Skip Nav Destination Show
Research Article| July 20 2018 Surbhi Tak; 1Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttrakhand 247667, India Search for other works by this author on: Bhanu Prakash Vellanki 1Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttrakhand 247667, India Search for other works by this author on:
 J Water Health (2018) 16 (5): 681–703.
AbstractNatural organic matter (NOM) is ubiquitous in the aquatic environment and if present can cause varied drinking water quality issues, the major one being disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation. Trihalomethanes (THMs) are major classes of DBP that are formed during chlorination of NOM. The best way to remove DBPs is to target the precursors (NOM) directly. The main aim of this review is to study conventional as well as advanced ways of treating NOM, with a broad focus on NOM removal using advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) and biofiltration. The first part of the paper focuses on THM formation and removal using conventional processes and the second part focuses on the studies carried out during the years 2000–2018, specifically on NOM removal using AOPs and AOP-biofiltration. Considering the proven carcinogenic nature of THMs and their diverse health effects, it becomes important for any drinking water treatment industry to ameliorate the current water treatment practices and focus on techniques like AOP or synergy of AOP-biofiltration which showed up to 50–60% NOM reduction. The use of AOP alone provides a cost barrier which can be compensated by the use of biofiltration along with AOP with low energy inputs, making it a techno-economically feasible option for NOM removal. INTRODUCTIONProviding safe drinking water is essential for sustaining human life on earth. With the growing demand for water, it is becoming difficult for drinking water industries to meet the quality needs, both chemically and microbiologically. The chemical aspect refers to chemical contaminants in water sources that are a direct threat to human life. One such contaminant is disinfection byproducts (DBPs) which are formed as a result of disinfection of the water in the treatment process itself. Disinfection is crucial for maintaining the microbiological safety of water, i.e. it aids in inactivating microbial pathogens (bacteria, virus, protozoa etc.) that can cause various water-borne diseases (Gomez-Alvarez et al. 2016). One such disinfectant is chlorine and it is the most widely used across the globe. DBPs are generally formed by the reaction of disinfectants such as chlorine with organic precursors present in source water; these organic precursors are mainly called natural organic matter (NOM) and NOM acts as a forerunner to DBPs. Some of the chlorination disinfection byproducts are shown in Table 1. Trihalomethanes (THMs) are the major class of DBPs formed. Though THMs is not a regular water quality parameter, various studies have reported their occurrence in water systems across the globe and stringent guidelines have been imposed for controlling THM levels in water supply systems (Golfinopoulos 2000; Rodriguez et al. 2003; Ivahnenko & Zogorski 2006; Wang et al. 2007; Kumari et al. 2015). THMs constitute four main volatile organic compounds (VOCs): trichloromethane (chloroform), bromodichloromethane (BDCM), dibromochloromethane (DBCM) and tribromomethane (bromoform). Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) are the sum of the mass concentrations of chloroform, BDCM, DBCM and bromoform in μg L−1 (Frimmel & Jahnel 2003). THMs have been classified as a probable and possible human carcinogen in group 2B and C (IARC 1999). The removal of THMs after their formation is difficult and involves resource-intensive processes such as activated carbon adsorption or air stripping. Therefore, efforts should be directed towards optimizing the operation of existing water treatment plants to minimize THM formation or developing treatment techniques to degrade natural organic matter (NOM), which are the DBP precursors (Rook 1974).
NOM is a complex mixture of heterogeneous chemical fractions with different polarity, chemical composition, charge and molecular weights (Nebbioso & Piccolo 2013). The chemical characteristics of NOM can be a useful tool to study their correlation with DBP formation. The complete removal of NOM by conventional water treatment processes is relatively inefficient, leading to the formation of DBPs, during either post- or pre-chlorination (Murray & Parsons 2004). NOMs are usually quantified in terms of dissolved organic carbon (DOC). DOC is the part of total organic carbon (TOC) which can be filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane filter. The absence of regulatory guidelines for DOC strengthens the need for more focus on NOM removal as it can be a source of various water quality issues such as color, taste, odor and DBPs. Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are highly efficient water treatment processes that can degrade natural and recalcitrant organic matter. AOPs oxidize the highly complex organic matter into simpler compounds, therefore increasing the biodegradability of the NOM. Biological activated carbon (BAC) or biofiltration is also known to remove biological organic matter from source water (Chien et al. 2008; Korotta-Gamage & Sathasivan 2017). AOPs can completely mineralize the NOM, but at higher energy and thus higher cost inputs. Therefore, combined with biofiltration process BAC can be an economical solution for the removal of NOM. NOM AND ISSUES IN WATER TREATMENT INDUSTRYThe organic matter in surface and ground water is predominantly natural organic matter (NOM) and this NOM is a complex mixture of organic compounds with different molecular size and properties (Lamsal et al. 2011; Sillanpää & Matilainen 2014). NOM is derived from plants, animals, microorganisms and their waste and metabolic products. Therefore NOM is omnipresent in all natural water sources and even in soil and sediments (Aiken 1985; Suffet & MacCarthy 1988). It is present in particulate, dissolved and colloidal forms. The amount and characteristics of NOM are site-specific, i.e. they are climate, topography and geology dependent (Fabris et al. 2008; Wei et al. 2008). The characteristics of NOM vary both regionally and with time (Wei et al. 2008). Aquatic NOM is a heterogeneous mixture consisting of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic compounds. The hydrophobic fraction, which accounts for more than half of total dissolved organic carbon (DOC), is predominated by humic substances (Sillanpää & Matilainen 2014), primarily humic acids and fulvic acids and other phenolic compounds and carbon with conjugated double bonds. Aquatic fulvic acid is considered to be the major portion of hydrophobic fraction (Aiken et al. 1992). Hydrophobic NOM is rich in aromatic content and is composed of primarily humic material. Humic material is formed by decaying vegetative matter, such as lignin. Lignin is found in plants and is quite resistant to biodegradation, yet is reactive to oxidants, such as chlorine. These characteristics of the aromatic hydrophobic humic material tend to form higher THM levels. The hydrophilic fraction of NOM primarily consists of aliphatic carbon and nitrogen bearing compounds such as carbohydrates, proteins and amino-acids (Sillanpää & Matilainen 2014). The composition of NOM is presented in Table 2.
