Next Article in Journal
Changes in Groundwater Vulnerability Due to Land Reclamation in Mining Areas: An Assessment Using the DRASTIC Method
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Salt Solution on Water-Retention and Microstructure Characteristics of Ningming Expansive Soil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 5
10.3390/w17050701
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Effect of Using the UV + O3 Process with Low- and Medium-Pressure Lamps on the Amount and Properties of Organic Substances in Treated Water

by
Małgorzata Wolska
1,
Małgorzata Kabsch-Korbutowicz
1,*,
Anna Solipiwko-Pieścik
1 and
Elżbieta Sperczyńska
2
1
Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 27 Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego St., 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
2
Faculty of Infrastructure and Environment, Czestochowa University of Technology, Dąbrowskiego St. 69, 42-201 Częstochowa, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(5), 701; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050701
Submission received: 6 February 2025 / Revised: 22 February 2025 / Accepted: 26 February 2025 / Published: 27 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Wastewater Treatment and Reuse)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The application of oxidation processes, including advanced oxidation, in water treatment is one of the effective methods for eliminating risks associated with the presence of organic substances in water and those formed during chlorination. This article presents the impact of advanced oxidation in the UV + O3 process on the content and structure of organic substances present in three natural waters with different levels of total organic carbon (TOC). The process was carried out using low-pressure and medium-pressure lamps with an irradiation time of 40 min and ozone doses of 1.5 gO₃/m3 and 5 gO3/m3. Advanced oxidation, regardless of the type of lamp used or the ozone dose, had the greatest effect on the content of humic acids, which underwent both transformation and mineralization. The use of a low-pressure lamp resulted in an increase in the content of organic substances with the lowest molecular weight (<0.7 kDa), whereas the medium-pressure lamp led to an increase in substances with a molecular weight >1.3 kDa. Regardless of the ozone dose and the type of lamp used, the transformation of organic substances dominated over mineralization, whose efficiency reached a maximum of 44.9% and 38.4% for the low-pressure and medium-pressure lamps, respectively. The degree of organic substance transformation and the efficiency of their removal were directly proportional to the TOC content in the raw water. The use of a low-pressure UV lamp ensured higher process efficiency, which is also associated with lower energy costs.

