UV Disinfection Point of Use Systems - Unesco-IHE
Transcription
UV Disinfection Point of Use Systems - Unesco-IHE
UV Disinfection Point of Use Systems: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Karl G. Linden, Ph.D. Croft Professor of Environmental Engineering University of Colorado Boulder, USA UV Disinfection in Developing Countries UNESCO-IHE and IUVA November 6, 2014 Delft, Netherlands Overview Overview of POU systems and options Point of Entry UV Systems Point of Use UV Systems Monitoring and Sustainability Water Treatment in Developing Communities • ~880 Million People Without Access to Improved Water Source • No indication of water quality • Community and Point of Use Systems • Many Different Options • Boiling • Ceramic/membrane Filters • Biosand Filters • Chlorine • SODIS • UV Treatment Point-of-Use Options Treatment Chlorine Biosand Advantages - Commonly used - Available - Residual disinfection - Relatively fast - No chemicals - Removes particles - Local materials Ceramic Filters - No chemicals - Easy to maintain - Local materials Boiling - No extra materials - Easy to integrate into cooking SODIS - Can be free - Reuses waste UV - No chemicals - Effective against spores - Fast - Easy to verify Disadvantages - Toxic Chemical - Taste & Odor issues - DBPs - Not effective: spores and cysts - Slow - Difficult to verify - High maintenance - No residual - Slow - Fragile - Difficult to verify - No residual - Expensive - Indoor air pollution - No residual - Slow - Relies on sunlight - Difficult to verify - No residual - Requires fairly low turbidity - Imported materials - No residual Sobsey et al., 2008; Baker and Duke, 2006; Hazeltine, 2003; Clasen et al, 2008; Rainey, 2005; EPA, 2003 Applications of UV Disinfection • Urban Setting • Piped water supply • No filtration needed • Household unit • Building unit • Rural Setting • Pumped or carried raw water supply to UV system • Filtration may be needed • Point of use for community • Household What Do UV Systems Look Like? • Review point of entry systems for small communities • Defined as serving multiple households • Could be a community water point • Review of point of use systems • Defined as household or user scale • How Sustainable are these systems? • Elements that will increase and improve long term effectiveness UV Pure Technologies Inc. Point of Entry Systems • Community Water Points • Schools Bring Your Own Water (BYOW) • Community System • Manual System • Roughing Filter, Gravity Fed Sand Filter, UV Disinfection • Backwash First System in Summer 2006 - Muramba Shut down after two years Second System in Summer 2007 – Mugonero Orphanage Still Working with Continued Maintenance Cost: ?? BYOW-II, August 2007 Roughing Filter Auto-fill Bucket input Backwash Tank Rapid Sand Filter PV power supply Cistern stairs UV Disinfection unit Manna In-Line System • Similar to BYOW • In-Line Filters • Monitoring System • Carbon Credit Financing Model • In place in schools and group homes • UV Dose ~40 mJ/cm2 Cost: ?? • Dynamic UV metering system based on flowrate (1 to 15 GPM) • Filter bodies manufactured in Kigali • Complete system assembled at factory in Kigali and transported to each site Manna In-Line System Naiade • Flow rate: 6 liters/minute • Lifespan of lamp: 3 years • Monitoring: LED indicates the status. • UV Lamp type: 20 Watt • UV Dose: ? • 99% kill rate of bacteria protozoa and viruses Cost: $3,500 http://www.nedap-naiade.com/ AquaPure • Flow rate: 30+ gpm • Monitoring: ? • UV Lamp type: ? • UV Dose: ? www.aquapure.com/aq-products/ultraviolet-light-systems.html Cost: $3,599 PenTek • Flow rate: 2 gpm • Monitoring: ? • UV Lamp type: LP 254 (nm) • UV Dose: 16 mJ/cm2 Cost: $243-$573 amazon.com/Pentek-163005-UV-110-1-Ultraviolet-System/dp/B0061BODDM HiTech Ultraviolet • Flow rate: 7.5-50,000 LPM • Monitoring: • UV Lamp type: LP UV with 185nm output • UV Dose: 253.7nm http://www.hitechuv.com/about-us.html Cost: not available UV Waterworks • Developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory • Stainless Steel and Aluminum • 15 liters per minute • 40 mJ/cm2 • Serves community ~1000 • 50 Watts power • Maintenance required twice a year Cost: $300-$1500* *not available retail (aid organizations only) UV Light in Stainless Steel Tube Aqua Azul Atlantic Ultraviolet Corporation Crystal Quest Everpure Gowe Group I-Spring Minipure