Abstract
Ultraviolet (UV)‐based methods of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), such as UV/hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), can be used for removal of taste and odor contaminants in drinking water. However, significant disadvantages to UV/H2O2 include incurred chemical costs associated with the addition of peroxide and quenching residual peroxide and the operational challenge of balancing peroxide quenching with secondary disinfection needs. Recent work has shown that H2O2 can be replaced with chlorine (Cl2) for UV‐AOP and produce advantageous oxidation efficiencies for synthetic organic contaminants under certain conditions. This article uses modeling of the photochemistry of UV/H2O2 and UV/Cl2 to compare emerging and state‐of‐the‐art UV‐AOPs for control of the taste and odor‐inducing compounds geosmin and 2‐methylisoborneol. Although UV/H2O2 has a decided advantage with respect to oxidation efficiency in surface waters at neutralto‐ basic pH, UV/C12 can provide a cost‐effective AOP alternative, with a low risk of added trihalomethane and haloacetic acid formation in some surface waters.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