1. Introduction

The presence of organic substances in surface waters and the diversity of their properties make their removal the subject of extensive research worldwide [1,2,3,4]. Removing these substances from water, especially water intended for human consumption, is crucial due to potential health risks. They may pose a direct threat due to their properties [5].
An increasing number of microcontaminants are being identified among the organic substances present in surface water, with their negative impact confirmed in numerous studies [6,7,8]. Therefore, the concentration of total organic carbon is limited in drinking water, and its removal is carried out using various water treatment processes depending on its properties [9,10]. The group of organic contaminants found in the highest concentrations in natural waters consists of humic substances, which influence water properties and treatment methods. Their removal from surface waters is crucial due to the potential threats they may pose as a result of transformations occurring during the treatment process, forming among other more harmful disinfection by-products (DBPs) [11,12]. Chlorinated organic compounds are among the contaminants considered the most dangerous regarding water consumption. These are formed during water disinfection with chlorine, which is why water treatment systems include processes that ensure the removal of precursors to these contaminants. Processes commonly applied for this purpose include coagulation, adsorption, and membrane separation [13,14,15]. These processes are insufficient to ensure water safety in the context of the formation of toxic disinfection by-products [14]. They primarily facilitate the removal of high-molecular-weight hydrophobic substances but do not provide adequate elimination of low-molecular-weight and hydrophilic organic compounds [13]. Therefore, the effective removal of organic substances requires the inclusion of non-selective removal methods such as the use of chemical oxidation processes [16]. In this context, ozone is often used, primarily to transform high-molecular-weight organic substances into smaller ones [16,17]. Specifically, it increases the content of biodegradable substances, which can be removed through adsorption [18]. To achieve the mineralization of organic substances during ozonation, high ozone doses, sometimes exceeding 1.5 gO3/m³, are required [19]. The effectiveness of NOM removal does not exceed a few dozen percent, indicating relatively low efficiency compared to the UV + O₃ system, which ensures up to 98% removal of micropollutants [18]. Increasingly, conventional unit processes for water treatment are insufficient for NOM elimination, leading to the application of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), most commonly photocatalytic processes using UV-emitting lamps [20]. Up to now, low-pressure and medium-pressure lamps have been employed in water treatment, primarily for disinfection [21]. UV lamps are used due to their minimal impact on the structure and properties of contaminants in water [22], and consequently, their primary function is the deactivation of microorganisms by destroying cell walls and DNA. At the same time, the use of radiation in combination with other oxidation methods enhances the efficiency of removing and transforming NOM present in water [23]. The effectiveness of organic substance removal in advanced oxidation processes depends on the type of UV lamp used, the type of oxidants applied, and the composition of the water [24]. This may be important, as these lamps have different emission parameters: low-pressure lamps can emit UV radiation only at a wavelength of 253.7 nm while medium-pressure lamps emit wavelengths between 200 and 400 nm [25].
At the same time, medium-pressure lamps are characterized by significantly higher energy consumption and lower energy efficiency. However, their use in advanced oxidation processes for water treatment is less common. Derco et al. [18] demonstrated that advanced oxidation in a UV + O3 process effectively removes organic substances, including micropollutants. This, however, requires optimization of both ozone doses and irradiation time [26].
Comparative studies on the removal of organic substances using low-pressure and medium-pressure UV lamps in a system with O3 [27] showed only slight removal effects of N-Nitrosodimethylamine when similar doses were applied.
The choice of process parameters depends mainly on the type of contaminants being removed and the presence of interfering substances, such as humic acids [28,29]. The high efficiency of advanced oxidation methods arises from the oxidation and radical reactions that occur, as UV + O3 process increases the generation of radicals. The hydroxyl radical has a higher oxidation potential than ozone—2.8 and 2.07 V, respectively [30]. The photo-degradation of NOM is caused both by direct photolysis,
NOM + hν → Oxidation products + H2O + CO2,
and by oxidation through reactive radicals (e.g., hydroxyl radicals) formed in water under ultraviolet irradiation [21]:
H2O + hν → HO• + H•
OH• + NOM → Oxidation products + H2O + CO2
Additionally, ozone introduced into water containing natural organic substances reacts with them directly,
NOM + O3 → Oxidation products + H2O + CO2,
or indirectly, through reactive radicals such as hydroxyl radicals, which have very high oxidation potential [13]:
3O3 + OH⁻ + H⁺ → 2 OH• + 4O2
OH• + NOM → Oxidation products + H2O + CO2
The potential for radical formation depends on the dose and type of UV lamp used, with medium-pressure lamps demonstrating higher radical formation efficiency due to their radiation spectrum [22].
