free chlorine

Subscriber access provided by READING UNIV

Article

Comparing the UV/monochloramine and UV/free chlorine Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) to the UV/hydrogen peroxide AOP Under Scenarios Relevant to Potable Reuse Yi-Hsueh Chuang, Serena Chen, Curtis Chinn, and William A. Mitch Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03570 • Publication Date (Web): 09 Nov 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on November 11, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 33

Environmental Science & Technology

1 2 3 4 5

Comparing the UV/monochloramine and UV/free chlorine Advanced Oxidation Processes

6

(AOPs) to the UV/hydrogen peroxide AOP Under Scenarios Relevant to Potable Reuse

7 8 9 10 11

Yi-Hsueh Chuang1, Serena Chen2, Curtis J. Chinn2, and William A. Mitch1, *

12 13 14 15

1

16 17 18

California 94305, United States

19 20 21

2

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford,

Galileo Academy of Science and Technology, 1150 Francisco Street, San Francisco, California,

94109, United States *Corresponding author: email: [email protected], Phone: 650-725-9298, Fax: 650-723-7058

22

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


23

Abstract

24

Utilities incorporating the potable reuse of municipal wastewater are interested in converting

25

from the UV/H2O2 to the UV/free chlorine advanced oxidation process (AOP). The AOP treatment of

26

reverse osmosis (RO) permeate often includes the de facto UV/chloramine AOP because chloramines

27

applied upstream permeate RO membranes. Models are needed that accurately predict oxidant

28

photolysis and subsequent radical reactions. By combining radical scavengers and kinetic modeling,

29

we have derived quantum yields for radical generation by the UV photolysis of HOCl, OCl-, and

30

NH2Cl of 0.62, 0.55, and 0.20, respectively, far below previous estimates that incorporated

31

subsequent free chlorine or chloramine scavenging by the •Cl and •OH daughter radicals. The

32

observed quantum yield for free chlorine loss actually decreased with increasing free chlorine

33

concentration, suggesting scavenging of radicals participating in free chlorine chain decomposition

34

and even free chlorine reformation. Consideration of reactions of •ClO and its daughter products

35

(e.g., ClO2-), not included in previous models, were critical for modeling free chlorine loss. Radical

36

reactions (indirect photolysis) accounted for ~50% of chloramine decay and ~80% of free chlorine

37

loss or reformation.

38

AOP for degradation of 1,4-dioxane, benzoate and carbamazepine across pH 5.5-8.3. The UV/free

39

chlorine AOP was more efficient at pH 5.5, but only by 30% for 1,4-dioxane. At pH 7.0-8.3, the

40

UV/free chlorine AOP was less efficient. •Cl converts to •OH. The modeled •Cl:•OH ratio was ~20%

41

for the UV/free chlorine AOP and ~35% for the UV/chloramine AOP such that •OH was generally

The performance of the UV/chloramine AOP was comparable to the UV/H2O2

2


Page 2 of 33

Page 3 of 33


42

more important for contaminant degradation.

43 44

Introduction

45

Highly-purified municipal wastewater effluents are increasingly considered as a local, reliable

46

supply of potable water.1, 2 Potable reuse facilities frequently employ Full Advanced Treatment (FAT)

47

trains, incorporating microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and the UV/hydrogen peroxide

48

(H2O2) advanced oxidation process (AOP).2 Following the broad-screen physical barrier of RO, the

49

UV-based AOP represents a broad-screen chemical barrier by producing hydroxyl radical (•OH;

50

equation 1) to destroy contaminants passing through RO. The California Department of Public

51

Health regulations require that the AOP achieve 0.5-log destruction of 1,4-dioxane or 1.2-log

52

destruction of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) for potable reuse operations.3

53

H2O2 + hν → 2 •OH

[1]

54

While the UV/H2O2 AOP has been the most widely implemented and studied for potable reuse,

55

there is growing interest in two other AOPs. The UV/free chlorine AOP produces both •OH and

56

chlorine radical (•Cl) by UV photolysis of HOCl or OCl- (equations 2-4)4-6; •O- from OCl- photolysis

57

converts to •OH below its 11.9 pKa.7 This AOP is attractive for two reasons. First, where AOP

58

effluents require a chlorine or chloramine residual (e.g., direct potable reuse), the UV/free chlorine

59

AOP avoids the additional chlorine demand required to quench residual H2O2 (equation 5). Second,

60

for low pressure mercury lamps emitting at 254 nm, radical production from HOCl and OCl- may be

61

more efficient than from H2O2 due to higher molar absorption coefficients and quantum yields for 3



Page 4 of 33

62

oxidant (e.g., HOCl) photolysis, reducing the energy requirement for contaminant degradation by

63

30-75%.6,

64

photolysis of NH2Cl produces •Cl and the amidogen radical (•NH2; equation 6).9

65

relatively unreactive,14 •Cl could degrade contaminants directly or form •OH via equations 7-9.

66

Chloramines are commonly applied upstream of MF to control biofouling in FAT trains, and pass

67

through RO membranes. Accordingly, many UV/H2O2 systems at such facilities are de facto

68

combinations of UV/H2O2 and UV/NH2Cl systems.

8

The UV/chloramine (UV/NH2Cl) AOP has received some attention.9-13 The UV

69

HOCl + hν → •OH + •Cl

[2]

70

OCl- + hν → •O- + •Cl

[3]

71

•O- + H+ → •OH

[4]

72

HOCl + H2O2 → O2 + H2O + Cl- + H+

[5]

73

NH2Cl + hν → •NH2 + •Cl

[6]

74

•Cl + OH- ↔ ClOH•-

[7]

75

•Cl + H2O ↔ ClOH•- + H+

[8]

76

ClOH•- ↔ •OH + Cl-

[9]

While •NH2 is

77 78

Previous research has characterized the degradation of specific compounds by the UV/free

79

chlorine and, to a lesser degree, the UV/NH2Cl AOPs; there are several examples of such studies.4,

80

15-21

However, there is significant uncertainty regarding their radical production efficiency. For 4


Page 5 of 33


81

example, previous research suggested that quantum yields for HOCl photolysis range from

82

~1.0-1.5.4-6, 15, 22 However, these were observed quantum yields based on total oxidant loss rates,

83

incorporating both the innate quantum yield from direct photolysis (equations 2 and 3), and

84

subsequent scavenging by the •Cl and •OH daughter radicals; such chain decomposition reactions

85

account for observed quantum yields above 1. Daughter radical reactions are more important for

86

OCl- than HOCl; the resultant scavenging of both radicals and free chlorine reduces treatment

87

efficiency by the UV/free chlorine AOP above the 7.5 pKa of HOCl.6 The importance of •Cl for

88

contaminant degradation is also debated. For the UV/free chlorine AOP, Nowell and Hoigné23 used

89

probe molecules to argue that •OH was the only significant contributor to contaminant degradation,

90

while Fang et al.4 used a model to indicate that •Cl dominated benzoic acid degradation. Lastly,

91

research directly comparing the efficacy of these AOPs has been limited to the comparison of the

92

UV/H2O2 and UV/HOCl AOPs for treating 8 contaminants by Sichel et al.8 and nitrobenzene by

93

Watts et al.6 The Sichel et al. study highlighted the energy savings associated with the UV/HOCl

94

AOP, but direct comparison of the AOPs was hindered by the use of different oxidant concentrations.

95

The first objective of this study was to determine parameters (e.g., molar absorption

96

coefficients and innate quantum yields at 254 nm) needed to accurately model both radical

97

generation and oxidant loss in the UV/free chlorine and UV/NH2Cl AOPs. Separating direct

98

photolysis of oxidants from subsequent radical reactions is critical because the competition between

99

contaminants, oxidants and matrix components to react with these daughter radicals varies with the 5



100

contaminants. The second objective was to use the kinetic model to compare the contribution of •Cl

101

and •OH to contaminant degradation. The third objective was to compare under comparable

102

conditions (e.g., UV fluence and oxidant dose) all three AOPs for contaminant degradation. These

103

evaluations were conducted at pH 5.5, relevant to RO permeates, but also at pH 7.0 and 8.3,

104

potentially relevant to drinking waters or RO-free advanced treatment trains for potable reuse.

105

Utilities are increasingly interested in such advanced trains to minimize energy usage and avoid

106

issues associated with brine disposal.24

107

MATERIALS AND METHODS

108

Materials: Stock solutions of monochloramine were made and standardized as described

109

previously.25 Briefly, sodium hypochlorite was added to ammonium chloride at a 1:1.2 molar ratio in

110

deionized water adjusted to pH 8 with sodium hydroxide. Hydrogen peroxide, free chlorine and

111

monochloramine stock solutions in deionized water were standardized using a Cary 60 UV-visible

112

spectrophotometer at 254 nm (ε254nm = 18.6 M-1 cm-1),26

113

245 nm (ε245nm = 445 M-1 cm-1),25 respectively. Sources for other reagents are provided in the

114

Supporting Information.

115

Experimental procedures: The UV absorbance of diluted oxidant stock solutions was measured at

116

254 nm to determine their molar absorption coefficients. Because the pKa for HOCl is 7.5, diluted

117

HOCl stock solutions were adjusted to pH 5 using hydrochloric acid or pH 10 using sodium

118

hydroxide to evaluate ε254nm for HOCl and OCl-, respectively.

292 nm (ε292nm = 365 M-1 cm-1),22 and at

6


Page 6 of 33

Page 7 of 33


119

UV irradiation was conducted using a semi-collimated beam apparatus with three 15 W Philips

120

low pressure mercury lamps emitting at 254 nm, as described previously.27 Briefly, light shone down

121

through a shutter onto an open-top 750 mL crystallization dish that was stirred by a magnetic stir bar.

122

Incident irradiance (0.60 mW cm-2) was determined by iodide-iodate actinometry with the quantum

123

yield (0.67) corrected for temperature (20±1 ºC).28, 29 In general, the direct photolysis rate of a

124

compound (C) at 254 nm can be described by equation 10, assuming the compound is the only

125

significant absorber of light: ௗ஼

− ௗ௧ =

126

஍ூబ (ଵିଵ଴షഄ಴೗ )

[10]

௭

127

where Ф is the photolysis quantum yield in mol/Einstein, I0 is the incident light intensity (mEin cm-2

128

s-1), l is the light pathlength (cm), and z is the solution depth (cm). However, under conditions of

129

minimal light absorbance (εCl < 0.02), and assuming a collimated beam (i.e., l = z), equation 10

130

reduces to equation 11.

131

−

ௗ஼ ௗ௧

= 2.303Φ‫ܫ‬଴ ߝ‫݇ = ܥ‬௢௕௦ ‫ܥ‬

[11]

132

To determine direct photolysis quantum yields at 254 nm (Ф254nm), the depth of HOCl, OCl- or

133

monochloramine solutions were reduced to satisfy the condition εCl < 0.02 for equation 11 and were

134

exposed to UV light. Aliquots withdrawn over time were analyzed for total residual chlorine by the

135

DPD colorimetric method.30 Plots of ln(C/C0) vs. t demonstrated first order decay over two half-lives

136

(e.g., Figure S1). Combining the slopes of these plots (kobs) with the measured incident light intensity

137

and molar absorption coefficients provided the quantum yields. 7



138

Benzoate, nitrobenzene, and carbamazepine were analyzed by HPLC-UV. 1,4-Dioxane was

139

extracted with 3 mL methyl tert-butyl-ether containing 300 µg/L 1,2-dibromopropane as the internal

140

standard and analyzed by GC-MS (further details in the SI).

141

Kinetic modeling: A kinetics model combining 88 elementary reactions obtained from the literature

142

or estimated by analogy with similar reactions (Table S1) was implemented with Kintecus 4.55.31

143

This model was based on our previous model,32 which was validated against experimental data from

144

the UV/H2O2 AOP.32-34 The model was updated with recent modifications by Sun et al.15 and Fang et

145

al.4 for the UV/free chlorine AOP. The model included reactions with chloride, which can occur in

146

hypochlorite stock solutions or form as an end product of the photolysis of free chlorine and NH2Cl.

147

Additional reactions added to refine the model are discussed below.

148 149

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

150

Oxidant loss and radical production. Kinetic models for contaminant degradation must accurately

151

1) predict loss of the oxidant serving as the radical source (i.e., H2O2, HOCl, OCl- and NH2Cl) and 2)

152

differentiate radical production rates by direct oxidant photolysis from the subsequent radical

153

reactions to characterize the competition between the target contaminants, oxidants, and other matrix

154

components for reaction with these radicals. The tendency of oxidants to absorb photons (molar

155

absorption

156

quantum yields; Φ) are the key parameters needed to predict radical production (equation 11).

coefficients) and to fragment to radicals upon photon absorption (direct photolysis

8


Page 8 of 33

Page 9 of 33


157

Quantum yields at 254 nm found in previous research ranged widely from ~1.0-1.5 for HOCl,4-6, 15, 22

158

0.9-1.08 for OCl-,4, 15, 22 and 0.26-0.62 for NH2Cl.6, 10, 35, 36 However, these observed quantum yields

159

(Φobs) incorporated reactions of the daughter radicals formed upon oxidant photolysis (•R; i.e., •OH

160

and •Cl) with the oxidant (i.e., indirect photolysis), leading to its chain decomposition (equation 12).

161

Unfortunately, Φobs is condition-specific, increasing with oxidant concentrations by enhancing chain

162

decomposition.22

163

݇௢௕௦ = 2.303Φ‫ܫ‬଴ ߝ + ݇∙ோ [∙ ܴ] = 2.303Φ௢௕௦ ‫ܫ‬଴ ߝ

164

We measured the molar absorption

[12]

coefficients and quantum yields at 254 nm for HOCl, OCl-,

165

and NH2Cl to compare with literature values for H2O2 (Table 1). Monochloramine features the

166

highest ɛ254nm. The ε254nm for HOCl is comparable to that for OCl-, and similar to those reported

167

previously6, 22; both are 3-fold higher than for H2O2.37

168

Observed quantum yields (Φ obs) were determined in 2 mM phosphate buffer for loss of 2

169

µM−250 µM NH2Cl (pH 7), 4-500 µM HOCl (pH 5) or 2-500 µM OCl- (pH 10) (Figure 1); the

free chlorine

Recommend Documents