The Removal of Pollutants by Sonication using Nitrogen Gas in Textile
Industry Wastewater: Comparison of Energy Consumption and Cost
Analysis with Other Advanced Oxidation Processes
RUKİYE ÖZTEKİN1, DELİA TERESA SPONZA2
1,2Department of Environmental Engineering, Engineering Faculty,
Dokuz Eylül University,
Tınaztepe Campus, 35160 Buca, Izmir,
TURKEY
Abstract: - In this study, the effects of ambient conditions, the effects of increasing sonication time (60 min,
120 and 150 min), increasing temperatures (25o C, 30oC and 60oC), different nitrogen gas sparging {15 min [3
mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min [6 mg/l N2(g)]} on sonication at a textile industry wastewater (TI ww) treatment plant
in Izmir (Turkey) containing toxic and resistant pollutants was investigated in 500 ml glass reactor, at 640 W
sonication power, at 35 kHz sonication frequency has been researched. The maximum removal yields
were measured to 98.23% chemical oxygen demand-dissolved (CODdis), 95.30% color and 68.08% total
aromatic amines (TAAs), at 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging after 150 min sonication time, at pH=7.0 and
at 60oC in TI ww, respectively. In the final stage of this study, the energy and costs used for the sonication
process were compared in detail with the other Advanced Oxidation Process (AOPs) methods. Statistical
analysis was also investigated for operational conditions. Finally, sonication at 35 kHz proved to be a viable
tool for the effective removal of CODdis, color and TAAs from TI ww, providing a cost-effective alternative for
destroying and detoxifying the refractory compounds in TI ww, respectively. Also, this study showed that the
energy requirements of the sonication process is lower than the other AOPs.
Key-Words: - Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs); Comparion of energy consumption; Cost analysis;
Hydroxyl radicals (OH); Nitrogen (N2) gas sparging; Textile industry wastewater (TI ww); Sonication;
Statistical analysis (ANOVA); Ultrasound (US); Ultraviolet (UV).
Received: July 19, 2022. Revised: October 16, 2022. Accepted: November 17, 2022. Published: January 30, 2023.
1 Introduction
Textile industries generate a number of pollutants,
which they discharge to the surrounding
environment without any further treatment, [1].
These pollutants not only add color to water but also
cause extensive toxicity to aquatic and other forms
of life, [2]. About 10%–15% of the total dyes from
various textile and other industries get discharged in
wastewater causing extensive pollution, [1], [2].
Therefore, the treatment of industrial effluents
containing polyaromatic and polyphenolic
compounds becomes necessary prior to their final
discharge to the environment. Conventional
methods for the effective removal of phenols,
polyphenols, aromatic amines and dyes are outdated
due to certain inherent limitations that they have,
[3]. The recalcitrant nature of textile effluents
largely containing high concentrations of dyestuffs,
salts, acids, bases, surfactants, dispersants,
humectants, oxidants and detergents renders these
waters aesthetically unacceptable and unusable.
Textile dyes are well-known mutagens and
carcinogens posing risks to various ecosystems,
animals’ health and agriculture, [4]. Therefore, the
treatment of these high volumes of wastewater
becomes crucial. Available techniques such as
physical and biological adsorption, membrane
filtration, oxidation, ozonation and microbial
biodegradation are generally employed for
remediation of dye containing effluents. These
treatment and removal practices are not always
followed as per the governing standards and thus
ultimately cause serious pollution. These approaches
are expensive and unaffordable for small-scale
industries and processors, [5].
It was shown that the complex structures of
amino-azo benzene dyes and their various
derivatives may lead to mutagenesis, which is a
major cause of cancer, [6]. The International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
declared benzidine-like dyes to be extremely
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
45
Volume 19, 2023
powerful carcinogens to many mammals and,
alarmingly, human beings, [7]. Experiments on
Swiss albino rats as model organisms have shown
the toxicity of TI ww to animals, [8]. TI ww
effluents are characterized by alkaline reaction,
significant salinity, intensive color and toxicity, [9].
As a result, colored wastewater is emitted to the
aquatic environment, where it creates problems for
photosynthetic aquatic plants and algae, [10], [11],
[12]. Some of them or their degradation products are
toxic, mutagenic or cytotoxic, [13], [14], [15].