The effectiveness of the O3 + UV process is also influenced by the temperature and pH of the treated water. The removal efficiency of organic substances is highest in an alkaline environment, while in acidic and neutral conditions, it decreases with a reduction in pH [31].
The application of the O3 + UV system reduces the required contact time for mineralization compared to using ozone alone [32]. When low-pressure lamps are used, this process occurs without changing the water temperature, maintaining a constant reaction rate. However, using a medium-pressure lamp can lead to an increase in water temperature.
Ozonation is widely used in water treatment, but due to the increasing contamination levels in drinking water sources, more effective treatment methods are needed. This is primarily due to the presence of a growing number of organic substances from various chemical groups. The use of the O3 + UV system enhances the efficiency of organic substance removal. Additionally, studies on pre-oxidation, including the O3 + UV system, indicate a reduction in the potential for the formation of disinfection by-products during chlorination [33].
There is insufficient knowledge regarding the potential reduction in disinfection by-product formation after applying pre-oxidation in the O3 + UV process and the efficiency of eliminating and transforming organic substances in water. Therefore, research has been conducted to determine the efficiency of organic substance transformation in the UV + O3 process using both low-pressure and medium-pressure UV lamps. Evaluating the transformation of organic substances during pre-oxidation also helps assess their removal in other unit processes. Conducting studies on real water samples allows for the determination of the practical potential for implementing the analyzed method and selecting the appropriate type of lamp.

2. Methods and Subjects of Research

The subject of the study involved three different surface freshwaters (water A, water B, and water C), each characterized by different levels of organic contamination and chemical properties of these substances. Water samples were taken from a small lake (water A) in the southern region of Poland, and from two different rivers (water B and water C) (Figure 1). All water samples for the test were taken during the period from July to August 2024. The water resources from which samples were taken are used for recreational purposes.
The water samples were subjected to O3 + UV process using a low-pressure or medium-pressure lamps (Figure 2). The irradiation time was 40 min while ozone was introduced into the water samples in amounts of 1.5 gO3/m3 and 5 gO3/m3. Ozone was generated using an L20 SPALAB ozone generator (Korona, Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland). High-purity oxygen (99%) was supplied to the generator at a flow rate of 1.0 dm3/min. The low-pressure 15 W lamp manufactured by HERAEUS Group (Hanau, Germany) emitting light at a wavelength of 253.4 nm (TNN15/32), and a medium-pressure 150 W lamp from the same company, generating a broad spectrum above 190 nm (TQ 150), were used during test. The advanced oxidation process was carried out in reactor containing 0.8 dm3 of water samples (Figure 2).
Each test was repeated three times, and the presented water quality parameter values represent the averages of the obtained results.
In raw water and after advanced oxidation, the following parameters were measured: pH, turbidity, colour intensity, ammonium ion content, total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and UV absorbance at wavelengths of 254 and 272 nm. Additionally, particle size distribution were analyzed using exclusion chromatography.
The pH was measured with a CP-411 pH meter from Elmetron (Zabrze, Poland), turbidity using a HI 98703 turbidimeter from Hanna Instruments (Woonsocket, RI, USA), and ammonium nitrogen concentration by the direct Nesslerization method with a Nanocolor VIS spectrophotometer from Macherey-Nagel (Düren, Germany). UV absorbance was measured using a UV 5600 spectrophotometer from Shanghai Metash Instruments (Shanghai, China), while TOC and DOC contents were determined using a Vario TOC Cube organic carbon analyzer from Elementar (Langenselbold, Germany).
The molecular size distribution was performed according to a procedure using a chromatographic method with an UltiMate 3000 Dionex liquid chromatograph (Sunnyvale, CA, USA) equipped with a DAD detector. The analysis was conducted at 254 nm detection. A Shodex (Tokyo, Japan) OHpak SB-803 HQ polymer column with a particle size of 13 μm and dimensions of 8 × 300 mm was used, along with a Shodex OHpak SB-G 6B pre-column (10 μm, 6 × 50 mm). The column and pre-column were maintained at 35 °C. The mobile phase consisted of 10 mmol sodium acetate, adjusted to pH 7.0 with acetic acid. The eluent was filtered through a 0.2 μm membrane filter. The injection volume was 100 μL, the flow rate was 0.5 mL/min, and the analysis duration was 30 min. Water samples were filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter prior to analysis. The results are also presented as UV-3D spectra over the full wavelength range for each sample, providing information about the chemical properties of the substances contained within. Calibration was performed using polystyrene sulfonate sodium salts (PSS, American Polymer Standards Corporation (Mentor, OH, USA) with molecular masses of 891, 1600, 3420, 7420, 15,650 and 29,500 Da. Next, the relationship between particle size as a function of retention time and concentration (g/m3) was found for individual particle size ranges (3.2–2.5 kDa, 1.8–2.0 kDa, 0.7–0.9 kDa, <0.1 kDa).