NOM is predominantly responsible for water quality issues such as color, odor and taste. Colorless water may also have NOM present in significant levels. NOM can act as a major source of microbial re-growth in the water distribution system, if present in treated water. The major issue with NOM is formation of unwanted products such as DBPs upon reaction with chemicals like chlorine. Therefore, it can be concluded that NOM can pose serious water quality issues in any drinking water treatment industry if not well treated. The majority of studies suggest that hydrophobic compounds are the major contributors of DBPs (Fabris et al. 2008; Wei et al. 2008) while few consider the hydrophilic part to be the contributor of DBPs. The source of origin of NOM also plays a very important role in deciding the nature of NOM. Autochtonous and allochtonous are two classes based on the source of origin of NOM. Allochtonous NOM is derived from sources on land that are external to the aquatic system and autochthonous NOM is generated within the water column having mainly algae as a source (algal NOM) (Wershaw et al. 2004; Leenheer et al. 2004; Winter et al. 2007; Berggren et al. 2015). Allochtonous NOM is dominated by hydrophobic content whereas autochtonous NOM is dominated by lower molecular weight hydrophilic molecules (Wershaw et al. 2005). Therefore defining NOM into operationally defined chemical fractions, i.e. hydrophobic, transphilic and hydrophilic, will also help in determining the source of NOM origin. DBP FORMATION AND NOM CHARACTERIZATIONThe presence of NOM in water is well acknowledged but it was in the late 1970s that NOM was identified as a precursor to disinfection byproducts, mainly THMs. THMs have been shown to cause severe health impacts in various epidemiological studies and health risk assessments (Dodds et al. 1999; Richardson 2003; Villanueva et al. 2006, 2015; Wang et al. 2013). Since then the reaction of NOM with disinfectants and other chemicals used in water treatment, and the influence it exerts on virtually every aspect of water treatment, has begun to be appreciated. The idea of haloform formation in water treatment plants stated by Rook (1974) is still a problem in many developing nations like India. The history of THM recognition is shown in Table 3. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was the first agency to set THM standards in 1979. Later on, USEPA also implemented first and second disinfectants/disinfection by-products rules (D/DBP) in 2000 and 2006 respectively. Later on, the European Union (EU) and the World Health Organization (WHO) also set guidelines and standards for THMs. Since then, THMs have been regulated in different nations across the world, primarily developed nations. A few guidelines set for THMs across different parts of the world are depicted in Figure 1. The identification and monitoring of THMs and their sources in developing nations like India is non-existent. In 2012, in its new draft the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) included standards for THM levels in BIS code: IS 10500: 2012. Very few studies to date have reported the THM identified in some states of the country (Rajan et al. 1990; Thacker et al. 2002; Sharma & Goel 2007; Hasan et al. 2010a, 2010b; Basu et al. 2011; Mishra et al. 2012). Table 3 History of THM identification and regulation development (globally) updated and adapted from Bond et al. (2012)
Figure 1 Trihalomethanes guideline value (worldwide). Figure 1 Trihalomethanes guideline value (worldwide). Close modal The reaction of NOM with chlorine is dependent on the chemical characteristics of NOM itself, i.e. hydrophobicity, polarity, nature of functional groups present, aromaticity etc. Chlorinated DBPs such as THMs are generally formed by the reaction of naturally derived organic matter with chlorine (Farkas et al. 1949; Gallard & von Guntem 2002; Westerhoff et al. 2004), but THMs or DBPs can be formed from anthropogenic sources like wastewater treatment plants (Yang et al. 2014). The properties of wastewater effluent derived organic matter (EfOM) are completely different from NOM; EfOM from biological wastewater treatment plants consists of biodegradation and soluble microbial products. The characteristics of NOM and EfOM converge but aromatic moieties in both are of completely different origin (Yang et al. 2014). THMs are mainly studied in drinking water treatment plants where the main source of influent is surface water (lesser anthropogenic influence), but sometimes there can be incidental introduction of treated wastewater into the drinking water treatment plant (in developing nations). NOMs have complex chemical composition; different chemical fractions contribute differently to THM formation. Humic and fulvic acids (hydrophobic fractions) are the most important precursors to DBPs. NOMs can be fractionated on the basis of polarity into hydrophobic, transphilic and hydrophilic using XAD resin fractionation. The different NOM fractions react differently according to coagulant, amount of coagulant, chlorine, ozone and in terms of DBP formation potential (DBPFP) (Fabris et al. 2008). Table 4 describes the role of different chemical groups on THM formation. Various studies have researched NOM surrogates instead of the source NOM itself, with major compounds being aniline, resorcinol etc. in aromatic moieties and L-aspartic acid, 3-oxopentanedioic acid, 2.4-pentanedione etc. in aliphatic properties (Bond et al. 2012). NOM characterization provides a useful insight into NOM composition, reactivity towards chlorine and removal options. Among all the techniques well established in literature, this review will focus on techniques such as UV absorbance at 254 nm (cm−1), specific UV absorbance (SUVA) (SUVA = UV254/DOC*100), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), XAD resin fractionation, and fluorescence excitation − emission matrix (FEEM). SUVA is widely used for estimating the chemical characteristics of DOC in the source water, its amenability to coagulation, and the reactivity with chlorine toward DBP formation (Kitis et al. 2001; Weishaar et al. 2003; Fearing et al. 2004; Van Verseveld et al. 2007; Hua et al. 2015). The significance of SUVA in characterizing NOM in terms of THM forming potential (THMFP) is shown in Table 5 and Table 6 describes the efficiency and use of different NOM characterization techniques.
Table 6 NOM characterization techniques
THM FORMATION: REACTION CHEMISTRYThe detailed mechanism of THM formation and the effect of different process parameters on THM formation is well explained by Rook (1974). Chlorine is usually applied in the form of sodium hypochlorite or in gaseous form. Chlorine readily reacts with water and forms hypochlorous acid (HOCl) which in turn dissociates into hypochlorite ion (OCl−). The structure of NOM, especially humic acid, is very complex. The compounds such as resorcinol bear a close resemblance to aromatic NOM with chlorine, with most of the research focused on surrogates such as resorcinol (Frimmel & Jahnel 2003; Bond 2009). Aromatic or phenolic compounds such as resorcinol are considered as the main precursors of THMs. One such reaction mechanism is shown in Figure 2. The formation of THM is affected by various process parameters like chlorine dose, residual chlorine, reaction time, temperature, pH, NOM source, concentration and inorganic sources like bromide ion etc. EFFECT OF DRINKING WATER PROCESSES ON NOM REDUCTIONThe most common technique employed for the removal of NOM from water treatment systems is coagulation-flocculation followed by clarification (sedimentation or flotation), filtration and disinfection. Coagulation is mainly employed for the removal of turbidity and with that NOM and some of the hydrophobic compounds are also removed. This is the most conventional method employed by drinking water treatment systems across the globe. There is no specific technique employed for the removal of TOC or DOC, but various treatment techniques employed remove TOC/DOC along the way. Non-conventional or advanced methods include adsorption, membrane filtration, ion exchange, biofiltration, AOPs or integrated methods such as AOP followed by biologically activated carbon (BAC). Coagulation/flocculation – sedimentationCoagulation is the destabilizing of solid colloidal matter which will result in the formation of micro flocs. The micro flocs thus formed start to agglomerate, leading to the formation of larger flocs due to Brownian motion and this process is called flocculation. Chemical coagulation is generally achieved by the addition of iron or aluminum salts. Coagulating aids such as PACl (poly aluminum chloride) can also be used to enhance coagulation. The possible mechanism of NOM removal by coagulation is shown in Figure 3(a). Most of the NOM is believed to be removed by coagulation. However there is still ambiguity regarding reduction in the hydrophobic or hydrophilic part by coagulation. Most of the studies suggest the removal of the hydrophobic higher molecular weight (HMW) part is more efficient as compared to the hydrophilic lower molecular weight (LMW) part. Such a phenomenon may be due to higher aromaticity of the HMW fraction which carries high charge density and a higher level of negative charge due to the presence of ionic groups such as carboxylic and phenolic groups. Therefore, the HMW fraction tends to dominate the colloidal charge nature of water and is more amenable to removal by coagulation. Enhanced coagulation was introduced as a new regulatory requirement in the USA, primarily aimed at removing DOC and thereby DBP precursor. The main aim is also comparable with optimized coagulation, i.e. maximum removal efficiencies in terms of turbidity, particulate TOC, DBP precursor, least residual coagulant, sludge production and operating cost (Edzwald & Tobiason 1999). All this is mainly achieved by increasing coagulant dose and adjusting pH (Yan et al. 2006). Figure 3 FiltrationSlow sand filtration (SSF)Collins et al. (1992) studied the effect of slow sand filtration for NOM and subsequently THM precursor removal. The possible mechanism of removal was physical straining, adsorption and biodegradation. The organic matter degradation was found to be dependent on filter biomass which in turn was found to be dependent on the cleaning and maintenance procedures adopted (the filter harrowing technique is more effective than surface scraping cleaning) (Collins et al. 1992). Although slow sand filtration is inexpensive and is the most widely employed water treatment process, it is unable to decrease the DOC to those levels that will prevent DBP formation below the set standard limit (Moncayo-Lasso et al. 2008). Rapid sand filtration (RSF)Rapid sand filtration can also contribute to DOC reduction and the main mechanism involved here is adsorption on the flocs and biodegradation. The net DOC removal is dependent on the operating conditions or bioprocesses occurring inside the filtration system. Biological processes occurring inside the filtration system may lead to biodegradable DOC (BDOC) elimination whereas assimilable organic carbon (AOC) removal is dependent on the oxygen concentration in the filter bed (Korth et al. 2001). In both RSF and SSF, biodegradation is among the major pathways for NOM reduction. Microfiltration (MF)/ultrafiltration (UF)/membrane filtrationMembrane filtration alone is not effective in DBP precursor removal. It is able to achieve only less than 10% DOC removal. However, with pre-treatment or in combination with conventional techniques such as coagulation, comparatively better NOM removal can be achieved. Coagulation followed by microfiltrationThe DBP removal through microfiltration along with coagulant is a site specific system and should be optimized for a particular site because of spatial variation of NOM. One more advantage of using membrane filtration along with coagulation is that the membrane filtration uses a physical barrier for achieving microbial and particle removal, therefore coagulation is not required to achieve the filtration objective and the process chemistry is specifically optimized for the removal of NOM (Vickers et al. 1995). Granular activated carbon (GAC)GAC is a highly porous, effective adsorbent widely used for drinking water treatment for color, odor, taste and organic contaminants including NOM removal. GAC has macroporous, rough surfaces with widely distributed fissures and ridges in contrast with the non-porous smooth surfaces of sand filters. The mechanism of DOC removal by GAC is represented in Figure 3(b). The total organic carbon (TOC) concentration was found to be lower in GAC-filtered water than in sand-filtered water (Hyde et al. 1987). The adsorption process of the GAC mainly depends on the surface area, pore structure and surface chemistry (Moreno-Castilla 2004). The rough surfaces of GAC also provide an excellent site for microbial attachment and provide shelter to newly attached bacteria, protecting them from shear forces that are a major hindrance during biofilm development. The type of GAC also plays a very important role in DOC removal and biodegradation occurring in the biofilters or biologically activated carbon filters (BAC) (Karanfil et al. 1999). GACs are either chemically or steam activated and are prepared from different sources such as coconut husk, wood or coal. Various studies reported steam activated coal based carbon to be the best adsorbent for DOC removal (Yapsakli & Çeçen 2010). The major advantage of GAC in terms of adsorption is that it can adsorb both readily and slowly biodegradable organics although higher molecular weight compounds are not easily removed by GAC due to their larger size (sieving effect), whereas intermediate and lower molecular weight compounds are easy to remove (Yan et al. 2006; Xing et al. 2008). GAC filtration is suggested to be most effective in the removal of intermediate molecular weight compounds (IMWs). The GAC, which has bioactivity on its surface and removes a significant amount of DOC by biodegradation, is called biological activated carbon (BAC) (Nishijima & Speitel 2004). Pre-treatment of water supplied to GAC may lead to increased BAC performance. Therefore, in the case of pre-treatment before GAC, such as oxidation where all the non-biodegradable DOC is converted to biodegradable DOC (BDOC), it becomes easier to remove the BDOC fraction by BAC (Yapsakli & Çeçen 2010). The effect of each unit process on organic matter removal needs to be assessed to obtain a better perspective while choosing the appropriate water treatment process for enhanced NOM removal. One such study has been conducted by Chen et al. (2007), who reported the effect of conventional processes (along with different modifications) on organic matter removal. The effect of different process parameters in terms of TOC, UV254, TTHMFP (total trihalomethane formation potential), THAAFP (total haloacetic acid formation potential) reduction was reported. Maximum removal was 30, 36, 41 and 55% for TOC, UV254, TTHMFP and THAAFP respectively (Chen et al. 2007). The effect of different treatment processes in drinking water treatment plants on DOC and THMFP reduction is described in Table 7. Table 7 DOC reduction by different water treatment processes
AOPsNOMs act as a forerunner to DBPs and conventional removal processes such as coagulation, filtration etc. do not guarantee the total NOM removal or reduction in DBP formation potential (DBPFP) (Moncayo-Lasso et al. 2008). A well-explained review on removal of NOM from drinking water by AOPs is given by Matilainen & Sillanpää (2010). The next section will cover the advancements in AOP for NOM removal in the last 10 years. AOPs involve the generation of highly reactive radical intermediates, especially the OH. radical (Glaze et al. 1987). The advantage of AOPs is the conversion of high molecular weight (hydrophobic) organic compounds (HMWs) into low molecular weight (hydrophilic) organic compounds (LMWs) with a system operating at ambient pressure and temperature and sometimes complete mineralization. Most studies suggest HMWs to be the root precursor of DBPs (Zhang & Jian 2006; Liu et al. 2010). The factors that make OH. radical advantageous over other oxidants are its higher oxidizing capacity (Table 8), non-selective nature and the fact that the reaction rate constant of OH. radical with organic species is usually several orders of magnitude higher than oxidation processes, as shown in Table 9. Westerhoff et al. (2007) studied the reaction of several dissolved organic matter surrogates and have established their reaction rate constants, as demonstrated in Table 10. Table 8 Oxidation potential of some common species (Parsons 2004)
Table 9 Reaction rate constant; comparison of ozone and hydroxyl radical (Parsons 2004)
Table 10 Hydroxyl radical reaction rate constants at near neutral pH levels (pH 7−9) for model NOM compounds (Westerhoff et al. 2007)
The most commonly used combination for AOPs is O3/H2O2, UV/H2O2, UV/O3, Fe2+/H2O2, Fe2+/H2O2 + hv, vacuum UV (VUV), and UV/TiO2. The first free radicals are generated followed by a chain of reactions as shown in Table 11. The reaction of NOM with OH. radical occurs in three ways (Matilainen & Sillanpää 2010):
Table 11 Reaction mechanism of few AOPs Ozonation can also be considered as an AOP in the case of higher pH values and in combination with peroxide. Ozone is unstable in water and tends to decompose rapidly and another major oxidant that is formed from ozone decomposition in water is OH. radical. Table 11 shows the reaction mechanism of ozone with NOM. The extent of NOM mineralization depends on various factors, i.e. radiation dose, oxidant dose and reaction time. Factors that affect radical formation are mainly pH, temperature, presence of ions, pollutant type as well as presence of scavenging agents such as bicarbonate ion. The rate of oxidation is dependent on radical, NOM and oxygen concentration. This section also combines the literature from 2000–2018 on various studies of AOP for NOM removal, as explained in Table 12. Table 12 Studies on AOP for NOM reduction
BACThe GAC which has bioactivity on its surface and removes a significant amount of DOC by biodegradation is called biological activated carbon (BAC) (Nishijima & Speitel 2004). BAC is one of the most promising, eco-friendly and economically feasible processes for enhancing water treatment performance. BAC is advantageous compared to GAC as eventually adsorption sites become saturated with organics leading to GAC exhaustion. The biofilm formation starts over the rough porous surface of GAC and bacterial colonization starts utilizing organics on the surface as the food source. The biofilm developed has the potential to degrade organic pollutants, including biodegradable organic matter by biodegradation, therefore prolonging the life of the carbon bed and without requiring regeneration like GAC (Dong et al. 2015; Korotta-Gamage & Sathasivan 2017). Since microbes are attached to the surface, the supply of organics or substrate to microbes in biofilm is mainly controlled by a bulk and surface transport phenomenon. The substrate must be transported from the liquid phase to the biofilm outer surface and then to microbes inside the biofilm by diffusion. The factors that affect the rate of substrate utilization within a biofilm are: (a) substrate transfer to biofilm; (b) diffusion of substrate into the biofilm; (c) substrate utilization within the biofilm; (d) substrate growth yield; and (e) biofilm detachment. Other factors affecting BAC performance are as follows:
AOP-BACNOM removal by AOP can lead to mineralization of organic matter but with higher energy requirements and thus cost inputs. Oxidation is generally achieved at higher doses, as lower doses are proven to be insufficient for DOC reduction (Toor & Mohseni 2007; Sarathy et al. 2011). Therefore, for achieving economic viability of the system, integration of AOP with a biological system like BAC is the best possible alternative. The AOP in conjunction with BAC takes advantage of the partial oxidation products formed by AOP that are further utilized by microbes in BAC as substrate, thereby minimizing the DOC to the best possible concentration. NOM is partially oxidized and HMW compounds are transformed into smaller and more biodegradable compounds such as carboxylic acids and aldehydes (which are byproducts in the case of ozonation). Hydrogen peroxide is the most commonly used oxidant in AOPs, which remains unchanged in treated water and needs to be removed; BAC aids in that also. Sarathy et al. (2011) showed that raw water spiked with 10–12 mg/L of H2O2 after passing through the BAC column for 10 days (EBCT = 4.2 min) showed a 93% reduction in H2O2 and a 100% reduction with EBCT of 20 min. This H2O2 degradation in BAC can be attributed to the presence of catalase produced by bacterial species to protect themselves from external H2O2. A few studies that utilized AOP in conjunction with BAC for DOC removal are shown in Table 13. Table 13 Studies on AOP-BAC for NOM reduction
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY IN TERMS OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY PER ORDER (EEO)EEO is a figure of merit measure for electrical efficiency of the system. EEo is the amount of electrical energy (kW h) required to reduce contaminant by one order of magnitude in 1 m3 of water (Bolton et al. 1995; Sindelar et al. 2014): (1) (2) where P is lamp power (kW); t is time (hours); V is volume irradiated (L); Ci is initial concentration of the contaminant; Cf is final concentration of the contaminant; EEO is units kWh/m3/order; F is flow rate (m3/h) in flow through systems; k is pseudo first-order rate constant (min−1). Equation (1) can also be expressed in terms of rate constants (Stefan & Bolton 2005): EEO of less than 10 is generally considered as economically feasible (Andrews et al. 1995). EEO can be calculated in terms of either DOC or UV254. Various studies suggested AOP or oxidant alone is not feasible from an economical point of view, especially for water with high DOC values, giving higher EEO values (UV254 EEO: 11.9–45.6, DOC EEO: 43.4–196.5) (Sindelar et al. 2014). AOPs like TiO2 photolysis and sonolysis are not practical in terms of energy efficiency (Bolton et al. 1995). SUMMARYGrowing water demands combating heightening emerging contaminants in the water matrices calls for new advancements in the drinking water treatment sector. One such contaminant is DBP, especially THMs, which are formed upon reaction of chlorine (the most commonly used disinfectant) with NOM. THMs came into the limelight in 1970 and within the space of a year became a significant public health parameter in the USA with its first disinfection byproduct rule. Stringent guidelines are available across the globe for THMs but mostly for developed nations. The cognizance of THMs in developing nations like India is still lacking. THMs have proven to have a carcinogenic nature and thus need major focus from a public health point of view. For targeting THMs generally instead of targeting them directly, their precursors, i.e. NOM, are targeted as they are the root cause of other water quality issues in drinking water treatment industries. NOMs occur ubiquitously in surface water regimes and are site-specific too; their complexity in terms of their chemical nature makes it more difficult to treat them, especially from a THM point of view. The conventional treatment processes like coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration etc. are not able to remove NOM, especially in terms of its THMFP, and thus require a more advanced form of treatment. AOPs are promising a technology that can completely mineralize NOM but its high performance efficiency is compensated by its high cost (higher electrical energy per order), therefore there is a need to rely on a more techno-economically feasible option. AOP in conjunction with biofiltration or BAC is one such viable option. AOP with lower energy inputs can partially oxidize NOM into simpler or more biodegradable products which can be further removed by BAC column with no or minimum cost inputs, thereby making it overall a more techno-economically feasible way of treating NOM. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis work was financially supported by NBCC, India and FIG grant, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttrakhand, India. REFERENCESAhmad R. &Amirtharajah A. 1998 . J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 90 , 74 . Aiken G. R. , (ed.)1985 Humic Substances in Soil, Sediment, and Water: Geochemistry, Isolation, and Characterization , Vol. 1 . Wiley-Interscience , New York . Aiken G. ,McKnight D. M. ,Thorn K. A. &Thurman E. M. 1992 . Org. Geochem. 18 , 567 – 573 . Andrews S. A. ,Huck P. M. ,Chute A. J. ,Bolton J. R. &Anderson W. A. 1995 UV oxidation for drinking water–feasibility studies for addressing specific water quality issues . In: Proceedings of the AWWA WQTC , New Orleans, LA , pp. 1881 – 1898 . Ates N. ,Kitis M. &Yetis U. 2007 . Water Res. 41 , 4139 – 4148 . Basu M. ,Gupta S. K. ,Singh G. &Mukhopadhyay U. 2011 . Environ. Monit. Assess. 178 , 121 – 134 . Bazri M. M. ,Barbeau B. &Mohseni M. 2012 . Water Res. 46 , 5297 – 5304 . Bekbolet M. ,Uyguner C. S. ,Selcuk H. ,Rizzo L. ,Nikolaou A. D. ,Meric S. &Belgiorno V. 2005 . Desalination 176 , 155 – 166 . Bellar T. A. ,Lichtenberg J. J. &Kroner R. C. 1974 . J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 66 , 703 – 706 . Berggren M. ,Bergström A.-K. &Karlsson J. 2015 . PLoS ONE 10 , e0120575 . Billen G. ,Servais P. ,Bouillot P. &Ventresque C. 1992 Functioning of biological filters used in drinking water treatment-the Chabrol model . Aqua 41 , 231 – 241 . Black K. E. &Bérubé P. R. 2014 . Water Res. 52 , 40 – 50 . Bolton J. R. ,Bircher K. G. ,Tumas W. &Tolman C. A. 1995 . Pure Appl. Chem. 73 , 627 – 637 . Bond T. 2009 Treatment of Disinfection Byproduct Precursors . PhD Thesis , Cranfield University , UK . Bond T. ,Goslan E. H. ,Jefferson B. ,Roddick F. ,Fan L. &Parsons S. A. 2009 . Water Res. 43 ( 10 ), 2615 – 2622 . Bond T. ,Goslan E. H. ,Parsons S. A. &Jefferson B. 2012 . Environ. Technol. Rev. 1 , 93 – 113 . Borikar D. ,Mohseni M. &Jasim S. 2015 . Water Qual. Res. J. 50 , 140 – 151 . Chaudhary D. S. ,Vigneswaran S. ,Ngo H. H. ,Shim W. G. &Moon H. 2003 . Korean J. Chem. Eng. 20 ( 6 ), 1054 – 1065 . Chen K. C. &Wang Y. H. 2012 . Environ. Technol. 33 , 487 – 495 . Chen C. ,Zhang X. ,He W. ,Lu W. &Han H. 2007 . Sci. Total Environ. 382 , 93 – 102 . Chien C. C. ,Kao C. M. ,Chen C. W. ,Dong C. D. &Wu C. Y. 2008 . Chemosphere 71 , 1786 – 1793 . Chin A. &Bérubé P. R. 2005 . Water Res. 39 , 2136 – 2144 . Collins M. R. ,Eighmy T. T. ,Fenstermacher J. M. Jr &Spanos S. K. 1992 . J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 84 ( 5 ), 80 – 90 . Croue J. P. ,Debroux J. F. ,Amy G. L. ,Aiken G. R. &Leenheer J. A. 1999 Natural organic matter: structural characteristics and reactive properties . Formation Control of Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water . American Water Works Association , Denver, CO , pp. 65 – 93 . Davis W. M. ,Erickson C. L. ,Johnston C. T. ,Delfino J. J. &Porter J. E. 1999 . Chemosphere 38 , 2913 – 2928 . Dickenson E. R. ,Summers R. S. ,Croué J. P. &Gallard H. 2008 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 , 3226 – 3233 . Dodds L. ,King W. ,Woolcott C. &Pole J. 1999 . Epidemiology 10 ( 3 ), 233 – 237 . Dong L. ,Liu W. ,Jiang R. &Wang Z. 2015 . Int. Biodeter. Biodegrad. 102 , 209 – 213 . Edzwald J. 1993 . Water Sci. Technol. 27 , 21 – 35 . Edzwald J. K. &Tobiason J. E. 1999 . Water Sci. Technol. 40 , 63 – 70 . Fabris R. ,Chow C. W. ,Drikas M. &Eikebrokk B. 2008 . Water Res. 42 , 4188 – 4196 . Farkas L. ,Lewin M. &Bloch R. 1949 . J. Am. Chem. Soc. 71 ( 6 ), 1988 – 1991 . Fearing D. A. ,Goslan E. H. ,Banks J. ,Wilson D. ,Hillis P. ,Campbell A. T. &Parsons S. A. 2004 . J. Environ. Eng. 130 , 975 – 982 . Frimmel F. H. &Jahnel J. B. 2003 Formation of haloforms in drinking water . In: Haloforms and Related Compounds in Drinking Water. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry (Water Pollution) , vol 5/5G ( Nikolaou A. D. , ed.).Springer , Berlin, Heidelberg . Fu J. ,Lee W. N. ,Coleman C. ,Meyer M. ,Carter J. ,Nowack K. &Huang C. H. 2017 . Chemosphere 166 , 311 – 322 . Gallard H. &von Gunten U. 2002 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 ( 5 ), 884 – 890 . Ghernaout D. 2014 . J. King Saud Uni. Sci. 26 , 169 – 180 . Gibert O. ,Lefèvre B. ,Fernández M. ,Bernat X. ,Paraira M. &Pons M. 2013a . Water Res. 47 , 2821 – 2829 . Gibert O. ,Lefèvre B. ,Fernández M. ,Bernat X. ,Paraira M. ,Calderer M. &Martínez-Lladó X. 2013b . Water Res. 47 , 1101 – 1110 . Glaze W. H. ,Kang J. W. &Chapin D. H. 1987 . Ozone Sci. Eng. 9 ( 4 ), 335 – 352 . Golfinopoulos S. K. 2000 . Chemosphere 41 , 1761 – 1767 . Gomez-Alvarez V. ,Pfaller S. ,Pressman J. G. ,Wahman D. G. &Revetta R. P. 2016 . Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2 , 645 – 657 . Gorchev H. G. &Ozolins G. 1984 WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality . WHO Chron. 38 ( 3 ), 104 – 108 . Han L. ,Liu W. ,Chen M. ,Zhang M. ,Liu S. ,Sun R. &Fei X. 2013 . Water Res. 47 , 4861 – 4868 .
Hasan A. ,Thacker N. &Bassin J. 2010a Seasonal variation of trihalomethane formation potential in treated water supplies of Delhi City (India) . J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 52 , 235 – 240 . Hasan A. ,Thacker N. P. &Bassin J. 2010b . Environ. Monit. Assess. 168 , 489 – 497 . Her N. ,Amy G. ,McKnight D. ,Sohn J. &Yoon Y. 2003 . Water Res. 37 , 4295 – 4303 . Hong H. C. ,Wong M. H. &Liang Y. 2009 . Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 56 ( 4 ), 638 – 645 . Hua G. ,Reckhow D. A. &Abusallout I. 2015 . Chemosphere 130 , 82 – 89 . Hyde R. A. ,Hill D. G. ,Zabel T. F. &Burke T. 1987 . J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 79 ( 12 ), 33 – 38 . Ibrahim M. B. ,Radwan E. K. ,Moursy A. S. &Bedair A. H. 2016 . Desal. Water Treat. 57 ( 55 ), 26494 – 26500 . International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 1999 IARC monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Hum. 7 , 73 . Ivahnenko T. &Zogorski J. S. 2006 Sources and Occurrence of Chloroform and Other Trihalomethanes in Drinking-Water Supply Wells in the United States, 1986–2001 (No. 2006–5015) . US Geological Survey , USA . Karanfil T. ,Kitis M. ,Kilduff J. E. &Wigton A. 1999 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 33 ( 18 ), 3225 – 3233 . Kastl G. ,Sathasivan A. &Fisher I. 2016 . Desal. Water Treat. 57 , 7679 – 7689 . Kim J. &Kang B. 2008 . Water Res. 42 , 145 – 152 . Kitis M. ,Karanfil T. ,Kilduff J. E. &Wigton A. 2001 . Water Sci. Technol. 43 , 9 – 16 . Korotta-Gamage S. M. &Sathasivan A. 2017 . Chemosphere 167 , 120 – 138 . Korth A. ,Bendinger B. ,Czekalla C. &Wichmann K. 2001 Biodegradation of NOM in rapid sand filters for removing iron and manganese . Clean. Soil Air Water 29 , 289 – 295 . Krasner S. W. ,McGuire M. J. ,Jacangelo J. G. ,Patania N. L. ,Reagan K. M. &Aieta E. M. 1989 . J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 81 ( 8 ), 41 – 53 . Krasner S. W. ,Weinberg H. S. ,Richardson S. D. ,Pastor S. J. ,Chinn R. ,Sclimenti M. J. &Thruston A. D. 2006 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 , 7175 – 7185 . Kumari M. ,Gupta S. K. &Mishra B. K. 2015 . Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 113 , 433 – 438 . Lamsal R. ,Walsh M. E. &Gagnon G. A. 2011 . Water Res. 45 , 3263 – 3269 . Laurent P. ,Prévost M. ,Cigana J. ,Niquette P. &Servais P. 1999 . Water Res. 33 , 1387 – 1398 . Leenheer J. A. ,Noyes T. I. ,Rostad C. E. &Davisson M. L. 2004 . Biogeochemistry 69 , 125 – 141 . Lin H. C. &Wang G. S. 2011 . Desalination 270 , 221 – 226 . Liu S. ,Lim M. ,Fabris R. ,Chow C. ,Drikas M. &Amal R. 2010 . Org. Geochem. 41 , 124 – 129 . Lu J. ,Zhang T. ,Ma J. &Chen Z. 2009 . J. Hazard. Mater. 162 ( 1 ), 140 – 145 . Matilainen A. &Sillanpää M. 2010 . Chemosphere 80 , 351 – 365 . Matilainen A. ,Vepsäläinen M. &Sillanpää M. 2010 . Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 159 , 189 – 197 . Miltner R. J. ,Summers R. S. &Wang J. Z. 1995 . J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 87 , 64 – 70 . Mishra N. D. ,Dixit S. C. &Srivastava H. C. 2012 Evaluation of trihalomethane formation potential due to anthropogenic sources in the ground water of Kanpur . J. Chem. 9 , 693 – 699 . Molnar J. J. ,Agbaba J. R. ,Dalmacija B. D. ,Rončević S. D. ,Maletić S. P. &Kragulj M. M. 2011 A study on the removal of natural organic matter and disinfection byproducts formation potential from groundwater using Fenton's process . J. Adv. Oxi. Technol. 14 , 54 – 62 . Moncayo-Lasso A. ,Pulgarin C. &Benítez N. 2008 . Water Res. 42 , 4125 – 4132 . Moore B. C. ,Cannon F. S. ,Westrick J. A. ,Metz D. H. ,Shrive C. A. ,DeMarco J. &Hartman D. J. 2001 . Carbon 39 , 789 – 807 . Moreno-Castilla C. 2004 . Carbon 42 , 83 – 94 . Mortazavi S. B. ,Asgari G. ,Hashemian S. J. &Moussavi G. 2010 Degradation of humic acids through heterogeneous catalytic ozonation with bone charcoal . React. Kinet. Mech. Catalysis 100 , 471 – 485 . Murray C. A. &Parsons S. A. 2004 . Chemosphere 54 , 1017 – 1023 . Musikavong C. ,Wattanachira S. ,Marhaba T. F. &Pavasant P. 2005 . J. Hazard. Mater 127 , 48 – 57 . National Cancer Institute, USA 1976 US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC . . Nebbioso A. &Piccolo A. 2013 . Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 405 , 109 – 124 . Nishijima W. &Speitel G. E. 2004 . Chemosphere 56 , 113 – 119 . Parsons S. , (ed.)2004 Advanced Oxidation Processes for Water and Wastewater Treatment . IWA Publishing , London . Philippe K. K. ,Hans C. ,MacAdam J. ,Jefferson B. ,Hart J. &Parsons S. A. 2010 Environmental Technology 31 ( 13 ), 1423 – 1434 . https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2010.484074. Putz A. R. ,Losh D. E. &Speitel G. E. Jr2005 . J. Environ. Eng. 131 ( 2 ), 196 – 205 . Rahman M. F. ,Jasim S. Y. ,Yanful E. K. ,Ndiongue S. &Borikar D. 2010 . Ozone Sci. Eng. 32 ( 5 ), 295 – 304 . Rajan S. ,Azariah J. &Bauer U. 1990 Trihalomethane levels in Madras public drinking water supply system and its impact on public health . Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Med. 189 ( 4 ), 312 – 332 . Ramavandi B. ,Farjadfard S. ,Ardjmand M. &Dobaradaran S. 2015 . Water Resour. Ind. 11 , 1 – 12 . Richardson S. D. 2003 . TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 22 , 666 – 684 . Rodriguez M. J. ,Vinette Y. ,Sérodes J. B. &Bouchard C. 2003 . Environ. Monit. Assess. 89 , 69 – 93 . Rook J. J. 1974 Formation of haloforms during chlorination of natural waters . Water Treat. Exam. 23 , 234 – 243 . Rook J. J. 1977 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 , 478 – 482 . Sarathy S. &Mohseni M. 2008 . Can. J. Civil Eng. 36 ( 1 ), 160 – 169 . Sarathy S. &Mohseni M. 2010 . Water Res. 44 , 4087 – 4096 . Sarathy S. R. ,Stefan M. I. ,Royce A. &Mohseni M. 2011 . Environ. Technol. 32 , 1709 – 1718 . Seredyńska-Sobecka B. ,Tomaszewska M. ,Janus M. &Morawski A. W. 2006 . Water Res. 40 , 355 – 363 . Servais P. ,Billen G. &Bouillot P. 1994 . J. Environ. Eng. 120 , 888 – 899 . Sharma R. N. &Goel S. 2007 Chlorinated drinking water, cancers and adverse health outcomes in Gangtok, Sikkim, India . J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 49 , 247 . Sharp E. L. ,Jarvis P. ,Parsons S. A. &Jefferson B. 2006 . Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 286 , 104 – 111 . Sillanpää M. &Matilainen A. 2014 NOM removal by coagulation. Natural organic matter in water: characterization and treatment methods . Butterworth-Heinemann , pp. 55 – 80 . https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801503-2.00003-3 . Simpson D. R. 2008 . Water Res. 42 , 2839 – 2848 . Sindelar H. R. ,Brown M. T. &Boyer T. H. 2014 . Chemosphere 105 , 112 – 118 . Singer P. C. 1999 . Water Sci. Technol. 40 , 25 – 30 . Stefan M. I. &Bolton J. R. 2005 . J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 4 ( S1 ), S13 – S18 . Suffet I. H. &MacCarthy P. , (eds)1988 Aquatic Humic Substances: Influence on Fate and Treatment of Pollutants . American Chemical Society , Washington, DC . Świetlik J. ,Dąbrowska A. ,Raczyk-Stanisławiak U. &Nawrocki J. 2004 . Water Res. 38 , 547 – 558 . Tak S. &Kumar A. 2017 . Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 , 26269 – 26278 . Thacker N. P. ,Kaur P. &Rudra A. 2002 . Environ. Monit. Assess. 73 , 253 – 262 . Thurman E. M. &Malcolm R. L. 1981 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 15 ( 4 ), 463 – 466 . Toor R. &Mohseni M. 2007 . Chemosphere 66 , 2087 – 2095 . Trang V. N. ,Dan N. P. ,Phuong L. D. &Thanh B. X. 2014 . Desal. Water Treat. 52 , 990 – 998 . Tubić A. ,Dalmacija B. ,Agbaba J. ,Ivančev-Tumbas I. ,Klašnja M. &Dalmacija M. 2010 . Water Sci. Technol. 61 , 3169 – 3177 . Tubić A. ,Agbaba J. ,Dalmacija B. Perović S. U. ,Klašnja M. ,Rončević S. &Ivančev-Tumbas I. 2011 . Ozone Sci. Eng. 33 , 267 – 278 . USEPA 1983 Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water: Sampling, Analysis, Monitoring, and Compliance . Office of Drinking Water , Washington, DC . . Urfer D. &Huck P. M. 2001 . Water Res. 35 , 1469 – 1477 . Uyak V. &Toroz I. 2007 . J. Hazard. Mater. 141 , 320 – 328 . Van Verseveld W. J. ,Lajtha K. &McDonnell J. J. 2007 Fingerprinting dissolved organic carbon (DOC) sources with specific UV absorbance (SUVA) and fluorescence . In: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting , abstract id. H53G-1510 . Vasyukova E. ,Proft R. ,Jousten J. ,Slavik I. &Uhl W. 2013 . Water Sci. Technol. Water Suppl. 13 , 1099 – 1108 . Velten S. ,Boller M. ,Köster O. ,Helbing J. ,Weilenmann H. U. &Hammes F. 2011 . Water Res. 45 , 6347 – 6354 . Vickers J. C. ,Thompson M. A. &Kelkar U. G. 1995 . Desalination 102 , 57 – 61 . Villanueva C. M. ,Cantor K. P. ,Grimalt J. O. ,Malats N. ,Silverman D. ,Tardon A. &Marcos R. 2006 . Am. J. Epidemiol. 165 ( 2 ), 148 – 156 . Villanueva C. M. ,Cordier S. ,Font-Ribera L. ,Salas L. A. &Levallois P. 2015 . Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2 , 107 – 115 . Von Gunten U. 2003 . Water Res. 37 , 1443 – 1467 . Wang G. S. ,Liao C. H. ,Chen H. W. &Yang H. C. 2006 . Environ. Technol. 27 , 277 – 287 . Wang G. S. ,Deng Y. C. &Lin T. F. 2007 . Sci. Total Environ. 387 , 86 – 95 . Wang C. C. ,Niu Z. G. &Zhang Y. 2013 . J. Hazard. Mater. 262 , 179 – 188 .
Wang H. W. ,Li X. Y. ,Hao Z. P. ,Sun Y. J. ,Wang Y. N. ,Li W. H. &Tsang Y. F. 2017 . J. Environ. Manage. 191 , 244 – 251 . Wei Q. S. ,Feng C. H. ,Wang D. S. ,Shi B. Y. ,Zhang L. T. ,Wei Q. &Tang H. X. 2008 . J. Hazard. Mater. 150 , 257 – 264 . Weishaar J. L. ,Aiken G. R. ,Bergamaschi B. A. ,Fram M. S. ,Fujii R. &Mopper K. 2003 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 , 4702 – 4708 . Werner D. ,Valdivia-Garcia M. ,Weir P. &Haffey M. 2016 . Water Environ. J. 30 ( 3–4 ), 271 – 277 . Wershaw R. L. 2004 Evaluation of Conceptual Models of Natural Organic Matter (Humus) From A Consideration of the Chemical and Biochemical Processes of Humification . . Wershaw R. L. ,Leenheer J. A. &Cox L. G. 2005 Characterization of Dissolved and Particulate Natural Organic Matter (NOM) in Neversink Reservoir, New York . US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5108 , New York , 19 p. Westerhoff P. ,Chao P. &Mash H. 2004 . Water Res. 38 , 1502 – 1513 . Westerhoff P. ,Mezyk S. P. ,Cooper W. J. &Minakata D. 2007 . Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 , 4640 – 4646 . Winter A. R. ,Fish T. A. E. ,Playle R. C. ,Smith D. S. &Curtis P. J. 2007 . Aquat. Toxicol. 84 , 215 – 222 . W. ,Ngo H. H. ,Kim S. H. ,Guo W. S. &Hagare P. 2008 . Bioresour. Technol. 99 , 8674 – 8678 . Yan M. ,Wang D. ,You S. ,Qu J. &Tang H. 2006 . Water Res. 40 , 3621 – 3627 . Yang X. ,Meng F. ,Huang G. ,Sun L. &Lin Z. 2014 . Water Res. 62 , 281 – 292 . Yapsakli K. &Çeçen F. 2010 . Proc. Biochem. 45 , 355 – 362 . Zhang P. &Jian L. 2006 . Water Sci. Technol. Water Suppl. 6 , 53 – 61 . Zhao Y. X. ,Gao B. Y. ,Zhang G. Z. ,Qi Q. B. ,Wang Y. ,Phuntsho S. &Li Q. 2014 . Separ. Purif. Technol. 130 , 19 – 27 . Impact Factor 2.264 CiteScore 3.3 • Q2 32 days from submission to first decision on average Submit Now Cited byHow does organic matter affect the contact time of a disinfectant?As discussed in other studies, organic matter may reduce the effectiveness of disinfectants by interacting with the active ingredients and by forming a physical barrier that could hinder contact between disinfectants and microorganisms (19).
Should you clean before you disinfect?Surfaces should be cleaned before they are sanitized or disinfected because impurities like dirt may make it harder for chemicals to get to and kill germs. Sanitizing reduces the remaining germs on surfaces after cleaning. Disinfecting can kill viruses and bacteria that remain on surfaces after cleaning.
Why is it so important to follow the sterilization procedures?Disinfection and sterilization are essential for ensuring that medical and surgical instruments do not transmit infectious pathogens to patients.
When disinfecting tools must be pre cleaned before?(1) Implements and surfaces shall first be thoroughly cleaned of all visible debris prior to disinfection. EPA-registered bactericidal, fungicidal, and virucidal disinfectants become inactivated and ineffective when visibly contaminated with debris, hair, dirt and particulates.
|
Why is it important to remove all organic matter from an article before it is disinfected
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 membukakan Inc.
