Lui Gough Yumu, Roser David, Corkish Richard, Ashbolt Nicholas J, Stuetz Richard
UNSW Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; School of Photovoltaics and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
UNSW Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Sci Total Environ. 2016 May 15;553:626-635. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.039. Epub 2016 Mar 22.
Improvements in point-of-use (POU) drinking water disinfection technologies for remote and regional communities are urgently needed. Conceptually, UV-C light-emitting diodes (LEDs) overcome many drawbacks of low-pressure mercury tube based UV devices, and UV-A or visible light LEDs also show potential. To realistically evaluate the promise of LED disinfection, our study assessed the performance of a model 1.3 L reactor, similar in size to solar disinfection bottles. In all, 12 different commercial or semi-commercial LED arrays (270-740 nm) were compared for their ability to inactivate Escherichia coli K12 ATCC W3110 and Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 19433 over 6h. Five log10 and greater reductions were consistently achieved using the 270, 365, 385 and 405 nm arrays. The output of the 310 nm array was insufficient for useful disinfection while 430 and 455 nm performance was marginal (≈ 4.2 and 2.3-log10s E. coli and E. faecalis over the 6h). No significant disinfection was observed with the 525, 590, 623, 660 and 740 nm arrays. Delays in log-phase inactivation of E. coli were observed, particularly with UV-A wavelengths. The radiation doses required for >3-log10 reduction of E. coli and E. faecalis differed by 10 fold at 270 nm but only 1.5-2.5 fold at 365-455 nm. Action spectra, consistent with the literature, were observed with both indicators. The design process revealed cost and technical constraints pertaining to LED electrical efficiency, availability and lifetime. We concluded that POU LED disinfection using existing LED technology is already technically possible. UV-C LEDs offer speed and energy demand advantages, while UV-A/violet units are safer. Both approaches still require further costing and engineering development. Our study provides data needed for such work.
偏远和地区社区急需改进终端使用(POU)饮用水消毒技术。从概念上讲,紫外线C(UV-C)发光二极管(LED)克服了基于低压汞管的紫外线设备的许多缺点,紫外线A(UV-A)或可见光LED也显示出潜力。为了切实评估LED消毒的前景,我们的研究评估了一个1.3升反应器的性能,其尺寸与太阳能消毒瓶相似。总共比较了12种不同的商业或半商业LED阵列(270 - 740纳米)在6小时内灭活大肠杆菌K12 ATCC W3110和粪肠球菌ATCC 19433的能力。使用270、365、385和405纳米阵列始终能实现5个对数级及以上的减少。310纳米阵列的输出不足以进行有效消毒,而430和455纳米的性能勉强达标(在6小时内对大肠杆菌和粪肠球菌约为4.2和2.3个对数级的减少)。使用525、590、623、660和740纳米阵列未观察到明显的消毒效果。观察到大肠杆菌对数期灭活存在延迟,特别是在UV-A波长下。在270纳米处,大肠杆菌和粪肠球菌减少>3个对数级所需的辐射剂量相差10倍,但在365 - 455纳米处仅相差1.5 - 2.5倍。两种指标均观察到与文献一致的作用光谱。设计过程揭示了与LED电效率、可用性和寿命相关的成本和技术限制。我们得出结论,使用现有LED技术进行POU LED消毒在技术上已经可行。UV-C LED具有速度和能源需求优势,而UV-A/紫光装置更安全。两种方法仍需要进一步的成本核算和工程开发。我们的研究为此类工作提供了所需的数据。