3. Results and Discussion

The fresh water samples were characterized by varied content and properties of organic substances (Table 1). As shown by spectrophotometric analyses, waters A and C contained humic acids, fulvic acids, and protein-based substances, whereas water B contained only humic acids (Figure 3) [34].
Regardless of the origin of organic substances in these waters, particles larger than 2 kDa predominated, which, according to Guo et al. [35], indicates their susceptibility to transformation during advanced oxidation. In contrast, the hydrophobic nature indicates a low potential for mineralization during oxidation, especially in the O3 + UV process [24].
The use of a low-pressure UV lamp in the UV + O3 process resulted in the mineralization of organic substances, with the efficiency directly proportional to the organic content in the raw water (Table 2). The increase in applied ozone doses resulted in an increase in the effectiveness of organic carbon mineralization by 3.8%, 11.8%, and 11.4% for water A, B, and C, respectively, but was not proportional to the content of TOC in the raw waters. At the same time, the efficiency of TOC removal from the waters was lower than reported in studies by Du et al. [36]. Only in the case of the water B sample was the efficiency of organic substance removal significantly higher than that observed for the other waters. This was due to the highest TOC content being in the raw water and the presence of only humic acids in this sample. According to Li et al. [37], humic acids, particularly those with high molecular weight, are the easiest to mineralize. The oxidation of humic substances was also evidenced by the significant reduction in colour intensity (Table 2).
The mineralization of organic substances was accompanied by a decrease in pH values, indicating the release of CO2 and other acidic intermediate oxidation products [38]. In all water samples after the O3 + UV process, a decrease in pH was observed, which increased proportionally to the applied ozone dose. The greatest reduction was recorded for water sample B, amounting to 1.1, while the smallest decrease was observed for water sample A, which was 0.1 and 0.2 for ozone doses of 1.5 gO3/m3 and 5.0 gO3/m3, respectively. In addition to mineralization, advanced oxidation also led to the transformation of organic substances, as evidenced by observed changes in the content of organic compounds with specific molecular weights (Table 2). Among the organic substances undergoing transformation or mineralization were nitrogen-containing compounds, as evidenced by an increase in ammonium ion concentration. This is likely due to the deamination of organic substances as also suggested by Sharma et al. [39]. The most significant changes in the content of organic substances occurred in the largest molecular fractions (Figure 4). Regardless of the water type, the fraction of organic substances with a molecular weight greater than 2 kDa decreased, while concentrations of smaller molecules increased. This suggests the predominance of the transformation phenomenon of organic substances, leading to a greater presence of lower-molecular-weight compounds [40]. Transformation, and thus a change in the properties of the organic substances contained in the water samples, is also evidenced by a reduction in SUVA values. The value of specific UV absorbance for an O3 dose of 1.5 g/m3 amounted to 2.04 L/(mg·m), 1.20 L/(mg·m) and 1.46 L/(mg·m) (for water A, B, and C, respectively), while for a dose of 5 g/m3, it was 1.42 L/(mg·m), 1.81 L/(mg·m) and 2.16 L/(mg·m). Values of less than 2 indicate that the humic substances present in the water are hydrophilic and have low molecular weights [41].
In waters A and C, the largest increase in the concentration of organic substances was observed in the case of the smallest analyzed fractions (Table 2 and Figure 4). This was likely associated with the presence of both fulvic and protein-based acids in these waters. In contrast, in water B, which, prior to oxidation, contained only humic acids, the concentration increase was observed in fractions larger than 0.7 kDa. Combined with the highest level of organic substance mineralization, this indicates the greatest susceptibility of humic acids to transformation during advanced oxidation.
The concentration of intermediate products of advanced oxidation was directly proportional to the applied ozone dose, although increasing the dose did not significantly affect the level of organic substance mineralization. This suggests that the organic substances in the analyzed waters have varying susceptibilities to degradation and mineralization processes.
Among the intermediate oxidation products in waters A and C, molecules with molecular weights smaller than 0.7 kDa predominated. These included humic or amino acid substances, likely products of protein degradation. The transformation was confirmed by comparing the 3D spectra for the ozone dose of 5 gO3/m3 across all three waters (Figure 5).
Water A, after undergoing an advanced oxidation process using a medium-pressure lamp, contained small concentrations of humic acids, with the fulvic substance content remaining similar to that in the raw water. However, there was a significant increase in the signal corresponding to amino substances. In contrast, in treated water B, humic acids of both high and low molecular weights remained present, along with the emergence of fulvic acids and protein-based substances. Due to the high organic substances content in the raw water, the applied ozone doses were insufficient for their complete mineralization, though structural changes were evident.
Similarly, in water C, the ozone dose was inadequate for complete mineralization but effectively transformed all humic and fulvic acids into smaller molecules [42].
Regardless of the water type or ozone dose applied, the advanced oxidation system primarily removed and transformed aromatic substances. The reduction in UV254 absorbance was directly proportional to the decrease in the content of particles with molecular weights of 2.0–2.3 kDa (Figure 6).
No such correlation was observed for absorbance at 350 nm or 272 nm, despite these being wavelengths where humic acids exhibit maximum radiation absorption [43,44,45].
The use of medium-pressure UV lamp in the UV + O3 process did not result in significant changes in the structure or quantity of organic substances. The efficiency of TOC reduction was lower than that observed with low-pressure UV lamps (Table 3). An increase in the ozone dose, similar to the low-pressure lamp, led to a rise in mineralization efficiency; however, this increase was significantly smaller than in the case of the LP lamp. This increase depended much more on the properties of organic substances and less on the TOC content in the treated waters. Therefore, the highest degree of mineralization and its increase due to the higher ozone dose were observed for water C (Table 3). This was likely due to the presence of the largest amount of protein-derived substances with short carbon chains in this water.
These results are contrary to findings in other studies [33,34], where increased mineralization efficiency was reported with medium-pressure UV lamps at similar ozone doses. The higher effectiveness of medium-pressure lamps observed in this study resulted from their significantly greater power and the heating of the water. It should be noted that these studies were conducted on model solutions, where no additional contaminants were present. In the presented research, the diversity of organic matter and the increased turbidity of the water affected the efficiency of the processes.
Regardless of the water type, the structural changes in organic substances predominantly affected those with the highest molecular weights, with oxidation products being substances with molecular weights greater than 1.3 kDa. No significant changes in the content of the smallest analyzed fractions were observed in any of the waters after the advanced oxidation process using a medium-pressure lamp (Figure 7).
At the same time, it should be noted that the use of a medium-pressure lamp did not result in the formation of fulvic acids in waters A and C (Figure 8), which were abundantly generated when a low-pressure lamp was used. In water B, the presence of fulvic acids was observed after the advanced oxidation process. For this water, the most significant changes in the structure of organic substances were recorded, likely due to the highest TOC content in the raw water. Similar results were obtained by Yang et al. [42].
It was also observed (Figure 9) that in water samples treated using UV with a medium-pressure lamp + O3, i.a., as a result of organic substance transformation, there was a correlation between the content of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and both colour and UV254 absorbance. This relationship arises from the fact that these parameters serve as indirect indicators of humic substance content in all water samples, both before and after the process [46].
Regardless of the type of lamp used, transformation dominated over mineralization during advanced oxidation. The by-products formed were primarily substances with a molecular weight of up to 0.7 kDa for the low-pressure lamp and above 1.3 kDa for the medium-pressure lamp. Among the oxidation by-products, aldehydes, ketones, and other compounds likely predominated, as confirmed by numerous studies [47,48,49]. However, these substances do not pose a health risk to potential water consumers. Water treated with the O₃ + UV process, regardless of the lamp type, exhibited SUVA values similar to those of raw water, indicating that its susceptibility to removal by coagulation did not decrease [50]. This suggests that the O3 + UV process can serve as a preliminary water treatment step, reducing the potential for harmful chlorination by-products while not significantly affecting the efficiency of other individual water treatment processes.
It should be noted that the low-pressure lamp requires ten times less energy expenditure, while its mineralization efficiency was only slightly lower. This means that using medium-pressure lamps requires higher energy input and, consequently, greater financial investment.

