Ltraviolet Adiation: 8.1 UV Chemistry (Photochemical)

8.
ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION
Unlike most disinfectants, ultraviolet (UV) radiation does not inactivate microorganisms by chemical
interaction. UV radiation inactivates organisms by absorption of the light which causes a
photochemical reaction that alters molecular components essential to cell function. As UV rays
penetrate the cell wall of the microorganism, the energy reacts with nucleic acids and other vital cell
components, resulting in injury or death of the eposed cells. !here is ample evidence to conclude
that if sufficient dosages of UV energy reach the organisms, UV can disinfect water to whatever
degree is re"uired. #owever, there has been some public health concerns with respect to the overall
efficiency of UV to disinfect potable water.
$ased on the available research literature, it appears that although eceptional for disinfection of
small microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses, UV doses re"uired to inactivate larger proto%oa
such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium are several times higher than for bacteria and virus inactivation
(&hite, '(()* +e,ers and -enner, '(()). As a result, UV is often considered in concert with o%one
and.or hydrogen peroide to enhance the disinfection effectiveness of UV or for ground water where
Giardia and Cryptosporidium are not epected to occur.
8.1 UV Chemistry (Photochemical)
8.1.1 UV Raiatio!
UV radiation "uickly dissipates into water to be absorbed or reflected off material within the water.
As a result, no residual is produced. !his process is attractive from a +$/ formation standpoint*
however, a secondary chemical disinfectant is re"uired to maintain a residual throughout the
distribution system, which may be subject to recontamination.
UV radiation energy waves are the range of electromagnetic waves '00 to 100 nm long (between the
23ray and visible light spectrums). !he division of UV radiation may be classified as Vacuum UV
('003)00 nm), UV34 ()003)50 nm), UV3$ ()5036'7 nm) and UV3A (6'73100 nm). 8n terms of
germicidal effects, the optimum UV range is between )17 and )57 nm. UV disinfection utili%es
either9 low3pressure lamps that emit maimum energy output at a wavelength of )76.: nm* medium3
pressure lamps that emit energy at wavelengths from '50 to '6:0 nm* or lamps that emit at other
wavelengths in a high intensity ;pulsed< manner.
April 1999 EPA Guidance Manual
Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants
1
8. ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION
8.1." UV Disi!#ectio! Reactio!s
!he degree to which the destruction or inactivation of microorganisms occurs by UV radiation is
directly related to the UV dose. !he UV dosage is calculated as9
D = I

t
&here9 D = UV +ose, m&s.cm
)
I = 8ntensity, m&.cm
)
t = =posure time, s
-esearch indicates that when microorganisms are eposed to UV radiation, a constant fraction of the
living population is inactivated during each progressive increment in time. !his dose3response
relationship for germicidal effect indicates that high intensity UV energy over a short period of time
would provide the same kill as a lower intensity UV energy at a proportionally longer period of time.
!he UV dose re"uired for effective inactivation is determined by site3specific data relating to the
water "uality and log removal re"uired. $ased on first order kinetics, the survival of microorganisms
can be calculated as a function of dose and contact time (&hite, '(()* U>=/A, '((?). @or high
removals, the remaining concentration of organisms appears to be solely related to the dose and
water "uality, and not dependent on the initial microorganism density. !chobanoglous ('((:)
suggested the following relationship between coliform survival and UV dose9
N = f D
n
&here9 N A =ffluent coliform density, .'00mB
D A UV dose, m&s.cm
)
n A =mpirical coefficient related to dose
f
A =mpirical water "uality factor
!he empirical water "uality factor reflects the presence of particles, color, etc. in the water. @or
water treatment, the water "uality factor is epected to be a function of turbidity and transmittance
(or absorbance).
8.1.$ Process Varia%les
>ince UV radiation is energy in the form of electromagnetic waves, its effectiveness is not limited by
chemical water "uality parameters. @or instance, it appears that p#, temperature, alkalinity, and total
EPA Guidance Manual 2 April 1999
inorganic carbon do not impact the overall effectiveness of UV disinfection (A&&A and A>4=,
'((0). #owever, hardness may cause problems with keeping the lamp sleeves clean and functional.
!he presence, or addition, of oidants (e.g., o%one and.or hydrogen peroide) enhances UV radiation
effectiveness. !he presence of some dissolved or suspended matter may shield microorganisms from
the UV radiation. @or instance, iron, sulfites, nitrites and phenols all absorb UV light (+e,ers and
-enner, '(()). Accordingly, the absorbance coefficient is an indication of this demand and is uni"ue
for all waters. As a result, specific ;design< parameters vary for individual waters and should be
determined empirically for each application.
UV demand of water is measured by a spectrophotometer set at a wavelength of )71 nm using a ' cm
thick layer of water. !he resulting measurement represents the absorption of energy per unit depth, or
absorbance. /ercent transmittance is a parameter commonly used to determine the suitability of UV
radiation for disinfection. !he percent transmittance is determined from the absorbance (A) by the
e"uation9
/ercent !ransmittance A '00 '0
3A
!able 53' shows corresponding absorbance measurements and percent transmittance measurements
for various water "ualities.
Ta%le 8&1. 'ater ()ality a! Associate UV *eas)reme!ts
+o)rce 'ater ()ality
A%sor%a!ce
(a%sor%a!ce )!its,cm)
Perce!t
Tra!smitta!ce
Excellent 0.022 95%
Good 0.01 !5
"air 0.125 5
#ource$ DeMers and %enner& 1992.
4ontinuous wave UV radiation at doses and wavelengths typically employed in drinking water
applications, does not significantly change the chemistry of water nor does it significantly interact
with any of the chemicals within the water (U>=/A, '((?). !herefore, no natural physiochemical
features of the water are changed and no chemical agents are introduced into the water. 8n addition,
UV radiation does not produce a residual. As a result, formation of !#, or other +$/s with UV
disinfection is minimal (>ee >ection 5.7, Disinfection Byproducts of UV Radiation).
8." -e!eratio!
/roducing UV radiation re"uires electricity to power UV lamps. !he lamps typically used in UV
disinfection consist of a "uart% tube filled with an inert gas, such as argon, and small "uantities of
mercury. $allasts control the power to the UV lamps.
April 1999 ' EPA Guidance Manual
8.".1 UV Lam.s
UV lamps operate in much the same way as fluorescent lamps. UV radiation is emitted from electron
flow through ioni%ed mercury vapor to produce UV energy in most units. !he difference between the
two lamps is that the fluorescent lamp bulb is coated with phosphorous, which converts the UV
radiation to visible light. !he UV lamp is not coated, so it transmits the UV radiation generated by
the arc (&hite, '(()).
