Christian Abegglen

Treatment of micropollutants in municipal wastewater: Ozone or powdered activated carbon?

Many organic micropollutants present in wastewater, such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides, are poorly removed in conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). To reduce the release of these substances into the aquatic environment, advanced wastewater treatments are necessary. In this context, two large-scale pilot advanced treatments were tested in parallel over more than one year at the municipal WWTP of Lausanne, Switzerland. The treatments were: i) oxidation by ozone followed by sand filtration (SF) and ii) powdered activated carbon (PAC) adsorption followed by either ultrafiltration (UF) or sand filtration. More than 70 potentially problematic substances (pharmaceuticals, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, drug metabolites and other common chemicals) were regularly measured at different stages of treatment. Additionally, several ecotoxicological tests such as the Yeast Estrogen Screen, a combined algae bioassay and a fish early life stage test were performed to evaluate effluent toxicity. Both treatments significantly improved the effluent quality. Micropollutants were removed on average over 80% compared with raw wastewater, with an average ozone dose of 5.7 mg O3 l(-1) or a PAC dose between 10 and 20 mg l(-1). Depending on the chemical properties of the substances (presence of electron-rich moieties, charge and hydrophobicity), either ozone or PAC performed better. Both advanced treatments led to a clear reduction in toxicity of the effluents, with PAC-UF performing slightly better overall. As both treatments had, on average, relatively similar efficiency, further criteria relevant to their implementation were considered, including local constraints (e.g., safety, sludge disposal, disinfection), operational feasibility and cost. For sensitive receiving waters (drinking water resources or recreational waters), the PAC-UF treatment, despite its current higher cost, was considered to be the most suitable option, enabling good removal of most micropollutants and macropollutants without forming problematic by-products, the strongest decrease in toxicity and a total disinfection of the effluent.

Bromide Sources and Loads in Swiss Surface Waters and Their Relevance for Bromate Formation during Wastewater Ozonation.

Bromide measurements and mass balances in the catchments of major Swiss rivers revealed that chemical industry and municipal waste incinerators are the most important bromide sources and account for ∼50% and ∼20%, respectively, of the ∼2000 tons of bromide discharged in the Rhine river in 2014 in Switzerland. About 100 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) will upgrade their treatment for micropollutant abatement in the future to comply with Swiss regulations. An upgrade with ozonation may lead to unintended bromate formation in bromide-containing wastewaters. Measured bromide concentrations were <0.05 mg L(-1) in ∼75% of 69 WWTPs, while they ranged from 0.4 to ∼50 mg L(-1) in WWTPs with specific bromide sources (e.g., municipal waste incinerators, landfill leachate, and chemical industry). Wastewater ozonation formed little bromate at specific ozone doses of ≤0.4 mg O3/mg DOC, while the bromate yields were almost linearly correlated to the specific ozone dose for higher ozone doses. Molar bromate yields for typical specific ozone doses in wastewater treatment (0.4-0.6 mg O3/mg DOC) are ≤3%. In a modeled extreme scenario (in which all upgraded WWTPs release 10 μg L(-1) of bromate), bromate concentrations increased by <0.4 μg L(-1) in major Swiss rivers and by several micrograms per liter in receiving water bodies with a high fraction of municipal wastewater.

Options and limitations for bromate control during ozonation of wastewater

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are important point sources for micropollutants, which are harmful to freshwater organisms. Ozonation of wastewater is a powerful option to abate micropollutants, but may result in the formation of the potentially toxic oxidation by-product bromate in bromide-containing wastewaters. This study investigates options to reduce bromate formation during wastewater ozonation by (i) reducing the bromide concentration of the wastewater, (ii) lowering the ozone dose during wastewater treatment and (iii) adding hydrogen peroxide to limit the lifetime of ozone and quench the intermediates of the bromate formation pathway. Two examples demonstrate that a high share of bromide in wastewater can originate from single point sources (e.g., municipal waste incinerators or landfills). The identification of major point sources requires laborious sampling campaigns, but may facilitate the reduction of the bromide load significantly. To reduce the bromate formation by lowering the ozone dose interferes with the aim to abate micropollutants. Therefore, an additional treatment is necessary to ensure the elimination of micropollutants. Experiments at a pilot-plant illustrate that a combined treatment (ozone/powdered activated carbon) allows to eliminate micropollutants with low bromate yields. Furthermore, the addition of hydrogen peroxide was investigated at bench-scale. The bromate yields could be reduced by ∼50% and 65% for a hydrogen peroxide dose of 5 and 10xa0mgxa0L-1, respectively. In conclusion, there are options to reduce the bromate formation during wastewater ozonation, however, they are not simple with sometimes limited efficiency.

Reducing the natural color of membrane bioreactor permeate with activated carbon or ozone

The suitability of two membrane bioreactors for on-site wastewater treatment and reuse in Switzerland was investigated. The treated wastewater was used for toilet flushing and gardening, with water recycling rates of 30% (single family house) and almost 100% (toilets in a cable car station) respectively. Due to the recycling, an increase in a natural yellowish-brown color was observed, leading to double flushing of the toilets, higher cleaning requirements and increased permeate production. Color removal with ozone, powdered (PAC) and granulated (GAC) activated carbon was assessed in laboratory and field experiments. PAC was added directly into the MBR, whereas ozonation and GAC were applied to the permeate. The dosage of ozone or activated carbon depended on the recycling rate and color intensity. If color removal is necessary, PAC is the option best suited to small treatment plants, with a requirement of 30-50 g m(-3) for 30% and 100 g m(-3) for 100% water recycling.