4. Summary and Conclusions

This research shows the following:
  • The diverse properties of organic substances present in these waters influenced the oxidation process and their mineralization, which depended not only on the ozone dose but primarily on the type of UV lamp used.
  • The application of a low-pressure UV lamp combined with ozone results in both the mineralization and transformation of organic substances, with the degree being directly proportional to the level of contamination in raw water with high-molecular-weight humic acids. The dominant mechanism for both lamps is the transformation of organic substances, with the type of by-product depending on the wavelength of the emitted light.
  • The use of a medium-pressure UV lamp for advanced oxidation provided only limited mineralization of organic substances, which did not exceed 37.8% and was observed for water sample B, characterized by the highest content of organic carbon.
  • In the low-pressure UV lamp + ozone system, high-molecular-weight organic substances are transformed into smaller molecules with molecular weights below 0.7 kDa. In contrast, using the same ozone dose but with a medium-pressure UV lamp predominantly produces particles with molecular weights >1.3 kDa.
  • The process of advanced oxidation (UV + O3) is influenced not only by the content of organic substances in the raw water but also by the type of these substances. Humic acids are the most susceptible to transformations, while fulvic acids are less affected.
  • The low-pressure UV lamp ensures greater process efficiency, regardless of the ozone dose applied.
  • Regardless of the UV lamp type, the amount of organic substances removed was directly proportional to the reduction in UV 254 nm absorbance, while no such correlation was found for UV absorbance at 272 nm.
  • The use of the O3 + UV system for pre-oxidation helps reduce the potential for the formation of chlorinated organic compounds and does not significantly affect their removability in other treatment processes.
  • The use of low-pressure lamps is economically justified due to their lower energy consumption.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.W. and M.K.-K.; methodology, E.S. and A.S.-P. validation, M.W., A.S.-P., M.K.-K. and E.S.; formal analysis, E.S., M.W., A.S.-P. and M.K.-K.; investigation, M.W., A.S.-P., M.K.-K. and E.S.; resources, M.W. and E.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.W. and M.K.-K.; writing—review and editing, M.W., E.S., M.K.-K. and A.S.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses and or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lee, Y.; Noh, J.H.; Park, J.W.; Yoon, S.W.; Kim, S.Y.; Son, H.J.; Maeng, S.K. Integrating biological ion exchange with biological activated carbon treatment for drinking water: A novel approach for NOM removal, trihalomethane formation potential, and biological stability. Water Res. 2023, 245, 120598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gonzalez-Perez, A.; Hägg, K.; Duteil, F. Optimizing NOM removal: Impact of calcium chloride. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mustereț, C.P.; Morosanu, I.; Ciobanu, R.; Plavan, O.; Gherghel, A.; Al-Refai, M.; Roman, I.; Teodosiu, C. Assessment of coagulation–flocculation process efficiency for the natural organic matter removal in drinking water treatment. Water 2021, 13, 3073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, J.; Song, Y.; Jiang, J.; Yang, T.; Cao, Y. Oxidative treatment of NOM by selective oxidants in drinking water treatment and its impact on DBP formation in postchlorination. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 159908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Jazić, J.M.; Đurkić, T.; Bašić, B.; Watson, M.; Apostolović, T.; Tubić, A.; Agbaba, J. Degradation of a chloroacetanilide herbicide in natural waters using UV activated hydrogen peroxide, persulfate and peroxymonosulfate processes. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6, 2800–2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, J.; Wu, S.; Yang, L.; Chen, L.; Shao, Y. The challenge of micropollutants in surface water of the Yangtze River. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kim, M.K.; Zoh, K.D. Occurrence and removals of micropollutants in water environment. Environ. Eng. Res. 2016, 21, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Delpla, I.; Jung, A.V.; Baures, E.; Clement, M.; Thomas, O. Impacts of climate change on surface water quality in relation to drinking water production. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 1225–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gagliano, E.; Sgroi, M.; Falciglia, P.P.; Vagliasindi, F.G.; Roccaro, P. Removal of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water by adsorption: Role of PFAS chain length, effect of organic matter and challenges in adsorbent regeneration. Water Res. 2020, 171, 115381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deng, Y.; Gao, P.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Fu, J.; Huang, R.; Zhou, S. Activation of peroxymonosulfate by MnO2 with oxygen vacancies: Degradation of organic compounds by electron transfer nonradical mechanism. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Özdemir, K. Investigation of trihalomethane formation after chlorine dioxide preoxidation followed by chlorination of natural organic matter. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2021, 2, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Srivastav, A.L.; Patel, N.; Chaudhary, V.K. Disinfection by-products in drinking water: Occurrence, toxicity and abatement. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Khettaf, S.; Boumaraf, R.; Benmahdi, F.; Bouhidel, K.E.; Bouhelassa, M. Removal of the neutral dissolved organic matter (NDOM) from surface water by coagulation/flocculation and nanofiltration. Anal. Lett. 2021, 54, 2713–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bodzek, M. Membrane separation techniques—Removal of inorganic and organic admixtures and impurities from water environment—Review. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2019, 4, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peters, C.D.; Rantissi, T.; Gitis, V.; Hankins, N.P. Retention of natural organic matter by ultrafiltration and the mitigation of membrane fouling through pre-treatment, membrane enhancement, and cleaning—A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 44, 102374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Remucal, C.K.; Salhi, E.; Walpen, N.; von Gunten, U. Molecular-level transformation of dissolved organic matter during oxidation by ozone and hydroxyl radical. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 10351–10360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lim, S.; Shi, J.L.; von Gunten, U.; McCurry, D.L. Ozonation of organic compounds in water and wastewater: A critical review. Water Res. 2022, 213, 118053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Derco, J.; Gotvajn, A.Ž.; Čižmárová, O.; Dudáš, J.; Sumegová, L.; Šimovičová, K. Removal of micropollutants by ozone-based processes. Processes 2021, 9, 1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mirnasab, M.A.; Hashemi, H.; Samaei, M.R.; Azhdarpoor, A. Advanced removal of water NOM by Pre-ozonation, Enhanced coagulation and Bio-augmented Granular Activated Carbon. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 18, 3143–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, H.J.; Yoon, H.W.; Lee, M.A.; Kim, Y.H.; Lee, C.J. Impact of UV-C irradiation on bacterial disinfection in a drinking water purification system. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 33, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tran, H.D.M.; Boivin, S.; Kodamatani, H.; Ikehata, K.; Fujioka, T. Potential of UV-B and UV-C irradiation in disinfecting microorganisms and removing N-nitrosodimethylamine and 1, 4-dioxane for potable water reuse: A review. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kebbi, Y.; Muhammad, A.I.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; do Prado-Silva, L.; Liu, D.; Ding, T. Recent advances on the application of UV-LED technology for microbial inactivation: Progress and mechanism. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 3501–3527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rougé, V.; von Gunten, U.; Allard, S. Efficiency of pre-oxidation of natural organic matter for the mitigation of disinfection byproducts: Electron donating capacity and UV absorbance as surrogate parameters. Water Res. 2020, 187, 116418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Coha, M.; Farinelli, G.; Tiraferri, A.; Minella, M.; Vione, D. Advanced oxidation processes in the removal of organic substances from produced water: Potential, configurations, and research needs. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 414, 128668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xu, B.J.; Wu, H.; Su, H.Z.; Lee, M.Y.; Zhang, Y.X.; Chen, Y.; Liu, M.; Wang, W.L.; Du, Y. A novel ultraviolet light source of microwave discharge electrodeless ultraviolet lamp: Luminescence mechanisms, reactor structures, and environmental applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 436, 140706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Granzoto, M.R.; Seabra, I.; Malvestiti, J.A.; Cristale, J.; Dantas, R.F. Integration of ozone, UV/H2O2 and GAC in a multi-barrier treatment for secondary effluent polishing: Reuse parameters and micropollutants removal. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 759, 143498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sharpless, C.M.; Linden, K.G. Experimental and model comparisons of low-and medium-pressure Hg lamps for the direct and H2O2 assisted UV photodegradation of N-nitrosodimethylamine in simulated drinking water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 1933–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gorito, A.M.; Pesqueira, J.F.; Moreira, N.F.; Ribeiro, A.R.; Pereira, M.F.; Nunes, O.C.; Almeida, C.M.; Silva, A.M. Ozone-based water treatment (O3, O3/UV, O3/H2O2) for removal of organic micropollutants, bacteria inactivation and regrowth prevention. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lu, H.; Li, Q.; Feng, W. Application progress of O3/UV advanced oxidation technology in the treatment of organic pollutants in water. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Paul, A.; Dziallas, C.; Zwirnmann, E.; Gjessing, E.T.; Grossart, H.-P. UV irradiation of natural organic matter (NOM): Impact on organic carbon and bacteria. Aquat Sci. 2012, 74, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Boczkaj, G.; Fernandes, A. Wastewater treatment by means of advanced oxidation processes at basic pH conditions: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 320, 608–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, S.; Song, Y.; Chang, F.; Wang, K. Evaluation of chemistry and key reactor parameters for industrial water treatment applications of the UV/O3 process. Environ. Res. 2020, 188, 109660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Guerra-Rodríguez, S.; Rodríguez, E.; Singh, D.N.; Rodríguez-Chueca, J. Assessment of sulfate radical-based advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment: A Review. Water 2018, 10, 1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhu, G.; Bian, Y.; Hursthouse, A.S.; Wan, P.; Szymanska, K.; Ma, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Z. Application of 3-D Fluorescence: Characterization of Natural Organic Matter in Natural Water and Water Purification Systems. J. Fluoresc. 2017, 27, 2069–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guo, Y.; Tang, J.; Henzie, J.; Jiang, B.; Xia, W.; Chen, T.; Bando, Y.; Kang, Y.M.; Hossain, M.S.; Sugahara, Y.; et al. Mesoporous iron-doped MoS2/CoMo2S4 heterostructures through organic-metal cooperative interactions on spherical micelles for electrochemical water splitting. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 4141–4152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Du, J.; Wang, C.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, J.; Deng, X.; Cui, F. Mineralization, characteristics variation, and removal mechanism of algal extracellular organic matter during vacuum ultraviolet/ozone process. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 820, 153298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, J.; Zhang, Z.; Xiang, Y.; Jiang, J.; Yin, R. Role of UV-based advanced oxidation processes on NOM alteration and DBP formation in drinking water treatment: A state-of-the-art review. Chemosphere 2023, 311, 136870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lucas, M.S.; Peres, J.A.; Puma, G.L. Treatment of winery wastewater by ozone-based advanced oxidation processes (O3, O3/UV and O3/UV/H2O2) in a pilot-scale bubble column reactor and process economics. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2010, 72, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sharma, V.K.; Graham, N.J. Oxidation of amino acids, peptides and proteins by ozone: A review. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2020, 32, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, H.W.; Li, X.Y.; Hao, Z.P.; Sun, Y.J.; Wang, Y.N.; Li, W.H.; Tsang, Y.F. Transformation of dissolved organic matter in concentrated leachate from nanofiltration during ozone-based oxidation processes (O3, O3/H2O2 and O3/UV). J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 191, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Edzwald, J.K.; Tobiason, J.E. Enhanced Coagulation: US Requirements and a Broader View. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, P.; Jian, L. Ozone-enhanced photocatalytic degradation of natural organic matter in water. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2006, 6, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mołczan, M.; Szlachta, M.; Karpińska, A.; Biłyk, A. Zastosowanie absorbancji włąściwej w nadfiolecie (SUVA) w ocenie jakości wody. Ochr. Sr. 2006, 28, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  44. Li, G.Q.; Wang, W.L.; Huo, Z.Y.; Lu, Y.; Hu, H.Y. Comparison of UV-LED and low pressure UV for water disinfection: Photoreactivation and dark repair of Escherichia coli. Water Res. 2017, 126, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Beck, S.E.; Wright, H.B.; Hargy, T.M.; Larason, T.C.; Linden, K.G. Action spectra for validation of pathogen disinfection in medium-pressure ultraviolet (UV) systems. Water Res. 2015, 70, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Brezinski, K.; Gorczyca, B. An overview of the uses of high performance size exclusion chromatography (HPSEC) in the characterization of natural organic matter (NOM) in potable water, and ion-exchange applications. Chemosphere 2019, 217, 122–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wu, Y.; Fang, R.; Li, H.; Li, J.; Zhao, D.; Chang, N.; Shi, J. Synergistic effect of ferrous ion-activated hydrogen peroxide and persulfate on the degradation of phthalates in aquatic environments by non-target analysis. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 451, 139100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abbas, M. Removal of brilliant green (BG) by activated carbon derived from medlar nucleus (ACMN)–Kinetic, isotherms and thermodynamic aspects of adsorption. Adsorpt. Sci. Technol. 2020, 38, 464–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Remy, L. Modifications Chimiques de Polysaccharides en Milieu Aqueux pour Générer de Nouveaux Matériaux Biosourcés Fonctionnels. Ph.D. Thesis, INSA de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yan, M.; Shen, X.; Gao, B.; Guo, K.; Yue, Q. Coagulation-ultrafiltration integrated process for membrane fouling control: Influence of Al species and SUVA values of water. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 793, 148517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 00701 g001
Figure 1. Water sampling point locations.
Figure 1. Water sampling point locations.
Water 17 00701 g001
Water 17 00701 g002
Figure 2. Installation for UV + O3 process.
Figure 2. Installation for UV + O3 process.
Water 17 00701 g002
Water 17 00701 g003aWater 17 00701 g003b
Figure 3. Three-dimensional absorbance spectra for the analyzed raw waters (A) Water A, (B) Water B, and (C) Water C.
Figure 3. Three-dimensional absorbance spectra for the analyzed raw waters (A) Water A, (B) Water B, and (C) Water C.
Water 17 00701 g003aWater 17 00701 g003b
Water 17 00701 g004aWater 17 00701 g004b
Figure 4. The share of organic matter fractions for water A (a), water B (b), and water C (c) in raw water and in samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a low-pressure lamp.
Figure 4. The share of organic matter fractions for water A (a), water B (b), and water C (c) in raw water and in samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a low-pressure lamp.
Water 17 00701 g004aWater 17 00701 g004b
Water 17 00701 g005
Figure 5. Three-dimensional spectra of water samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a low-pressure lamp (ozone dose of 5 gO3/m3 and UV radiation time of 40 min). (A) water A, (B) water B, and (C) water C.
