Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Organic Carbon Removal by Advanced Waste Water Treatment Processes.
Author DeWalle, F. B. ; Light, W. G. ; Chian, E. S. K. ;
CORP Author Abcor, Inc., Wilmington, MA. ;Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta. Dept. of Civil Engineering. ;Washington Univ., Seattle. Dept. of Environmental Health.;Municipal Environmental Research Lab., Cincinnati, OH.
Year Published 1982
Report Number EPA-68-03-2850; EPA-600/J-82-432;
Stock Number PB84-213107
Additional Subjects Sewage treatment ; Organic compounds ; Water treatment ; Potable water ; Ion exchanging ; Oxidizers ; Economic analysis ; Ozone ; Reprints ; Water reclamation ; Physical chemical treatment ; Reverse osmosis ; Ultraviolet irradiation
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
NTIS  PB84-213107 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 06/23/1988
Collation 8p
Fourteen physical-chemical processes singularly or in combination were evaluated for their ability to remove dissolved organic carbon in the effluent of a wastewater reclamation facility treating secondary effluent. The objective of the study was to produce a product water with organic content sufficiently low to permit reuse as potable water. The processes included reverse osmosis (RO), ion exchange/resin adsorption, ultraviolet irradiation (UV) and six chemical oxidants evaluated alone or in combination with other processes. The comprehensive data generated by the present study indicate that low organic carbon removals in AWT effluent are achieved by ion-exchange/adsorption processes possibly because preceding activated carbon has removed most of the adsorbable fulvic-like materials. Among the six oxidants evaluated, only ozone and hydrogen peroxide resulted in substantial removals. The largest organic carbon removals were observed with reverse osmosis at an 85% permeate recovery. An economic analysis indicated that annual RO operating costs were comparable to ozone/UV while producing a better effluent quality.