Selecting the most environmentally friendly oxidant for UVC degradation of micropollutants in urban wastewater by assessing life cycle impacts: Hydrogen peroxide, peroxymonosulfate or persulfate?

The quality of water bodies has been decreasing over time. Urban wastewater treatment plants (UWWTPs) are key players to avoid that potentially toxic micropollutants reach the environment, and advanced treatment processes are being applied to address this issue. However, several variables have to be taken into account, particularly environmental sustainability. The aim of this study is to assess the life cycle impacts of combining UVC with different oxidants - hydrogen peroxide (HO), peroxymonosulfate (PMS) and persulfate (PS) -, considering different concentrations (0.05, 0.20 and 0.50 mM) and UVC dosages of 42, 63 and 170 J/L, corresponding to UV contact times of 4, 7 and 18 s in a specific industrial equipment. UVC/PMS was the worst performing process (despite being able to achieve removals similar to UVC/HO), followed by UVC/PS. Both would only be preferred relatively to HO if much lower concentrations of PMS or PS could be used to achieve the same removal of micropollutants (10 times lower was not enough). Additionally, PMS and PS production contributes more to the environmental footprint than the electricity use, unlike HO. Therefore even if considering lower treatment times when using sulfate-based oxidants, these will still be more impactful than using HO at the studied conditions. Based on both avoided and generated impacts, HO is the best option environmentally. In this case, the environmental impacts are more affected by an increase in treatment time rather than by an increase in the HO concentration. It is thus best to opt for a higher concentration and the lowest treatment time possible for a significant ecotoxicity reduction. Electricity is a relevant parameter in all cases and its impact can be reduced in nearly all endpoint categories by opting for cleaner energy sources.