Figure 5. Three-dimensional spectra of water samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a low-pressure lamp (ozone dose of 5 gO3/m3 and UV radiation time of 40 min). (A) water A, (B) water B, and (C) water C.
Water 17 00701 g005
Water 17 00701 g006
Figure 6. Correlation between the reduction in the content of particles with molecular sizes of 2.0–2.3 kDa and the decrease in UV254 absorbance (all samples after UV + O3 treatment).
Figure 6. Correlation between the reduction in the content of particles with molecular sizes of 2.0–2.3 kDa and the decrease in UV254 absorbance (all samples after UV + O3 treatment).
Water 17 00701 g006
Water 17 00701 g007aWater 17 00701 g007b
Figure 7. The share of organic matter fractions for water A (a), water B (b), and water C (c) in raw water and in samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a medium-pressure lamp.
Figure 7. The share of organic matter fractions for water A (a), water B (b), and water C (c) in raw water and in samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a medium-pressure lamp.
Water 17 00701 g007aWater 17 00701 g007b
Water 17 00701 g008
Figure 8. Three-dimensional spectra of water samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a medium-pressure lamp (ozone dose of 5 gO3/m3 and UV radiation time of 40 min). (A) water A, (B) water B, and (C) water C.
Figure 8. Three-dimensional spectra of water samples after the UV + O3 process with the use of a medium-pressure lamp (ozone dose of 5 gO3/m3 and UV radiation time of 40 min). (A) water A, (B) water B, and (C) water C.
Water 17 00701 g008
Water 17 00701 g009
Figure 9. Relation between DOC and UV254 or water colour in water samples treated with the use of the UV + O3 process (with a medium-pressure lamp).
Figure 9. Relation between DOC and UV254 or water colour in water samples treated with the use of the UV + O3 process (with a medium-pressure lamp).
Water 17 00701 g009
Table 1. Raw water quality.
Table 1. Raw water quality.
ParameterUnitWater AWater BWater C
pH 7.698.67.29
TurbidityNTU3.886.475.48
ColourgPt/m346.23133.271.7
TOCgC/m35.8819.6211.249
DOCgC/m35.25719.1210.807
2.3–2.5 kDag/m324.145118.54138.935
2.0–2.3 kDag/m317.39052.03327.346
1.3–1.5 kDag/m312.05730.17441.885
0.7–0.9 kDag/m30.3970.5900.409
0.5–0.7 kDag/m30,.5120.0000.702
<0.1 kDag/m30.0000.7100.266
UV254m−115.145.125.3
UV272m−112.636.520.1
UV350m−13.99.44.8
SUVAm3/g⋅m2.872.362.34
NH4+gNH4+/m30.870.620.39
Table 2. Percentage of changes in the values of water quality parameters after a UV + O3 process using a low-pressure lamp (a negative value indicates an increase in the value of the parameter).
Table 2. Percentage of changes in the values of water quality parameters after a UV + O3 process using a low-pressure lamp (a negative value indicates an increase in the value of the parameter).
ParameterWater AWater BWater C
Ozone DoseOzone DoseOzone Dose
1.5 gO3/m35.0 gO3/m31.5 gO3/m35.0 gO3/m31.5 gO3/m35.0 gO3/m3
Turbidity74.785.633.857.856.665.9
Colour97.698.538.486.5−38.288.2
TOC16.820.633.144.910.719.8
DOC18.020.533.644.09.921.3
2.3–2.5 kDa95.398.534.378.664.292.6
2.0–2.3 kDa76.484.730.859.827.252.4
1.3–1.5 kDa60.972.333.058.039.671.3
0.7–0.9 kDa−427.283.916.761.3−801.7−664.3
0.5–0.7 kDa100.0100.0--−234.2−187.4
<0.1 kDa--69.080.3−2091.42.3
UV25441.760.349.071.622.570.0
UV27245.261.146.671.07.071.6
UV35020.546.235.166.04.279.2
NH4+−13.858.6−46.8−40.3−476.9−400.0
Table 3. Percentage of changes in the values of water quality parameters after a UV + O3 process using a medium-pressure lamp.
Table 3. Percentage of changes in the values of water quality parameters after a UV + O3 process using a medium-pressure lamp.
ParameterWater AWater BWater C
Ozone DoseOzone DoseOzone Dose
1.5 gO3/m35.0 gO3/m31.5 gO3/m35.0 gO3/m31.5 gO3/m35.0 gO3/m3
Turbidity82.488.338.147.644.852.6
Colour99.099.230.077.94.351.4
TOC13.718.427.938.46.419.4
DOC14.120.328.541.06.216.8
2.3–2.5 kDa77.698.470.694.16.939.9
2.0–2.3 kDa58.494.247.579.2−14.214.2
1.3–1.5 kDa48.291.236.268.5−2.326.4
0.7–0.9 kDa−44.285.3−57.2−23.8−1050.0−248.0
0.5–0.7 kDa100.0100.0--−806.0−6.8
<0.1 kDa--61.578.7−4.834.8
UV25418.447.86.753.45.828.4
UV27220.953.27.757.39.329.9
UV35029.452.43.463.424.968.7
NH4+64.880.4−39.4−3.7−652.0−210.3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wolska, M.; Kabsch-Korbutowicz, M.; Solipiwko-Pieścik, A.; Sperczyńska, E. Evaluation of the Effect of Using the UV + O3 Process with Low- and Medium-Pressure Lamps on the Amount and Properties of Organic Substances in Treated Water. Water 2025, 17, 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050701

AMA Style

Wolska M, Kabsch-Korbutowicz M, Solipiwko-Pieścik A, Sperczyńska E. Evaluation of the Effect of Using the UV + O3 Process with Low- and Medium-Pressure Lamps on the Amount and Properties of Organic Substances in Treated Water. Water. 2025; 17(5):701. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050701

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wolska, Małgorzata, Małgorzata Kabsch-Korbutowicz, Anna Solipiwko-Pieścik, and Elżbieta Sperczyńska. 2025. "Evaluation of the Effect of Using the UV + O3 Process with Low- and Medium-Pressure Lamps on the Amount and Properties of Organic Substances in Treated Water" Water 17, no. 5: 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050701

APA Style

Wolska, M., Kabsch-Korbutowicz, M., Solipiwko-Pieścik, A., & Sperczyńska, E. (2025). Evaluation of the Effect of Using the UV + O3 Process with Low- and Medium-Pressure Lamps on the Amount and Properties of Organic Substances in Treated Water. Water, 17(5), 701. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050701

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop