Technical, economic and environmental evaluation of advanced tertiary treatments for micropollutants removal (oxidation and adsorption)

[Departement_IRSTEA]Ecotechnologies [TR1_IRSTEA]TED

International audience

إنجليزي. Two pilots for tertiary treatment, an advanced oxidation processes (AOP - O3/UV/H2O2) pilot and a granular activated carbon pilot, were tested in three different wastewater treatment plants after a secondary treatment. A total of 64 micropollutants including drugs, pesticides, alkylphenols, PAHs and metals were analysed in the samples at the inlet and the outlet of the pilots. The tertiary treatments studied (ozone, AOP and activated carbon) were efficient for the removal of most of the compounds analysed in this study, except metals. The addition of hydrogen peroxide to ozone increased the number of substances well removed but it did not improve the removal of substances that readily react with ozone (such as betablockers or carbamazepine). The other AOP (ozone/H2O2 and UV/H2O2) did not improve the number of substances well removed in comparison with ozone alone. The granular activated carbon was still efficient (R>70%) after 6 months working 24/7 for most of the drugs and the urea and triazine pesticides. The 5 technologies studied were sized at full scale in order to calculate their cost for two sizes of WWTP. The implementation of a tertiary treatment on a 60 000 to 200 000 PE WWTP would increase the wastewater treatment cost by 1,5 to 17,6 euros cents per cubic meter treated according to the technology and the removal objective. Concerning the environmental impact, for the big WWTP, the activated carbon is more impacting than the other processes for most of the impacts calculated. The order of POA by increasing environmental impact is ozone < ozone/H2O2 < ozone/UV ~ UV/H2O2. For the medium size WWTP however, the activated carbon is comparable to the other solutions regarding environmental impact.