The textile industries use enormous amounts of
H2O and chemicals for the wet processing of textiles
and also use various types of dyes to impart
attractive colors of commercial importance. The
wastewater let out by the textile industries generally
contain about 10% of dyes used for the textile
coloration, [16]. These dye stuff include various
types like acidic, basic, azo, reactive,
anthroquinone-based compounds and among these
azo dyes are widely used by the industries. Further,
azo dyes contribute about 60–70% of the total
dyestuff produced, [17]. The application of
ultrasound as an alternative to the removal of dyes
in waters has become of increasing interest in recent
years, [18, 19]. This technique is considered as an
AOP that generates hydroxyl radicals (OH●) through
acoustic cavitation, which can be defined as the
cyclic formation, growth and collapse of
microbubbles. Fast collapse of bubbles compressed
adiabatically entrapped gas and vapors which leads
to short and local hot spots, [20]. In the final stage
of the collapse, the temperature inside the residual
bubble or in the surrounding liquid is thought to be
above 5000oC. The OH● and hydroperoxyl radicals
(O2H●) can be generated from H2O and O2, [21].
The sonochemical activity arises mainly from
acoustic cavitation in liquid media. The acoustic
cavitation occurring near a solid surface will
generate microjets which will facilitate the liquid to
move with a higher velocity resulting in increased
diffusion of solute inside the pores of the TI ww,
[22], [23]. In the case of sonication, localized
temperature raised and swelling effects due to
ultrasound may also improve the diffusion. The
stable cavitation bubbles oscillate which is
responsible for the enhanced molecular motion and
stirring effect of ultrasound. In case of cotton dyeing
TI ww, the effects produced due to stable cavitation
may be realized at the interface of fabric and colored
solution. Mass transport intensification using a
conventional approach such as very high elevated
temperatures ( > 500oC), is not always feasible, due
to undesired side-effects such as fabric damage.
About 87% and 81% CODdis yields were achieved
using 40 min and 50 min ultrasound time,
respectively, while compared to only 48% and
28.9% CODdis removals in the absence of ultrasound
in TI ww at 25oC, [24].
Aerobic, anaerobic and sequential anaerobic–
aerobic reactors were used for aromatic amine
removals, [25], [26], [27]. Moreover, biological
treatment with chemical physical processes such as
adsorption on waste sludge and activated carbon,
photochemical oxidation and membrane
nanofiltration can be used, although the cost is high,
[27], [28], [29], [30], [31].
In recent years, AOPs have emerged as
potentially powerful methods that are capable of
transforming the pollutants into harmless
substances, [32], and that almost all rely on the
generation of very reactive free radicals, such as the
OH●, [33]. AOPs, generally involving H2O2, O3 or
Fenton’s reagent as oxidative species for the
destruction of contaminants, are alternative
techniques for eliminating dyes and other organics
in wastewater, [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].
Semiconductor photocatalysis has emerged as a
promising AOP that provides solutions to many
environmental pollution problems, [35], [36], [37],
[38].
The operating costs appear to be less severe than
would be required by conventional thermochemical
methods (e.g. wet air oxidation), which require high
temperatures and pressures, [39], [40]. Furthermore,
the sonication process does not require the use of
extra chemicals (e.g. oxidants and catalysts)
commonly employed in several AOPs (e.g.
ozonation, Fenton’s reagent), thus avoiding the
respective costs as well as the need to remove the
excess of toxic compounds prior to discharge.
Among them, ultrasonic treatment has been used
widely because of its relatively low processing cost
and high efficiency of reduction. Studies have
shown that polyaromatic amines and color in water
and wastewaters are degraded with ultrasonic
treatment with stronger irradiation intensity and
longer irradiation time.
In this study, the effects of ambient conditions,
the effects of increasing sonication time (60 min,
120 min and 150 min), increasing temperatures
(30oC and 60oC), different nitrogen gas [N2(g)]
sparging {15 min [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min [6 mg/l
N2(g)]} on sonication at a TI ww treatment plant in
Izmir (Turkey) containing toxic and resistant
pollutants was investigated in 500 ml glass reactor,
at 640 W sonication power, at 35 kHz sonication
frequency, respectively. In the final stage of this
study, the energy and costs used for the sonication
process were compared in detail with other AOPs
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
46
Volume 19, 2023
methods. Statistical analysis was also investigated
for operational conditions.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Raw Wastewater
The TI ww used in this study contains color ( >
70.90 1/m), TAAs ( > 1296 mg benzidine/l), COD (
> 770 mg/l) and high BOD5 ( > 251 mg/l)
concentrations and a BOD5/COD ratio of 0.33,
respectively. The characterization of TI ww was
shown in Table 1 for minimum, medium and
maximum values, respectively. All measurements
were carried out three times and the results are
given as the means of the triplicate samplings
with standard deviation (SD) values.