Neotech Aqua Solutions Pelican Pentek Polaris Scientific Pura Purtest Sterilight Trojan UV Max Vitapur Watertec Watts Cost: $182-$5000 Wedeco/xylem Point of Use Systems • Small to very small • Household or user scale UV-Tube • Household System • $34 per system (does not include power supply) • 4 liters per minute • ~90 mJ/cm2 • >4 log MS2 Removal • Local Materials UV Bucket/ UVeta • Developed in Mexico • Founder also from Berkeley • Household System • 3 Bucket System • 20 liter plastic bucket • Lab Study • >7.5 log E. coli Removal • 3.9 log MS2 virus Removal • 75-85 mJ/cm2 Cost: $22 Purificador ZEOZ (Grupo EOZ) • Flow rate: 1.5 liters/min • Monitoring: • UV Lamp type: (LP) • UV Dose: ? • Lamp life: 5,000 hours • Reduction: • Turbidity from 6.5 to 0.17 • Parasites: 99.99% removal • Bacteria: 100% removal http://agualimpia.mx/productos.php Cost: $52-82 UV Water Box • • • • Flow rate: 7 L/ min UV Lamp type: LP UV Dose: ? Solar powered • Kills 99% of viruses and bacteria • Lamp life: 10,000 hours • Solar panel 20 watt, battery 17 Ah UV WaterBox by Aqua Aero http://www.aaws.nl/. Cost: $3,000-$3,700 AlfaUV • Flow rate: 2 liters/minute • Monitoring: lamp life indicator • UV Lamp type: ? • UV Dose: 30 mJ/cm2 at 90% UV Transmittance Cost: $103 www.alfauv.com/ultraviolet-uv-products/uv-ultra-violet-water-purifier-platina UV Pearl • Flow rate: 2.5 gpm • Monitoring: Power on, PearlAqua http://www.uvpearl.com/products.html Lamp on, High Temp Alarm, Low Intensity • UV Lamp type: UV-C LED 275nm ±12nm • UV Dose: • Lamp life: 60,000 gallons (270,000 litres) Cost: Coming soon Pureit Cost: $134 • Flow rate: 350 ml – 750 ml/min • Monitoring: • UV Lamp type: 11W • UV Dose: • Lamp life: 3000 liters Pureit Cost: $341 • Flow rate: 9-12 L/hour • Monitoring: Purity indicator and life indicator • UV Lamp type: • UV Dose: • Lamp life: 800 hours www.pureitwater.com/IN/ LivePur • Flow rate: 15 liters/hour • Monitoring: • UV Lamp type: 11 W • UV Dose: www.livpurewater.com/ Cost: $277-$321 WaterFiltersFast • Flow rate: 1-2 lpm • Monitoring: visual • UV Lamp type: LP 10 W • Lamp life: 9000 hours • UV Dose:? Counter Top QMP605 with UV Filter System w/o filters https://espwaterproducts.com/ManualsSpecs/QMP605-specs.pdf Cost: $169 Steri-Pen • Flow rate: Batch 1 L • Monitoring: on/off timer • UV Lamp type: LP UV • UV Dose: >40 mJ/cm2 Cost: $50-100 USD Camelbak Allclear • Flow rate: Batch 1 L • Monitoring: on/off, timer • UV Lamp type: LP UV • UV Dose: >40 mJ/cm2 • Shake water bottle for 1 minute • USB Charger • Filter add-on www.camelbak.com/allclear Cost: $85-100 USD Monitoring Approaches • UV bulb on/off indicator • Light indicator • UV Transmittance • Flow Rate • Timer on/off • Pressure • Remote information • Alarm alerts for maintenance What Makes a Good UV Device? • Certified dose delivery – Validation conducted • Monitoring • Remote operation • Ease of Maintenance • Repairable, parts available • Local availability of materials • Low energy use (solar possibility) • Germicidal UV – effective • On-demand water (no storage needed) Sustainability Issues • Mercury vapor Low Pressure (LP) UV lamps • Disposal of used lamps • Fragile, monochromatic (254 nm) • Efficiency ~ 35-38% • Lifetime of ~ 9-12 months • Replacement availability & cost • Warm-up required • Lamp fouling www.maine.gov US EPA, 2006 Promise of UV-LEDs • Lifetime and efficiency expected to approach that of visible LEDs (~10 years, ~75%) • No warm-up time • Easier to transport • No mercury disposal issues • Less energy loss due to heat • Lower energy needs • Fewer lamp fouling issues • Specific UV wavelengths www.maine.gov Crawford et al., 2005; Gaska, 2007, Bettles et al., 2007 UV POU Summary Advantages Disadvantages • No Taste and Odor Changes • Need an Energy Source • “Sexy”/Technology Factor • Bulbs Not Available Locally • Higher Flow Rates • Need Additional Treatment • No Chemical Addition • Low Energy Need Compared to Boiling • Validated for Low UVT/turbid Waters • Mercury Disposal • Variable dose with water quality • Validated? UV Disinfection Point of Use Systems: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Karl G. Linden, Ph.D. Croft Professor of Environmental Engineering University of Colorado Boulder, USA UV Disinfection in Developing Countries UNESCO-IHE and IUVA November 6, 2014 Delft, Netherlands • Karl G. Linden, Ph.D. • [email protected]