Life cycle assessment for wastewater disinfection using sodium hypochlorite, peracetic acid or performic acid
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As the need for safe water is increasing, engineers are working on finding more efficient and environment-friendly technologies for disinfection of wastewater in order to provide safe water for discharge into the environment. Chlorination, using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), is one of the most commonly used disinfection methods. In recent years, extensive research has been done on performic (PFA) and peracetic acid (PAA), as they have a high oxidation potential and therefore can reduce bacterial and other types of contamination in wastewater. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a holistic method used in order to investigate the environmental footprint of a product or a service over its entire life cycle, i.e. from "cradle-to-grave". The objective of the thesis is to use LCA to demonstrate the advantages in using either NaOCl, PAA or PFA for wastewater disinfection, from an environmental and health perspective. USEtox and Impact 2002+ models were used in order to evaluate their impacts on freshwater toxicity, human toxicity, climate change, mineral resources and non-renewable energy depletion. Data for the study were provided by a treatment plant in Italy near Venice that has performed full-scale disinfection trials using NaOCl, PAA and PFA, and by the North West Langley treatment plant near Vancouver, which traditionally used NaOCl for chlorination and sodium bisulfite for dechlorination, but transitioned to PAA disinfection in 2014. The functional unit for the Venice treatment plant is the removal of 3 log of E. coli from the effluent at a flow of 27 MLD during two months. For the NW Langley treatment plant, the functional unit was the disinfection of the effluent to the limit of 200 MPN/100 ml fecal coliforms at the edge of the dilution zone, from April to October and at a flow of 11.5 MLD. The LCA includes chemical production, infrastructure directly related to disinfection at the treatment plant, ancillary equipment for disinfection, transportation of equipment and the disinfectants, electricity for disinfection process itself as well as the residuals from disinfection. Results from the Venice treatment plant indicate that PFA could be the best option for wastewater disinfection due to the low dose needed to achieve regulatory limits, which reduces the potential impact of chemical production as well as transport. While PFA is more toxic than PAA, the residual concentration is lower leading to similar potential impacts on toxicity. Results from the NW Langley WWTP indicate that dechlorination significantly reduces potential impacts of chlorine on freshwater toxicity, however impacts on human toxicity, climate change and resource consumption (mineral and non-renewable energy) are increased due to the added production and transport of sodium bisulfite. The best choice of disinfectant at NW Langley therefore depends on the environmental priorities of the decision makers and government regulations. For each disinfectant, production is the highest contributor to total potential impacts on climate change, human toxicity and resource depletion. The highest contributor to freshwater toxicity impacts is the chemical residual from disinfection. The choice of chemical disinfectant also depends on regulations, cost and technologies available. The DesinFix unit is only being used in Europe; at this time the US EPA and the Canadian government have not yet approved the use of PFA for wastewater disinfection. Nonetheless, with upcoming reviews in regulations, PFA could soon be available in more countries. Furthermore, a cost analysis would give more information on the economic benefits of using one disinfectant over another.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».