$oth low3pressure and medium3pressure lamps are available for disinfection applications. Bow3
pressure lamps emit their maimum energy output at a wavelength of )76.: nm, while medium
pressure lamps emit energy with wavelengths ranging from '50 to '6:0 nm. !he intensity of
medium3pressure lamps is much greater than low3pressure lamps. !hus, fewer medium pressure
lamps are re"uired for an e"uivalent dosage. @or small systems, the medium pressure system may
consist of a single lamp. Although both types of lamps work e"ually well for inactivation of
organisms, low3pressure UV lamps are recommended for small systems because of the reliability
associated with multiple low3pressure lamps (+e,ers and -enner, '(()) as opposed to a single
medium pressure lamp, and for ade"uate operation during cleaning cycles.
-ecommended specifications for low3pressure lamps (+e,ers and -enner, '(()) include9
B3type o%one3free "uart%*
8nstant start (minimal delay on startup)*
+esigned to withstand vibration and shock* and
>tandard nonproprietary lamp design.
!ypically, low3pressure lamps are enclosed in a "uart% sleeve to separate the water from the lamp
surface. !his arrangement is re"uired to maintain the lamp surface operating temperature near its
optimum of 10
o
4. Although !eflon sleeves are an alternative to "uart% sleeves, "uart% sleeves absorb
only 7 percent of the UV radiation, while !eflon sleeves absorb 67 percent (4ombs and ,cCuire,
'(5(). !herefore, !eflon sleeves are not recommended.
8."." /allasts
$allasts are transformers that control the power to the UV lamps. $allasts should operate at
temperatures below ?0
o
4 to prevent premature failure. !ypically, the ballasts generate enough heat to
warrant cooling fans or air conditioning (&hite, '(()).
!wo types of transformers are commonly used with UV lamps* namely, electronic and
electromagnetic. =lectronic ballasts operate at a much higher fre"uency than electromagnetic
ballasts, resulting in lower lamp operating temperatures, less energy use, less heat production, and
longer ballast life (+e,ers and -enner, '(()).
EPA Guidance Manual ( April 1999
!ypical ballast selection criteria include (+e,ers and -enner, '(())9
UnderwriterDs Baboratories (UB) approval*
4ompatibility with UV lamps* and
&aterproof enclosure in remote location.
8.".$ UV Reactor Desi0!
,ost conventional UV reactors are available in two types* namely, closed vessel and open channel.
@or drinking water applications, the closed vessel is generally the preferred UV reactor for the
following reasons (U>=/A, '((?)9
>maller footprint*
,inimi%ed pollution from airborne material*
,inimal personnel eposure to UV* and
,odular design for installation simplicity.
@igure 53' shows a conventional closed vessel UV reactor. !his reactor is capable of providing UV
dosages ade"uate to inactivate bacteria and viruses for flows up to ?00 gallons per minute. #owever,
it is incapable of the higher dosages re"uired for proto%oan cysts. !o increase the dosage, either the
number of UV lamps and.or the eposure time should be increased.
Additional design features for conventional UV disinfection systems include9
UV sensors to detect any drop in UV lamp output intensity*
Alarms and shut3down systems*
Automatic or manual cleaning cycles* and
!elemetry systems for remote installations.
April 1999 5 EPA Guidance Manual
)llu*ination +a*p
Monitorin, Panel
-ltrasonic .leanin,
/ransducer
0uart1 2ac3ets
Enclosin, -4 +a*ps
-4 )ntensit5
Measurin, .ell
#ource$ -#EPA& 1996.
1i0)re 8&1. Close Vessel Ultra2iolet Reactor
8n addition to conventional UV systems, two other UV processes are currently being evaluated for
drinking water disinfection9
,icro3screening.UV* and
/ulsed UV
$oth of these systems profess to provide sufficient UV dose to inactivate Giardia cysts and
Cryptosporidium oocysts. >ee >ection 5.).6.), =merging UV -eactor +esigns, for further discussion
on these emerging technologies.
8.2.3.1 Hydraulic Design Considerations
!he major elements that should be considered in the hydraulic design of a UV closed vessel reactor
are9 dispersion, turbulence, effective volume, residence time distribution, and flow rate (U>=/A,
'((?).
Dis.ersio!
+ispersion is the characteristic of water elements to scatter spatially. !he ideal UV reactor is plug
flow, where water particles are assumed to discharge from the reactor in the same se"uence they
entered and each element of water passing through the reactor resides in the reactor for the same
period of time. An ideal plug flow reactor has no dispersion and is approimated by a long tank with
high length3to3width ratio in which dispersion is minimal (U>=/A, '((?).
T)r%)le!ce
8n addition to plug flow characteristics, the ideal UV reactor has a flow that is turbulent radially from
the direction of flow, to eliminate dead %ones. !his radially turbulent flow pattern promotes uniform
application of UV radiation. A negative of having a radially turbulent flow pattern is that some aial
dispersion results, thus disrupting the plug flow characteristics. !echni"ues such as misaligning the
inlet and outlet, and using perforated stilling plates, have been used to accommodate the
contradicting characteristics of plug flow and turbulence (U>=/A, '((?).
8.2.3.2 Emerging UV Reactor Designs
!wo emerging technologies in UV reactor design are discussed below. All testing of these two
systems to date has been under controlled laboratory or field conditions. $oth of these technologies
re"uire demonstration of efficacy and applicability in real3world treatment operations.
*icro&+cree!i!0,UV
!his unit consists of two treatment chambers, each containing a ) m nominal porosity metal screen.
=ach side of the screen has three 57 watt low pressure mercury lamps, with a total of si lamps per
filter. !he theoretical minimum dose is '1.? m&sec.cm
)
at the wavelength of )71 nm. !he system is
designed to capture Cryptosporidium oocysts from the water onto the first screen. !he first cycle is
set to establish the UV dose. !he flow within the first screen chamber is then reversed to backflush to
oocysts onto the second screen where the oocysts are trapped until the preset UV dose is reached.
Using valves, the pattern of flow is designed to ensure that oocysts are temporarily captured on both
filters so that they are eposed to a total preset UV dose, which is totally independent of treated water
flowrate (4lancy et al., '((:). Eohnson ('((:) stated that such a system is capable of achieving total
UV doses of 5,000 m&sec.cm
)
, sufficient to inactivate Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts.
Fne drawback of this type of reactor is the headloss created (up to ?7 feet) by the ) m openings in
the screen.
P)lse UV
8n the pulsed UV reactor, capacitors build up and deliver electricity in pulses to enon flash tubes in
the center of a ) inch diameter flash chamber through which water flows. !he unit is designed to
provide microsecond pulses at ' to 60 hert% (or per second). &ith each pulse, the flash tubes give off
high intensity, broad band radiation, including germicidal UV radiation, which irradiates the flowing
April 1999 EPA Guidance Manual
water with irradiences of :7 m&sec.cm
)
at ) cm from the flash tube surface (4lancy et al., '((:).
!he UV dose can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the fre"uency of the pulsing.
8.$ Primary Uses a! Poi!ts o# A..licatio!
!he primary use of UV radiation is to inactivate pathogens to regulated levels. UV radiation is a
physical disinfectant that leaves no residual. !herefore, it should be used only as a primary
disinfectant followed by a chemical secondary disinfectant to protect the distribution system against
coliform proliferation and biofilm formation. >ee >ection 5.1, /athogen 8nactivation and
+isinfection =fficiency,< for a detailed discussion of disinfection efficiency and limitations.
!he most common point of application for UV radiation is the last step in the treatment process train
just prior to the distribution system and after filtration. !he use of UV disinfection has no impact on
other processes at the water treatment facility.
8.3 Patho0e! I!acti2atio! a! Disi!#ectio! E##icie!cy
As opposed to most alternative disinfectants, UV is a physical process that re"uires a contact time on
the order of seconds to accomplish pathogen inactivation (>obotka, '((6). As with any disinfectant,
UV has its limitations. @or eample, because it is a physical rather than a chemical disinfectant, it
does not provide a residual to control pathogen proliferation and biofilm formation in the distribution
system. &hen using UV for primary disinfection, some form of secondary chemical disinfectant is
re"uired to maintain water "uality within the distribution system.
8.3.1 I!acti2atio! *echa!ism
UV radiation is efficient at inactivating vegetative and sporous forms of bacteria, viruses, and other
pathogenic microorganisms. =lectromagnetic radiation in the wavelengths ranging from )10 to )50
nanometers (nm) effectively inactivates microorganisms by irreparably damaging their nucleic acid.
!he most potent wavelength for damaging deoyribonucleic acid (+GA) is approimately )71 nm
(&olfe, '((0). Fther UV wavelengths, such as )00 nm, have been shown to ehibit peak absorbance
in a"ueous solutions of +GA (von >onntag and >chuchmann, '(())* however, there is no practical
application for UV inactivation of microorganisms in the wavelength range from '(0 to )'0 nm
(U>=/A, '((?).
!he germicidal effects of UV light involve photochemical damage to -GA and +GA within the
microorganisms. ,icroorganism nucleic acids are the most important absorbers of light energy in
the wavelength of )10 to )50 nm (Eagger, '(?:). +GA and -GA carry genetic information
necessary for reproduction* therefore, damage to either of these substances can effectively sterili%e
the organism. +amage often results from the dimeri%ation of pyrimidine molecules. 4ystosine
(found in both +GA and -GA), thymine (found only in +GA), and uracil (found only in -GA) are
the three primary types of pyrimidine molecules. -eplication of the nucleic acid becomes very
difficult once the pyrimidine molecules are bonded together due to the distortion of the +GA helical
EPA Guidance Manual ! April 1999
structure by UV radiation (>nider et al., '(('). ,oreover, if replication does occur, mutant cells that
are unable to replicate will be produced (U>=/A, '((?). @igure 53) is a schematic of the germicidal
inactivation observed with UV radiation.
!wo phenomena of key importance when using UV disinfection in water treatment are the dark
repair mechanisms and the capability of certain organisms to photoreactivate following eposure to
certain light wavelengths. Under certain conditions, some organisms are capable of repairing
damaged +GA and reverting back to an active state in which reproduction is again possible.
!ypically, photoreactivation occurs as a conse"uence of the cataly%ing effects of sunlight at visible
wavelengths outside of the effective disinfecting range. !he etent of reactivation varies among
organisms. 4oliform indicator organisms and some bacterial pathogens such as Shigella have
ehibited the photoreactivation mechanism* however, viruses (ecept when they have infected a host
cell that is itself photoreactive) and other types of bacteria cannot photoreactivate (U>=/A, '(50*
U>=/A, '(5?* #a%en and >awyer, '(()). $ecause +GA damage tends to become irreversible over
time, there is a critical period during which photoreactivation can occur. !o minimi%e the effect of
photoreactivation, UV contactors should be designed to either shield the process stream or limit the
eposure of the disinfected water to sunlight immediately following disinfection.
#ource$ /c7o8ano,lous& 199.
1i0)re 8&". -ermicial I!acti2atio! %y UV Raiatio!
8.3." E!2iro!me!tal E##ects
!o achieve inactivation, UV should be absorbed into the microorganism. !herefore, anything that
prevents UV from reacting with the microorganism will decrease the disinfection efficiency.
>cheible and $assell ('(5') and Hip and Ionasewich ('(:)) reported that p# had no effect on UV
disinfection. >everal factors that are known to affect disinfection efficiency of UV are9
4hemical and biological films that develop on the surface of UV lamps*
+issolved organics and inorganics*
4lumping or aggregation of microorganisms*
!urbidity*
4olor* and
>hort3circuiting in water flowing through the UV contactor.
8.4.2.1 Chemical Films and Dissoled !rganics and "norganics
Accumulation of solids onto the surface of the UV sleeves can reduce the applied UV intensity and,
conse"uently, disinfection efficiency. 8n addition to biofilms caused by organic material, buildup of
calcium, magnesium, and iron scales have been reported (+e,ers and -enner, '(()). &aters
containing high concentrations of iron, hardness, hydrogen sulfide, and organics are more susceptible
to scaling or plating (i.e., the formation of a thin coat on unit surfaces), which gradually decreases the
applied UV intensity. >caling is likely to occur if dissolved organics are present and inorganic
concentrations eceed the following limits (+e,ers and -enner, '(())9
8ron greater than 0.' mg.B*
#ardness greater than '10 mg.B* and
#ydrogen sulfide greater than 0.) mg.B.
@igure 536 shows the UV dose re"uired for inactivation of ,>3) coliphage at two pilot plants. >nicer
et al. ('((?) concluded that one possible eplanation for higher UV dose for the same degree of
inactivation re"uired at pilot plant ) could be the amount of scaling caused by higher iron
concentrations eperienced at this plant. 8ron concentrations at pilot plant ) were in the range of 0.17
to 0.?7 mg.B, which eceed the limit shown above.
A variety of chemical substances can decrease UV transmission (Hip and Ionasewich, '(:)),
including humic acids, phenolic compounds, and lignin sulfonates (>nider et al., '(('), as well as
chromium, cobalt, copper, and nickel. 8t has been reported that coloring agents, such as Fr%an >, tea,
and etract of leaves reduce intensity within a UV contactor (#uff, '(?7). 8n addition, iron, sulfites,
nitrites, and phenols can absorb UV (+e,ers and -enner, '(()).
0
1
2
'
(
5
6
0 10 20 '0 (0 50 60 0 !0 90 100
UV Dose (m' sec , cm
"
)
L
o
0

*
+
&
"

I
!
a
c
t
i
2
a
t
i
o
!
Pilot 1 9ater Pilot 2 9ater
#ource$ #nicer et al.& 1996.
1i0)re 8&$. UV Dose Re4)ire #or I!acti2atio! o# *+&" Coli.ha0e
8.4.2.2 #icroorganism Clum$ing and %ur&idity
/articles can affect the disinfection efficiency of UV by harboring bacteria and other pathogens,
partially protecting them from UV radiation, and scattering UV light (see @igure 531). !ypically, the
low turbidity of ground water results in minimal impact on disinfection efficiency. #owever, the
higher turbidities of surface water can impact disinfection efficiency.
>imilar to particles that cause turbidity, microorganism aggregation can impact disinfection
efficiency by harboring pathogens within the aggregates and shade pathogens that would otherwise
be inactivated.
8.4.2.3 Reactor 'eometry and (hort Circuiting
/oor geometry within the UV contactor (which creates spacing between lamps) can leave dead areas
where inade"uate disinfection occurs (#a%en and >awyer, '(()). A key consideration to improving
disinfection is to minimi%e the amount of dead spaces where limited UV eposure can occur. /lug
flow conditions should be maintained in the contactor* however, some turbulence should be created
between the lamps to provide radial miing of flow. 8n this manner, flow can be uniformly
distributed through the varying regions of UV intensity, allowing eposure to the full range of
available UV radiation (#a%en and >awyer, '(()).
As mentioned earlier, UV systems typically provide contact times on the order of seconds.
!herefore, it is etremely important that the system configuration limit the etent of short circuiting.
#ource$ /c7o8ano,lous& 199.
1i0)re 8&3. Particle I!teractio!s that Im.act UV E##ecti2e!ess
8.3.$ Disi!#ectio! E##icacy
UV disinfection has been determined to be ade"uate for inactivating bacteria and viruses. ,ost
bacteria and viruses re"uire relatively low UV dosages for inactivation, typically in the range of ) to
? m&s.cm
)
for '3log inactivation. /roto%oan JooKcysts, in particular Giardia and Cryptosporidium,
are considerably more resistant to UV inactivation than other microorganisms. -esults of several
studies investigating the ability of UV to inactivate bacteria, viruses, and proto%oa, are described in
the following sections.
8.4.3.1 )acteria and Virus "nactiation
UV doses re"uired for bacteria and virus inactivation are relatively low. Fne study determined that
UV was comparable to chlorination for inactivation of heterotrophic plate count bacteria following
treatment using granular activated carbon (Iruithof et al., '(5().
A study of the ability of UV and free chlorine to disinfect a virus3containing ground water showed
that UV is a more potent virucide than free chlorine, even after the chlorine residual was increased to
'.)7 mg.B at a contact time of '5 minutes (>lade et al., '(5?). !he UV dose used in this study was
)7 m&s.cm
)
.
!able 53) shows results from a more recent pilot plant study (>nicer et al., '((?). As indicated by
the different UV doses to obtain the same level of inactivation, water characteristics dramatically
impact disinfection efficiency. !hey believed that the higher concentration of iron in pilot plant )
water (@igure 536) interfered with UV or influenced the aggregation of ,>3) viral particles.
>nicer et al. ('((?) also compared the susceptibility of ,>3) coliphage to hepatitis A virus, poliovirus,
and rotavirus for '0 ground water sources. -esults indicated that ,>3) was found to be approimately
) to 6 times more resistant to UV disinfection than the three human pathogenic viruses.
Ta%le 8&". Doses Re4)ire #or *+&" I!acti2atio!
Lo0 *+&" I!acti2atio!
Pilot Pla!t 1
(m's,cm
"
)
Pilot Pla!t "
(m's,cm
"
)
1 '.9 15.'
2 25.' '9.'
' (6. 6'.'
( 6! !.(
5 !9.5 111.(
6 111.0 1'5.5
#ource$ #nicer et al.& 1996.
8.4.3.2 *roto+oa "nactiation
=ven though proto%oa were once considered resistant to UV radiation, recent studies have shown that
ultraviolet light is capable of inactivating proto%oan parasites. #owever, results indicate that these
organisms re"uire a much higher dose than that needed to inactivate other pathogens. Bess than 50
percent of Giardia lamlia cysts were inactivated at UV dosages of ?6 m&Ls.cm
)
(-ice and #off,
'(5'). A '3log inactivation of Giardia muris cysts was obtained when the UV dose was increased to
5) m&Ls.cm
)
(4arlson et al., '(5)).
!o achieve )3log inactivation of Giardia muris cysts, a minimum ultraviolet light dose of above ')'
m&Ls.cm
)
is needed. Iaranis et al. ('(()) eamined the disinfection capabilities of ultraviolet light
against Giardia lamlia cysts etracted from both animals and humans (Iaranis et al., '(()). $oth
groups suffered a )3log reduction at UV doses of '50 m&Ls.cm
)
. !wo important factors to consider
when determining dose re"uirements for Giardia inactivation are the parasite source and the growth
stage of the microorganism (Iaranis et al., '(()). @igure 537 shows that the source of the parasites is
important in determining dose re"uirements. @igure 53? is from a study conducted in '(() on
!canthamoea rhysodes inactivation (Iaranis et al., '(()). !hese data show that the age of the
proto%oa can dramatically affect the dose re"uired to achieve a desired level of inactivation.
April 1999 1' EPA Guidance Manual
:'
:2.5
:2
:1.5
:1
:0.5
0
0 20 (0 60 !0 100 120 1(0 160 1!0
UV Dose (m's,cm
"
)
+
)
r
2
i
2
a
l

R
a
t
i
o

(
N
,
N
o
)
.5sts o8tained fro* ,er8ils .5sts o8tained fro* 7u*ans
#ource$ ;aranis et al.& 1992.
1i0)re 8&5. UV Doses Re4)ire to Achie2e I!acti2atio! o# 'iardia lam&lia Cysts
O%tai!e #rom T6o Di##ere!t +o)rces
:2
:1.5
:1.5
:1.25
:1
:0.5
:0.5
:0.25
0
0 10 20 '0 (0 50 60 0 !0
UV Dose (m's,cm
"
)
+
)
r
2
i
2
a
l

R
a
t
i
o

(
N
,
N
o
)
:da5:old c5sts 2!:da5:old c5sts
#ource$ ;aranis et al.& 1992.
1i0)re 8&7. Im.act o# -ro6th +ta0e o# ,. rhysodes o! the Re4)ire UV Dosa0e to
Achie2e I!acti2atio!
EPA Guidance Manual 1( April 1999
-esults from recent studies show a potential for inactivating Cryptosporidium par"um oocysts using
ultraviolet light disinfection. A ) to 63log reduction in the viability of Cryptosporidium par"um
oocysts was achieved using a low3pressure ultraviolet light system with a theoretical minimum
intensity of '1.75 m&.cm
)
and a contact time of '0 minutes (ultraviolet dose of 5,:15 m&Ls.cm
)
)
(4ampbell et al., '((7). !he combination filter3UV system described by Eohnson ('((:) is capable
of delivering doses as high as 5,000 m&Ls.cm
)
, sufficient to achieve )3log Cryptosporidium oocyst
inactivation.
A pulsed UV process that delivered a minimum dose of ',(00 m&s.cm
)
to any particle within the
reactor was found to achieve Cryptosporidium oocyst inactivation levels in the range of )3log.
(4lancy et al., '((:). 8n this study, the reactor residence time was 1.: seconds and the unit was
operated to deliver 1?.7 pulses per volume ('0 #%). =ach pulse transfers power at the intensity rate
of about 1' m&s.cm
)
.
8.4.3.3 UV Dose (ummary
UV radiation is considered effective for inactivating bacterial and viral pathogens. UV doses for )
and 63log inactivation of viruses are )' and 6? m&s.cm
)
, respectively (A&&A, '(('). !hese
doses are based on studies of hepatitis A virus inactivation and were derived by applying a safety
factor of 6 to the inactivation data. -esults from a more recent study on several ground water sources
of hepatitis A virus, indicate that a ? to '7 m&s.cm
)
dose is re"uired for a 13log inactivation (>nicer
et al., '((?). A safety factor was not applied to the doses. A 13log inactivation of bacteriophage
,>3) is achieved at a dose of (6 m&s.cm
)
(>nicer et al., '((?). 8n ground water containing high
iron levels (0.?7 ppm), applying a safety factor of '.7 to the highest reported dose against viruses will
yield a UV dose of '10 m&s.cm
)
for a minimum 13log inactivation of viruses
8n summary, ultraviolet radiation is effective against bacteria and viruses at low dosages. #owever,
much higher dosages are re"uired for Cryptosporidium and Giardia inactivation.
8.5 Disi!#ectio! /y.ro)cts o# UV Raiatio!
Unlike other disinfectants, UV does not inactivate microorganisms by chemical reaction. #owever,
UV radiation causes a photochemical reaction in the organism -GA and +GA. !he literature
suggests that UV radiation of water can result in the formation of o%one or radical oidants (=llis and
&ells, '(1'* ,urov, '(:6). $ecause of this reaction, there is interest in determining whether UV
forms similar byproducts to those formed by o%onation or advanced oidation processes.
8.5.1 -ro)! 'ater
,alley et al. ('((7) analy%ed )0 ground water samples for aldehydes and ketones before and after
UV radiation. Fnly one ground water sample, which contained )1 mg.B non3purgeable +F4 and
was highly colored, contained +$/s after eposure to UV. Bow levels of formaldehyde were
measure in duplicated eperiments for this UV treated ground water sample mentioned above. C43
=4+ chromatographs before and after UV radiation for the other '( ground waters studied showed
significant shifts or unknown peaks after eposure to UV.
,alley et al. ('((7) also determined the influence of UV on +$/ formation during subse"uent
chlorination. !o eamine these effects, the )0 ground water samples were subjected to simulated
distribution system (>+>) +$/ tests with chlorine, before and after UV radiation. !he data indicate
that UV radiation did not significantly alter the >+>.+$/ formation by chlorine in the ground waters
studied.
!o eamine the effects of varying UV dosages on +$/ formation, si new ground water samples
(,alley et al., '((7) were subjected to UV dosages of ?0, '60, and )00 m&s.cm
)
. 8n this case,
+$/s were not formed by UV radiation for any of the ground waters tested at any of the UV
dosages. A comparison of chromatographs for samples before and after UV radiation, and for each
UV dosage, showed no significant differences or appearances of unknown peaks.
8.5." +)r#ace 'ater
UV radiation was found to produce low levels of formaldehyde in the majority of surface waters
studied (,alley et al., '((7). !he highest formaldehyde concentrations, ranging up to '1 g.B, were
observed in UV treatment of raw water, whereas trace levels (' to ) g.B) were found in UV
treatment of conventionally treated water. >ince formaldehyde formation was also observed for one
of the ground water samples, it appears that UV radiation of waters containing humic matter (i.e.,
color producing, UV absorbing organic macromolecules) will result in low levels of formaldehyde
formation. 4hromatographic eamination of the surface water samples before and after UV radiation
showed no other significant changes in the C43=4+ chromatograms.
$ecause of the chlorine demands of surface waters, higher chlorine dosages were re"uired for post
disinfection following UV radiation. !his resulted in larger +$/ concentrations than in the ground
waters studied (,alley et al., '((7). #owever, the overall effect of UV radiation on >+>.+$/s was
insignificant. As in the ground water studies, UV radiation did not significantly alter the total
concentration or the speciation of the disinfection byproducts (e.g., !#,s, #AA7, #AGs, or #Is).
8.5.$ D/P 1ormatio! 6ith Chlori!atio! a! Chlorami!atio!
#ollo6i!0 UV Raiatio!
-esearch results suggest that UV radiation does not directly form +$/s or alter the concentration or
species of +$/s formed by post3disinfection (,alley et al., '((7). #owever, the "uestion of whether
UV radiation influences the rate of +$/ formation by post3disinfection is important. >everal studies
have addressed this "uestion. !wo surface waters that produced significant concentrations of a wide
variety of +$/s in previous tests were chosen as samples. &ith the chlorine residuals carefully
monitored to ensure they were consistent for pre3UV and post3UV samples, the results of the
eperiments suggested that UV radiation did not significantly affect the rate of +$/ formation.
>tudies were only performed to determine the pentane etractable +$/ formation rate of a surface
water sample for varying p# conditions. !he results showed that UV radiation did not affect the rate
of chloroform formation at p# 5.0 (,alley et al., '((7). >imilarly, UV did not affect the +$/
formation rate at p# 7.0. At p# 5.0, chloroform was the only pentane etractable detected, whereas
at p# 7.0, chloroform, bromodichloromethane, chlorodibromomethane, and ',','3trichloroacetone
were formed.
!he effects of UV radiation on the +$/ formation rate following chloramination were also tested in
this study using a surface water sample (,alley et al., '((7). 4hloroform, trichloroacetic acid,
dichloroacetonitrile (at low levels), and cyanogen chloride (at low levels) were the only detectable
+$/s. 4hloroform was the only compound formed at p# 5.0, and its rate of formation was not
affected by UV radiation. At p# 7.0, chloroform and dichloroacetonitrile were formed, but their rate
of formation was unaffected by UV radiation. +ata showed that the effects of UV radiation on
cyanogen chloride formation at p# 5.0 and p# 7.0 had no significant trends.
8n summary, the +$/ formation rate studies indicated that UV radiation did not significantly affect
+$/ formation rates when chlorine or chloramines were used as the post3disinfectant.
8.7 +tat)s o# A!alytical *ethos
Ultraviolet radiation intensity meter readings are taken to monitor the output of the UV disinfection
system. !hese readings, coupled with the flow through the UV reactor, are used to determine the UV
dosage applied. UV radiation leaves no residual disinfectant behind to monitor. !herefore, some
form of secondary chemical disinfectant should be added to protect the distribution system against
coliform proliferation and biofilm formation. Analytical methods for these chemical disinfectants are
discussed elsewhere in this report.
8.7.1 *o!itori!0 o# -e!erate Ultra2iolet Raiatio!
Ultraviolet intensity at )76.: nm (the predominant wavelength emitted by low pressure mercury
vapor lamps) is the water "uality parameter used to monitor UV disinfection system output (>nider et
al., '(('). !he rate of disinfection is directly related to the average intensity of the UV light. >ince
UV intensity probes can only indicate UV intensity at a single point, there is no practical way to
measure the average intensity of a UV system in the field by the operator.
!he average intensity is dependent upon the three dimensional lamp geometry. >cheible ('(56)
developed a mathematical model that calculates the intensity at any point within the UV reactor. !his
/oint >ource >ummation (/>>) method is used to estimate the average intensity emitted by any
specific unit. UV disinfection system manufacturers use this method to design the system. !he
single point UV intensity probe reading is typically used for routine monitoring of the UV system
only.
UV intensity sensors are typically photodiode sensors properly filtered to monitor the lamp intensity
in the germicidal range only (+e,ers and -enner, '(()). A minimum of two sensors (mounted near
separate lamps) located at the center of each lamp for each reactor is recommended as part of the
system controls and instrumentation. &hite ('(()) recommends installing the sensors in the wall of
the disinfection chamber at the point of greatest distance from the tube or tubes.
!he UV sensors should continuously sense the UV intensity produced in the bank of lamps. !he
sensor should be field calibrated to account for lamp geometry. =ach UV sensor installed should
provide a ;low UV output< warning and a ;low3low UV output< alarm indication that is field
adjustable.
8.-.1.1 Ultraiolet (ensor *er.ormance
!o test electronic sensor performance, >nicer et al. ('((?) placed a single electronic UV sensor at the
center of a UV reactor. !he UV sensor converted the UV energy into an electronic signal, which was
used to indicate system performance. 8nitial results indicated that the sensor originally installed with
the two UV reactors tended to wear or degrade in performance over time. !he original sensor
readings in the pilot facility were erratic and had a general downward trend over ? months of
operation. !his loss in performance could not be attributed to UV lamp aging. 8n addition, these
readings did not correlate well to actual system performance. After operation of these original
sensors for ? months, the manufacturer was consulted and a new type of sensor was installed into
both pilot facilities. !he new sensor design specifically addressed the problems encountered during
the initial ? months of the study. !hese new proprietary sensors performed consistently and sensor
readings were shown to correlate well with actual ,>3) coliphage inactivation.
8.7." Disi!#ecta!t I!ter#ere!ces
>uspended solids may be the most important water "uality parameter impacting UV intensity
measurements. /articles can harbor bacteria and at least partially protect them from UV light.
/articles can be completely penetrated, partially penetrated, or scatter UV light (@igure 531). All
particles in water may not absorb UV light. Mualls et al. ('(56) suggested that clays merely scatter
UV light and, therefore, do little to inhibit performance.
Hip and Ionasewich ('(:)) listed many chemical substances that interfere with UV transmission at
)76.: nm including phenolic compounds, humic acids, and ferric iron.
8.8 O.eratio!al Co!sieratio!s
Fnsite pilot plant testing is recommended to determine the efficiency and ade"uacy of UV
disinfection for a specific "uality of water. !he efficiency test involves injecting select
microorganisms into influent water and sampling effluent water to determine survival rates. !he
Gational >cience @oundationDs >tandard 77 for ultraviolet water treatment systems recommends that
UV disinfection systems not be used if the UV transmittance is less than :7 percent (G>@, '(('). 8f
the raw water UV transmittance is less that :7 percent, the UV system should be proceeded by other
treatment processes (to increase UV transmittance) or a different disinfectant should be used.
EPA Guidance Manual 1! April 1999
As previously discussed, some constituents that adversely interfere with UV disinfection
performance by either scattering and.or absorbing radiation are iron, chromium, copper, cobalt,
sulfites, and nitrites. 4are should be taken with chemical processes upstream of UV disinfection
process to minimi%e increasing concentrations of these constituents since disinfection efficiency may
be adversely affected.
8.8.1 E4)i.me!t O.eratio!
UV disinfection facilities should be designed to provide fleibility in handling varying flow rates.
@or lower flow rates, a single reactor vessel should be capable of handling the entire flow rate. A
second reactor vessel with e"ual capacity of the first reactor vessel should be provided for
redundancy should the first reactor vessel be taken out of service. @or higher flow rates, multiple
reactor vessels should be provided with lead.lag operation and flow split capacity to balance run time
for each reactor vessel, if desired, and to avoid hydraulic overloading. Valves should be provided
within the interconnecting piping to isolate one reactor vessel from another. !here should also be a
positive drainage system to remove water from within a reactor vessel when it is taken out of service.
8./.1.1 UV 0am$ ,ging
!he output of UV lamps diminishes with time. !wo factors that affect their performance are9
solari%ation which is the effect UV radiation has on the UV lamp that causes it to become opa"ue*
and, electrode failure which occurs when electrodes deteriorate progressively each time the UV lamp
is cycled on and off. @re"uent lamp cycling will lead to premature lamp aging. &hen determining
the re"uirement for UV disinfection, a 60 percent reduction of UV output should be used to estimate
end of lamp. Average life epectancy for low pressure UV lamps is approimately 5,500 hours.
8./.1.2 1uart+ (leee Fouling
@ouling of the "uart% sleeve reduces the amount of UV radiation reaching the water. !he "uart%
sleeve has a transmissibility of over (0 percent when new and clean. Fver time, the surface of the
"uart% sleeve that is in contact with the water starts collecting organic and inorganic debris (e.g., iron,
calcium, silt) causing a reduction in transmissibility (U>=/A, '((?). &hen determining the
re"uirements for UV disinfection, a 60 percent reduction of UV transmission should be used to
reflect the effect of "uart% sleeve fouling.
8.8." E4)i.me!t *ai!te!a!ce
8./.2.1 UV 0am$ Re$lacement
Ade"uate space should be provided around the perimeter of the reactor vessels to allow access for
maintenance and replacement of UV lamps. &ith modular electrical fittings, lamp replacement
consists of unplugging the pronged connection of the old lamp and plugging in the new.
8./.2.2 1uart+ (leee Cleaning
Muart% sleeve cleaning may be accomplished by physical or chemical means. /hysical alternatives
include9
Automatic mechanical wiper*
Ultrasonic devices*
#igh water pressure wash* and
Air scour.
4hemical cleaning agents include sulfuric or hydrochloric acid. A UV reactor vessel may contain
one or more physical cleaning system with provision for an occasional chemical cleaning.
8./.2.3 #iscellaneous
=ffective maintenance of a UV system will involve9
/eriodic checks for proper operation*
4alibration of intensity meter for proper sensitivity* and
8nspect and.or clean reactor vessel interior.
8.8.$ +ta!%y Po6er
/roducing UV radiation re"uires electricity to power the electronic ballasts, which in turn power the
UV lamps. >ince disinfection is of utmost importance in producing potable water, the UV system
should remain in service during periods of primary power failure. A dual power feed system or
essential circuitry powered by a standby generator are typical ways to achieve the desired reliability.
=ach low pressure UV lamp re"uires approimately '00 &atts of standby power. A second
precaution that should be considered is not powering the UV system from the same motor control
center (,44) that powers variable fre"uency drives (V@+s). !he electronic ballasts produce
harmonics that may re"uire mitigation (active harmonic filters) for the V@+s.
8.8 +)mmary Ta%le
Ta%le 8&$. +)mmary o# UV Disi!#ectio!
Co!sieratio! Descri.tio!
Generation +o< pressure and *ediu* pressure -4 la*ps availa8le.
Pri*ar5 uses Pri*ar5 p75sical disinfectant= re>uires secondar5 c7e*ical
disinfectant for residual in distri8ution s5ste*.
)nactivation efficienc5 4er5 effective a,ainst 8acteria and viruses at lo< dosa,es
?5:25 *9s@c*
2
for 2:lo, re*oval and 90:1(0 *9s@c*
2
for (:lo,
re*ovalA. Muc7 7i,7er dosa,e re>uired for Cryptosporidium and
Giardia ?100:!&000 *9s@c*
2
for 2:lo, re*ovalA.
B5product for*ation Mini*al disinfection 85products produced.
+i*itations +i*ited experience and data <it7 flo<s ,reater t7an 200 GPM.
9ater <it7 7i,7 concentrations of iron& calciu*& tur8idit5& and
p7enols *a5 not 8e applica8le to -4 disinfection.
Point of application Prior to distri8ution s5ste*.
#pecial considerations Extre*el5 7i,7 -4 dosa,es for Cryptosporidium and Giardia *a5
*a3e surface <ater treat*ent i*practical.
8.9 Re#ere!ces
'. A&&A (American &ater &orks Association). '(('. Guidance #anual for Compliance $ith
the %iltration and Disinfection Re&uirements for 'ulic (ater Systems Using Surface (ater
Sources.
). A&&A and A>4= (American >ociety of 4ivil =ngineers). '((0. (ater )reatment 'lant
Design* >econd edition, ,cCraw3#ill, 8nc., Gew Hork, GH.
6. 4ampbell, A.!., et al. '((7. ;8nactivation of Focysts of 4ryptosporidium parvum by Ultraviolet
-adiation.< (ater Res* )(('')9)756.
1. 4arlson, +. A., et al. '(5). 'ro+ect Summary, Ultra"iolet Disinfection of (ater for Small (ater
Supplies* Fffice of -esearch and +evelopment, U.>. =nvironmental /rotection Agency*
4incinnati, F#, =/A.?00.>)357.0().
7. 4lancy, E.B., !.,. #argy, ,.,. ,arshall, and E.=. +yksen. '((:. ;8nactivation of
Cryptosporidium par"um Focysts in &ater Using Ultraviolet Bight.< 4onference proceedings,
A&&A 8nternational >ymposium on Cryptosporidium and 4ryptosporidiosis, Gewport $each,
4A.
?. 4ombs, -., and /. ,cCuire. '(5(. ;$ack to $asics 3 !he Use of Ultraviolet Bight for ,icrobial
4ontrol.< Ultrapure (ater -ournal. ?(1)9?)3?5.
:. +e,ers, B.+. and -.4. -enner. '((). !lternati"e Disinfection )echnologies %or Small Drin.ing
(ater Systems* A&&A-@.
5. =llis, 4., and A.A. &ells. '(1'. )he Chemical !ction of Ultra"iolet Rays. -einhold /ublishing
4o., Gew Hork, GH.
(. #a%en and >awyer. '((). Disinfection !lternati"es for Safe Drin.ing (ater* Van Gostrand
-einhold, Gew Hork, GH.
'0. #uff, 4. $. '(?7. ;>tudy of Ultraviolet +isinfection of &ater and @actors in !reatment
=fficiency.< 'ulic /ealth Reports. 50(5)9?(73:07.
''. Eagger, E. '(?:. Introduction to Research in Ultra"iolet 'hotoiology* /rentice3#all 8nc.,
=nglewood 4liffs, GE.
'). Eohnson, -.4. '((:. ;Cetting the Eump on 4ryptosporidium with UV.< 0pflo$. )6('0)9'.
'6. Iaranis, /., et al. '((). ;UV >ensitivity of /roto%oan /arasites.< -* (ater Supply Res* )echnol*
!&ua. 1'())9(7.
'1. Iruithof, E.4., et al. '(5(. >ummaries, (!SS1R B1R2IN 345* 8nternational F%one Association,
=uropean 4ommittee, /aris.
'7. ,alley Er., E./, E./. >haw, and E.-. -opp. '((7. ; =valuations of $yproducts by !reatment of
Croundwaters &ith Ultraviolet 8rradiation*< A&&A-@ and A&&A, +enver, 4F.
'?. ,urov, >.B. '(:6. /andoo. of 'hotochemistry. ,arcel +ekker, Gew Hork, GH.
':. G>@ (Gational >cience @oundation). '(('. NS% Standard 66, Ultra"iolet (ater )reatment
Systems. Gational >anitation @oundation, Ann Arbor, ,8.
'5. Mualls, -., @lynn, ,., and Eohnson, E. '(56. ;!he -ole of >uspended /articles in Ultraviolet
+isinfection.< -* (ater 'ollution Control %ed* 77('0)9')503')57.
'(. -ice, =.&. and E.4. #off. '(5'. ;8nactivation of Giardia lamlia 4ysts by Ultraviolet
8rradiation.< !ppl* 1n"iron* #icroiol* 1)971?371:.
)0. >cheible, F.I. and 4.+. $assell. '(5'. Ultra"iolet Disinfection 0f ! Secondary (aste$ater
)reatment 'lant 1ffluent* =/A3?00.)35'3'7), /$5'3)1)')7, U.>. =nvironmental /rotection
Agency* 4incinnati, F#.
)'. >cheible, F.I. '(56. ;+esign and Fperation of UV >ystems.< /resented at &ater /ollution
4ontrol @ederation Annual 4onference, 4incinnati, F#.
)). >lade, E. >., G.-. #arris, and -.C. 4hisholm. '(5?. ;+isinfection of 4hlorine -esistant
=nteroviruses in Cround &ater by Ultraviolet -adiation.< (ater Sci* )echnol* '5(('0)9''73')6.
)6. >nicer, C.A., E./. ,alley, A.$. ,argolin, and >./. #ogan. '((?. ;=valuation of Ultraviolet
!echnology in +rinking &ater !reatment.< /resented at A&&A &ater Muality !echnology
4onference, $oston, ,A.
)1. >nider, I.=., E.B. +arby, and C. !chobanoglous. '(('. 1"aluation of Ultra"iolet Disinfection
%or (aste$ater Reuse !pplications In California* +epartment of 4ivil =ngineering, University
of 4alifornia, +avis.
)7. >obotka, E. '((6. ;!he =fficiency of &ater !reatment and +isinfection by ,eans of Ultraviolet
-adiation.< (ater Sci* )echnol* ):(631)9616361?.
)?. !chobanoglous, C.!. '((:. ;UV +isinfection9 An Update.< /resented at >acramento ,unicipal
Utilities +istrict =lectrotechnology >eminar >eries. >acramento, 4A.
):. U>=/A (U.>. =nvironmental /rotection Agency). '((?. Ultra"iolet 2ight Disinfection
)echnology in Drin.ing (ater !pplication 7 !n 0"er"ie$* =/A 5''3-3(?300), Fffice of Cround
&ater and +rinking &ater.
)5. U>=/A. '(5?. Design #anual, #unicipal (aste$ater Disinfection* =/A.?)7.'35?.0)', Fffice
of -esearch and +evelopment, &ater =ngineering -esearch Baboratory, 4enter for
=nvironmental -esearch 8nformation, 4incinnati, F#
)(. U>=/A. '(50. )echnologies for Upgrading 18isting and Designing Ne$ Drin.ing (ater
)reatment %acilities* =/A.?)7.135(.0)6, Fffice +rinking &ater.
60. Von >onntag, 4. and #. >chuchmann. '((). ;UV +isinfection of +rinking &ater and $y3
/roduct @ormation 3 >ome $asic 4onsiderations.< -* (ater SR)7!&ua* 1'())9?:3:1.
6'. &hite, C.4. '((). /andoo. of Chlorination and !lternati"e Disinfectants* Van Gostrand
-einhold, Gew Hork, GH.
6). &olfe, -.B. '((0. ;Ultraviolet +isinfection of /otable &ater.< 1n"iron* Sci* )ech* )1(?)9:?53
::6.
66. Hip, -.&. and +.=. Ionasewich. '(:). ;Ultraviolet >terili%ation Ff &ater 3 8ts /otential And
Bimitations.< (ater 'ollut* Control (Canada). '19'13'5.
April 1999 2' EPA Guidance Manual
!#8> /AC= 8G!=G!8FGABBH B=@! $BAGI
EPA Guidance Manual 2( April 1999
8. ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION...............................................................................................................................1
5.' UV 4#=,8>!-H (/#F!F4#=,84AB).....................................................................................................................'
4*9*9 UV Radiation*************************************************************************************************************************************************9
4*9*: UV Disinfection Reactions*****************************************************************************************************************************:
4*9*; 'rocess Variales******************************************************************************************************************************************:
5.) C=G=-A!8FG..........................................................................................................................................................6
4*:*9 UV 2amps******************************************************************************************************************************************************<
4*:*: Ballasts**********************************************************************************************************************************************************<
4*:*; UV Reactor Design****************************************************************************************************************************************6
5.6 /-8,A-H U>=> AG+ /F8G!> F@ A//B84A!8FG......................................................................................................5
5.1 /A!#FC=G 8GA4!8VA!8FG AG+ +8>8G@=4!8FG =@@848=G4H.................................................................................5
4*<*9 Inacti"ation #echanism*********************************************************************************************************************************4
4*<*: 1n"ironmental 1ffects**********************************************************************************************************************************9=
4*<*; Disinfection 1fficacy ***********************************************************************************************************************************9:
5.7 +8>8G@=4!8FG $H/-F+U4!> F@ UV -A+8A!8FG................................................................................................'7
4*6*9 Ground (ater**********************************************************************************************************************************************96
4*6*: Surface (ater**********************************************************************************************************************************************9>
4*6*; DB' %ormation $ith Chlorination and Chloramination follo$ing UV Radiation*************************************9>
5.? >!A!U> F@ AGABH!84AB ,=!#F+>....................................................................................................................':
4*>*9 #onitoring of Generated Ultra"iolet Radiation******************************************************************************************9?
4*>*: Disinfectant Interferences****************************************************************************************************************************94
5.: F/=-A!8FGAB 4FG>8+=-A!8FG>........................................................................................................................'5
4*?*9 1&uipment 0peration***********************************************************************************************************************************95
4*?*: 1&uipment #aintenance******************************************************************************************************************************95
4*?*; Standy 'o$er*********************************************************************************************************************************************:=
5.5 >U,,A-H !A$B=................................................................................................................................................)0
5.( -=@=-=G4=>........................................................................................................................................................)'
TABLE 8-1. WATER QUALITY AND ASSOCIATED UV MEASUREMENTS................................................3
TABLE 8-2. DOSES REQUIRED FOR MS-2 INACTIVATION.........................................................................13
TABLE 8-3. SUMMARY OF UV DISINFECTION...............................................................................................20
FIGURE 8-1. CLOSED VESSEL ULTRAVIOLET REACTOR...........................................................................6
FIGURE 8-2. GERMICIDAL INACTIVATION BY UV RADIATION................................................................9
FIGURE 8-3. UV DOSE REQUIRED FOR INACTIVATION OF MS-2 COLIPAGE..................................11
FIGURE 8-!. PARTICLE INTERACTIONS TAT IMPACT UV EFFECTIVENESS...................................12
FIGURE 8-". UV DOSES REQUIRED TO ACIEVE INACTIVATION OF GIARDIA LAMBLIA CYSTS
OBTAINED FROM TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES.............................................................................................1!
FIGURE 8-6. IMPACT OF GROWT STAGE OF A. RYSODES ON TE REQUIRED UV DOSAGE TO
ACIEVE INACTIVATION.....................................................................................................................................1!

Ltraviolet Adiation: 8.1 UV Chemistry (Photochemical)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ltraviolet Adiation: 8.1 UV Chemistry (Photochemical)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

8.

Вам также может понравиться