorganism inactivation studies.

Multiple wavelengths and pulsed illumination by UV-LEDs may improve inactivation.

PT

Mechanisms of microorganism inactivation by UV-LEDs are discussed.

RI

The special features of UV-LEDs encourage flexible and novel reactor designs.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC