Selecting the most environmentally friendly oxidant for UVC degradation of micropollutants in urban wastewater by assessing life cycle impacts: Hydrogen peroxide, peroxymonosulfate or persulfate?

The quality of water bodies has been decreasing over time. Urban wastewater treatment plants (UWWTPs) are key players to avoid that potentially toxic micropollutants reach the environment, and advanced treatment processes are being applied to address this issue. However, several variables have to be taken into account, particularly environmental sustainability. The aim of this study is to assess the life cycle impacts of combining UVC with different oxidants - hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), peroxymonosulfate (PMS) and persulfate (PS) -, considering different concentrations (0.05, 0.20 and 0.50 mM) and UVC dosages of 42, 63 and 170 J/L, corresponding to UV contact times of 4, 7 and 18 s in a specific industrial equipment. UVC/PMS was the worst performing process (despite being able to achieve removals similar to UVC/H2O2), followed by UVC/PS. Both would only be preferred relatively to H2O2 if much lower concentrations of PMS or PS could be used to achieve the same removal of micropollutants (10 times lower was not enough). Additionally, PMS and PS production contributes more to the environmental footprint than the electricity use, unlike H2O2. Therefore even if considering lower treatment times when using sulfate-based oxidants, these will still be more impactful than using H2O2 at the studied conditions. Based on both avoided and generated impacts, H2O2 is the best option environmentally. In this case, the environmental impacts are more affected by an increase in treatment time rather than by an increase in the H2O2 concentration. It is thus best to opt for a higher concentration and the lowest treatment time possible for a significant ecotoxicity reduction. Electricity is a relevant parameter in all cases and its impact can be reduced in nearly all endpoint categories by opting for cleaner energy sources.

A life cycle assessment of solar-based treatments (H2O2, TiO2 photocatalysis, circumneutral photo-Fenton) for the removal of organic micropollutants.

Micropollutants have been linked to freshwater and human toxicity. Their occurrence in water bodies arises from different causes, including the discharge of effluents from conventional urban wastewater treatment plants, which are not designed for their removal. The addition of an advanced treatment process for this purpose will allow a toxicity reduction; however, such will also imply further resources and energy use resulting in other environmental impacts. Energy use is a particularly relevant hotspot of the environmental impacts associated with advanced treatments; therefore, solar-based treatments have great potential in this field. The present study assessed the environmental impacts via life cycle assessment (LCA) of five solar-based treatments - solar photolysis (with and without H2O2), photocatalysis using TiO2 (with and without H2O2) and circumneutral photo-Fenton - using a pilot-scale compound parabolic collector photoreactor to select the most suitable option for the removal of micropollutants (carbamazepine, diclofenac and sulfamethoxazole; 5 µg/L) from a secondary-treated wastewater. The ranking of solar treatments per highest generated impacts is, overall, as follows: circumneutral photo-Fenton > TiO2-P25/H2O2 > TiO2-P25 > solar/H2O2 > solar. While solar photolysis uses fewer resources and energy, thus generating lower environmental impacts, the common incomplete mineralization of the parent micropollutants implies that toxicity reduction cannot be guaranteed in this case. Aiming for a balance between ecotoxicity reduction and the impacts caused by the application of each technology, the solar TiO2-P25 treatment, which was here investigated by LCA for the first time to remove organic micropollutants from secondary-treated urban wastewater, appears to be the most suitable option at the studied conditions (and when TiO2 is reused at least 5 times). One of the environmental downfalls of the assessed treatments is the energy required to produce the chemicals, and so the importance of minimizing external energy use during the application of advanced treatment processes is reinforced.