Table 1. Characterization values of TI ww (n=3,
mean values ± SD).
Parameters
Values
Minimum
Maximum
pH
5±0.18
6 ± 0.21
DO (mg/l)
1.3 ± 0.05
1.5 ± 0.05
ORP (mV)
85 ± 2.98
128 ± 4.48
TSS (mg/l)
285 ± 9.98
430 ± 15.05
TVSS (mg/l)
192 ± 6.72
290 ± 10.15
CODtotal (mg/l)
931.7 ±
32.61
1409.2 ±
49.32
CODdissolved
(mg/l)
770.4 ±
26.96
1165.22 ±
40.78
TOC (mg/l)
462.4 ±
16.18
700 ± 24.50
BOD5 (mg/l)
251.5 ±
8.8
380.38 ±
13.31
BOD5/CODdis
0.26 ±
0.01
0.4 ± 0.014
Total N (mg/l)
24.8 ±
0.87
37.51 ± 1.31
NH4-N (mg/l)
1.76 ±
0.06
2.66 ± 0.09
NO3-N (mg/l)
8 ± 0.28
12.1 ± 0.42
NO2-N (mg/l)
0.13 ±
0.05
0.19 ± 0.07
Total P (mg/l)
8.8 ± 0.31
13.3 ± 0.47
PO4-P (mg/l)
6.4 ± 0.22
9.68 ± 0.34
Total phenol
(mg/l)
29.6 ±
1.04
44.8 ± 1.57
SO4-2 (mg/l)
1248 ±
43.7
1888 ±66.1
Color (1/m)
70.9 ±
2.48
107.2±3.75
TAAs (mg
benzidine/l)
1296 ±
45.36
1960± 68.6
2.2 Configuration of Sonicator
A Bandelin Electronic RK510 H (Bandelin, Berlin,
Germany) sonicator was used for sonication of the
TI ww samples. The sonication frequency and
sonication power were 35 kHz and 640 W,
respectively. Glass serum bottles in a glass reactor
were filled to 500 ml with raw ww and closed with
teflon-coated stoppers for the measurement of
volatile compounds (evaporation) of the raw ww.
The evaporation losses of samples were estimated to
be 0.01% in the reactor and, therefore, assumed to
be negligible. The serum bottles were filled with 0.1
ml of methanol in order to prevent adsorption on the
walls of the bottles and to minimize evaporation.
Ultrasonic waves for 35 kHz sonication frequency
were emitted from the bottom of the reactor through
a piezoelectric disc (4 cm diameter) fixed on a pyrex
plate (5 cm diameter). The evaporation losses of
volatile matter; It was electronically regulated in
two thermostatically heated sonicators at 30oC and
60oC temperatures. The stainless steel sonicator was
equipped with a teflon holder to prevent temperature
losses. In recent studies, have shown that high
ultrasound frequencies of 80 kHz and 150 kHz; It
has been shown that the investigated parameters and
the studied parameters do not increase their
efficiencies, [41]. Therefore, It was studied at a
sonication frequency of 35 kHz and at a sonication
power of 640 W. Increasing the sonication
frequency did not increase the number of free
radicals, therefore free radicals did not escape from
the bubbles and did not produce enough OH ions,
[41], [42].
2.3 Operational Conditions
The effects of ambient conditions (25oC), increasing
sonication time (60 min, 120 min and 150 min),
sonication temperature (30oC and 60oC) on the
sonication of wastewater from TI ww treatment
plant in Izmir, Turkey was investigated. 5 minutes
before the start of the ultrasound, the TI ww was
pH=5.4. Sonicated samples were taken at 60th,
120th and 150th min of sonication time and were
kept in a refrigerator with a temperature of +4oC for
experimental analysis. Deionized pure H2O (R ¼ 18
MΩ/cm) was obtained through a SESA Ultrapure
water system.
All experiments were in batch mode by using an
ultrasonic transducer (horn-type), which has five
adjustable active acoustical vibration areas of 12.43
cm2, 13.84 cm2, 17.34 cm2, 26.4 cm2 and 40.69 cm2,
with diameters of 3.98 cm, 4.41 cm, 4.7 cm, 5.8 cm
and 7.2 cm, with input ultrasound powers of 120 W,
350 W, 640 W, 3000 W and 5000 W, with
ultrasound frequencies of 25 kHz, 35 kHz, 132 kHz,
170 kHz and 350 kHz, with ultrasound intensities of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
47
Volume 19, 2023
15.7 W/cm2, 24.2 W/cm2, 36.9 W/cm2, 46.2 W/cm2
and 51.4 W/cm2, with power densities of 0.1 W/ml,
0.9 W/ml, 1.65 W/ml, 1.9 W/ml, 2.14 W/ml, with
specific energies of 2.4 kWh/kg.CODinfluent, 3.1
kWh/kg.CODinfluent, 4.1 kWh/kg.CODinfluent, 5.1
kWh/kg.CODinfluent and 11.5 kWh/kg.CODinfluent,
respectively. It was chosen to identify for maximum
removal of pollutant parameters (CODdis, color and
total aromatic amines) in the TI ww at the bottom of
the reactor through a piezoelectric disc (4-cm
diameter) fixed on a pyrex plate (5-cm diameter).
2.4 Analytical Methods
pH, temperature [T(oC)], oxidation reduction
potential [ORP (mV)], total suspended solids (TSS),
total volatile suspended solids (TVSS), dissolved
oxygen (DO), biological oxygen demand 5-days
(BOD5), total chemical oxygen demand (CODtotal),
dissolved chemical oxygen demand (CODdis), total
organic carbon (TOC) were monitored according to
Standard Methods 2550, 2580, 2540 C, 2540 E,
5210 B, 5220 D, 5310, 5520 B, respectively, [43].
Total nitrogen (Total-N), ammonium nitrogen (NH4-
N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), nitrite nitrogen (NO2-
N), total phosphorus (Total-P), phosphate
phosphorus (PO4-P), total phenol and sulfate ion
(SO4-2) were measured with cell test spectroquant
kits (Merck, Germany) at a spectroquant NOVA 60
(Merck, Germany) spectrophotometer (2003). The
characterization of TI ww was shown in Table 1 for
minimum, medium and maximum values. The
measurement of color was carried out following the
approaches described by Olthof and Eckenfelder,
[44], and Eckenfelder, [45]. According these
methods, the color content was determined by
measuring the absorbance at three wavelengths (445
nm, 540 nm and 660 nm), and taking the sum of the
absorbances at these wavelengths. In order to
identify the TAAs, TI ww (25 ml) was acidified at
pH=2.0 with a few drops of 6 N hydrochloric acid
(HCl) and extracted three times with 25 ml of ethyl
acetate. The pooled organic phases were dehydrated
on sodium sulphate, filtered and dried under
vacuum. The residue was sylilated with bis
(trimethylsylil) trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) in
dimethylformamide and analyzed by gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry-mass
spectrometry (GC-MS). Mass spectra were recorded
using aVGTS 250 spectrometer equipped with a
capillary SE 52 column (0.25 mm ID, 25 m) at
220oC with an isothermal program for 10 min.
TAAs were measured using retention times and
mass spectra analysis.
2.5 Statistical Analysis
ANOVA analysis of variance between experimental
data was performed to detect F and P values. The
ANOVA test was used to test the differences
between dependent and independent groups, [46].
Comparison between the actual variation of the
experimental data averages and standard deviation is
expressed in terms of F ratio. F is equal (found
variation of the date averages/expected variation of
the date averages). P reports the significance level,
and d.f indicates the number of degrees of freedom.
Regression analysis was applied to the experimental
data in order to determine the regression coefficient
R2, [47]. The aforementioned test was performed
using Microsoft Excel Program.
All experiments were carried out three times and
the results are given as the means of triplicate
samplings. The data relevant to the individual
pollutant parameters are given as the mean with
standard deviation (SD) values.
3 Results and Discussions
3.1 Effect of N2(g) on the Removals of CODdis
in TI ww
93.10% and 96.21% CODdis removals were
observed under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30
min N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging, respectively,
after 150 min sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at
30oC, respectively (Fig. 1a). 11.53% and 14.68%
increase in CODdis removals were obtained under 15
min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l
N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 30oC, respectively,
and compared to the control (without N2(g)
sparging, E=74.27% CODdis at pH=7.0 and at 30oC,
respectively). A significant linear correlation
between CODdis yields and increasing N2(g)
sparging was observed (R2=0.91, F=18.11, p=0.01)
(Fig. 1a).
95.22% and 98.23% CODdis yields were found
under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g)
[6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively
(Fig. 1b). The contribution of N2(g) sparging on
CODdis removals were 10.30% and 13.31% under 15
min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l
N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 at 60oC, respectively, and
compared to the control (E=84.92% CODdis at
pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively). The maximum
CODdis removal efficiency was 98.23% at 30 min
N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
48
Volume 19, 2023
A significant linear correlation between CODdis
yields and increasing N2(g) sparging was observed
(R2=0.92, F=18.12, p=0.01) (Fig. 1b).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1: Effect of increasing N2(g) sparging on the
CODdis removal efficiencies in TI ww at (a) 30oC
and (b) 60oC versus increasing sonication times
(sonication power=640 W, sonication frequency=35
kHz, initial CODdis concentration=962.99 mg/l, n=3,
mean values).
In principle, N2(g) sparging enhances
sonochemical activity as gases act as nucleation
sites for cavitation. There are three properties of
gases that can affect sonochemical activity, namely:
(i) The polytropic ratio since the maximum
temperatures and pressures achieved upon bubble
collapse increase with increasing polytropic ratio,
[48, 49], (ii) gas thermal conductivity. Although,
bubble collapse is modeled as adiabatic, there is
always a small amount of heat dissipated upon
collapse; therefore, gases with low thermal
conductivities should reduce heat dissipation, thus
favoring increased collapse temperatures and
consequently increasing sonochemical activity, (iii)
gas solubility. As solubility increases, more
nucleation sites become available, thus facilitating
cavitation. N2(g) has a greater polytropic ratio (i.e.
1.67 against 1.4), lower thermal conductivity (17.90
against 26.30 mW/m.K at 27oC) and is slightly more
soluble (5.60 against 4.90 ml/100 ml H2O) than O2
and all these would explain the increased reactivity
observed with N2(g), [50].
In a study performed by Kritikos et al., [50], 97%
COD removal was accomplished in a TI ww
containing 120 mg/l Reactive Black 5, at 80 kHz, at
135 W, under N2=4.20 mg/l.min, after 90 min
sonication time, at 30oC and at pH=5.8, respectively.
In this study, 96.21% CODdis removal was found
under 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging after
150 min sonication time, at 30oC, respectively. In
this study, similar results were found to the CODdis
yield obtained by Kritikos et al., [50], at 30oC as
mentioned above.
3.2 Effect of N2(g) on the Color Removal
Efficiencies in TI ww at Increasing
Sonication Times and Temperatures
86.02% and 90.48% color removals were observed
under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g)
[6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 30oC, respectively
(Table 2). 7.76% and 12.22% increase in the color
removals were obtained under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l
N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging,
respectively, after 150 min sonication time, at
pH=7.0 and at 30oC, respectively, and compared to
the control (E=78.26% color at pH=7.0 and at
30oC). A significant linear correlation between color
yields and increasing N2(g) sparging was observed
(R2=0.79, F=14.28, p=0.01) (Table 2).
92.24% and 95.30% color removal yields were
found under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min
N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after
150 min sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 60oC,
respectively (Table 2). The contribution of N2(g)
sparging on color removals were 4.58% and 7.64%
for 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g) [6
mg/l N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively,
and compared to the control (E=87.66% color at
pH=7.0 and at 60oC). The maximum color removal
efficiency was 95.30% at 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l
N2)(g)] sparging after 150 min sonication time, at
pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively. A significant
linear correlation between color yields and
increasing N2(g) sparging was observed (R2=0.82,
F=17.06, p=0.01) (Table 2).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
60 120 150
Time(min)
COD Rem. Eff. (%)
30 oC, COD(%), Control 15 min N2(g), 30 oC, COD(%)
30 min N2(g), 30 oC, COD(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
60 120 150
Time (min)
COD rem. Eff. (%)
60 oC, COD(%), Control 15 min N2(g), 60 oC, COD(%)
30 min N2(g), 60 oC, COD(%)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
49
Volume 19, 2023
Table 2. Effect of increasing N2(g) sparging on the
color removal efficiencies in TI ww at 30oC and at
60oC versus increasing sonication times (sonication
power=640 W, sonication frequency=35 kHz, initial
color concentration=88.56 1/m, n=3, mean values).
Parameters
Color Removal Efficiencies (%)
30oC
60oC
60.
min
120.
min
150.
min
60.
min
120.
min
150.
min
Raw ww,
control
52.29
76.38
78.26
79.32
83.20
87.66
15 min
N2(g)
[3 mg/l
N2(g)]
54.76
77.20
86.02
80.96
85.08
92.24
30 min
N2(g)
[6 mg/l
N2(g)]
56.40
83.67
90.48
83.90
88.37
95.30
For decolorization under N2(g) sparging,
reactions inside or in the vicinity of the bubble
(where fast thermal decomposition and increased
concentrations of radicals exist) are unlikely to
occur to an appreciable extent. Therefore, its
degradation will be driven by OH-mediated
secondary activity in the liquid bulk. This may
explain the discrepancies in the reactivity of
dyestuff between sonochemical. Because the latter
involves the participation of a more diverse range of
reactive species (i.e. radicals, holes and electrons)
than the former. In addition to, the physicochemical
properties of the substrate in question that are likely
to dictate the dominant reaction site(s) for
sonochemical activity and, consequently,
degradation efficiency, sonochemical reactions are
also sensitive to several other operating parameters
such as ultrasound frequency and intensity, reactor
geometry, mode of ultrasound irradiation (i.e.
continuous or pulsed), solution temperature and the
water matrix, [48]. For instance, different ranges of
ultrasound frequency are suitable for hydrophilic
and hydrophobic organics, while increased reaction
temperatures may cause a decrease in degradation,
[48]. In some cases, ultrasound irradiation in an
‘‘on-off’’ mode may be more beneficial than the
ultrasound irradiation in continuous mode, which
results in more effective use of OH and a better
temperature control, [51].
Kritikos et al., [50], found 80% decolorization in
a TI ww containing 120 mg/l Reactive Black 5, at
80 kHz, at 135 W, N2=4.20 mg/l.min, after 90 min
sonication time, at 30oC and at pH=5.8, respectively.
In this study, 90.48% color removal was measured
under 30 min N2 (g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging after
150 min sonication time, at 30oC, respectively. The
color yield in the present study is higher than the
yield obtained by Kritikos et al., [50], at 30oC as
mentioned above.
3.3 Effect of N2(g) on the TAAs Removal
Efficiencies in TI ww at Increasing
Sonication Times and Temperatures
58.56% and 60.41% TAAs removals were observed
under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g)
[6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 30oC, respectively
(Fig. 2a). 24.67% and 26.52% increase in TAAs
removals were obtained under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l
N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging,
respectively, after 150 min sonication time, at
pH=7.0 and at 30oC, respectively, and compared to
the control (E=33.89% TAAs at pH=7.0 and at
30oC). A significant linear correlation between
TAAs yields and increasing N2(g) sparging was not
observed (R2=0.62, F=3.21, p=0.01) (Fig. 2a).
61.79% and 68.08% TAAs yields were found
under 15 min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g)
[6 mg/l N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively
(Fig. 2b). The contribution of N2(g) sparging on
TAAs removals were 21.17% and 27.46% under 15
min N2(g) [3 mg/l N2(g)] and 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l
N2(g)] sparging, respectively, after 150 min
sonication time, at pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively,
and compared to the control (E=40.62% TAAs at
pH=7.0 and at 60oC). The maximum TAAs removal
efficiency was 68.08% at 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l
N2)(g)] sparging after 150 min sonication time, at
pH=7.0 and at 60oC, respectively. A significant
linear correlation between TAAs yields and
increasing N2(g) sparging was not observed
(R2=0.31, F=3.90, p=0.01) (Fig. 2b).
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
50
Volume 19, 2023
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2: Effect of increasing N2(g) sparging on the
TAAs removal efficiencies in TI ww at (a) 30oC and
(b) 60oC versus increasing sonication times
(sonication power=640 W, sonication frequency=35
kHz, initial TAAs concentration=1620 mg
benzidine/l, n=3, mean values).
3.4 Cost and Specific Energy Estimation
3.4.1 Cost Estimation Methodology
A very simple methodology was developed to arrive
at the treatment costs of the various AOPs processes
studied. First of all, data were collected from the
published literature for all the AOPs involving the
use of ultrasound and some standard commercial
AOPs. Table 3 shows the various studies considered
for this investigation along with their operating
conditions. From this data, the kinetics of pollutant
removal was found. If the kinetics is reported then it
was taken from the literature as such; otherwise it
was calculated from the data given in the literature
using standard methods of finding kinetics, [52, 53].
*Table 3 can be found in Appendix section
By kinetics, we mean the order of degradation
and the rate constant. Table 4 depicts the kinetic
data collected from these studies. These rate
constants were then used to calculate the time
required for 90% degradation of the pollutant from
its initial concentration. This time was assumed as
the residence time for the reactor for wastewater
treatment using the given AOP. The cost estimation
was done for the assumed flow rate of 1000 l/min.
The reactor capacity was calculated by multiplying
the residence time with the design flow rate (1000
l/min). From the treatability study in the literature,
the energy consumption data was then collected as
energy dissipated per unit volume (W/ml). The total
amount of energy required to treat the wastewater at
the designed flow rate for a given residence time
was then calculated. From the quotations, which we
had invited from manufacturers, we knew the
amount of energy supplied by one commercial unit.
Hence, the number of such commercial units
required for dissipating the required energy was
calculated. From the number of commercial units
required, the capital cost of the wastewater
treatment unit was calculated (AOP unit cost). This
AOP unit cost was used to calculate the total capital
cost using certain standard assumptions. These
assumptions are described in the next section.
Similarly, total annual operating and maintenance
cost was also calculated. The total capital cost was
amortized at a rate of 7% over a period of 30 years
to arrive at total amortized annual capital cost. Sum
of the annual operating and maintenance cost and
annual capital cost gave the total annual operating
cost. Dividing this cost with the amount of liters of
wastewater treated in a year gave us the cost of
wastewater treatment per 3.79 l of water treated. It
was assumed that the plant is running throughout the
year continuously.
For the elimination of phenol and reactive dyes;
Cost estimation of various ultrasonic AOPs was
done on the basis of rate constants. Since the rate of
degradation changes significantly with the
experimental system, the reactor configuration and
the operating conditions such as pH, UV intensity or
US intensity etc., a limited number of sources
having similar operating conditions were
considered. Kinetic data was collected from a
limited number of sources in the literature (Table 4).
Five sources were considered for phenol and three
sources were considered for reactive dyes. The
collected data was then compared with the kinetic
data available for a number of other similar
treatability studies in the literature to make sure that
it is comparable with the reported values.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
60 120 150
Time (min)
TAAs Rem. Eff. (%)
30 oC, TAAs(%), Control 15 min N2(g), 30 oC, TAAs(%)
30 min N2(g), 30 oC, TAAs(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
60 120 150
Time (min)
TAAs Rem. Eff. (%)
60 oC, TAAs(%), Control 15 min N2(g), 60 oC, TAAs(%)
30 min N2(g), 60 oC, TAAs(%)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
51
Volume 19, 2023
Table 4. Rate constants of various AOPs throughout
sonodegradation.
Wastewate
r
Item
Removed
Paramete
r
k (1/min)
Reference
s
TI ww
UV
(254
nm)
color
No
degradatio
n
observed
Tezcanli-
Güyer and
Ince
(2004)
TI ww
O3
(12.4
0
mg/l)
color
11.08x10-3
Tezcanli-
Güyer and
Ince
(2004)
TI ww
US
CODdis
1.50x10-4
In this
study
TI ww
US
TOC
1.33x10-4
In this
study
TI ww
US
color
1.00x10-4
In this
study
TI ww
US
TAAs
3.33x10-5
In this
study
Adewuyi, [48], has summarized results of a
number of studies of wastewater treatment using
ultrasonic processes. They have reported the rates of
degradation for phenol, reactive dyes and a number
of other hazardous compounds, [48]. Kidak and
Ince, [54], have recently reviewed the subject of
phenol degradation using ultrasonic processes.
Beckett et al., [55], have described the degradation
of phenols and chlorinated compounds and their
mixtures using ultrasonic cavitation. Destaillats et
al., [56], and Destaillats et al., [57], have reported
the scale up of sonochemical reactors for TI ww
treatment. They have also reported the rates of
degradation for reactive dyes; it lies in the range of
0.002–0.045 1/min, [56, 57]. Lesko et al., [58],
have reported the rates of degradation of phenol
using a pilot station sonochemical reactor. The
authors found that the rate of phenol degradation
was in the range of 0.0011–0.063 1/min, [58].
Zheng et al., [59], have reported the rates of
sonochemical degradation of phenol in the range of
0.014–0.061 1/min. Lesko et al., [58], have reported
the rate of phenol degradation in the presence of
ozone (O3) and ultrasound to be in the range of
0.137 1/min. One can observe from Table 4 that the
reported rates of degradation of phenol and reactive
dyes are in the same range as are considered in this
study. Hence, it can safely be said that the results of
cost estimation of this study can at least provide an
order of magnitude glimpse of the economics
involved in the wastewater treatment using
ultrasonic processes.
3.4.2 The Calculation of Energy Requirement in
Sonication Reactor
From the referred publications or calculations from
the data in the publications (energy density, ε), the
total energy requirement in the AOP reactor is given
by X ε watt, [53]. From the manufacturer
quotations, the energy supplied by a single unit of
AOP = E watt was defined, [53]. The number of
such standard commercial units required is given in
Equation (1), [53];
)(/)( WEWXN
(1)
where;
N: The number of such standard commercial units
X: The total energy requirement in the AOP reactor
(W),
E: The energy supplied by single unit of AOP
Total cost of N units was given in Equation (2):
Total cost of N units = Cost of AOP reactor =
($)/ CNP
(2)
where;
C: Cost of each unit from the manufacturer=1000
$
P: Cost of AOP reactor ($)=1000 $
3.4.2.1. The Calculation of Energy Requirement
in Sonication Reactor Capacity for TI ww
X=640 W=0.64 kW
E=640 W=0.64 kW
N=(640 W) / (640 W)=1 units
P=Total cost of 1 units=Cost of AOP
reactor=1000 $
The total hourly electrical cost=0.165454 TL/kWh *
0.64 kWh=0.07 $/h.
3.4.3 General Calculation of Capital Cost in
Sonication Reactor
The general calculation of capital cost for TI ww
during sonication process are presented in Table 5.
The capital cost is amortized over a span of years at
given amortization rate. Amortized capital cost (A)
is given by following formula, [60], in Equation (3):
n
r
rS
A
1
1
1
*2.1
(3)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
52
Volume 19, 2023
where;
A: Amortized annual capital cost
r: Annual discount rate (assumption = 7%)
1.2S: Total capital cost
n: Life of project (assumption = 30 years) EE/O is
kWh/m3/order
The total capital cost of ultrasound system=Cost of
ultrasound System=1000 $/year
Using Equation (3);
Amortized capital cost (A)=[(1500 Tl * 0.07) / {1-
(1/(1+0.07))30}]=80 $/year
Total amortized capital cost=A + Cost of ultrasound
system=120 TL + 1500 TL=1080 $/year
r=7%=0.07
1.2S=5 N/ C=2.2 P
n=30 year
A=[(2.2 P * 0.07) / {1-(1/(1+0.07))30}]=0.18 P=180
$
Table 5. General calculation of capital cost in this
study.
Item
TI ww Capital Cost
TI ww
Cost
(TL)
Cost ($)
Cost (€)
AOP reactor
P
1500
1000
789.47
Piping, valves,
electrical
(30%)
0.30 P
450
300
236.84
Site work
(10%)
0.10 P
150
100
78.95
Subtotal
1.40 P =
Q
2100
1400
1105.26
Contractor
O&P (15%)
0.15 Q
315
210
165.79
Subtotal
1.15 Q
= R
2415
1610
1271.05
Engineering
(15%)
0.15 R
362.25
241.50
190.66
Subtotal
1.15 R
= S
2777.25
1851.50
1461.71
Contingency
(20%)
0.20 S
555.45
370.30
292.34
Total capital
1.20
S=2.2P
3332.70
2221.80
1754.05
P: Total cost of one unit or cost of AOP reactor; Q: Subtotal of
labor cost; R: Subtotal of contractor cost; S: Subtotal of part
replacement cost.
3.4.4 The Comparison of Cost for AOPs in
Different Literatures Studies
Table 6 summarizes the cost estimation of some
literature data performed with AOPs and sonication
including the cost results for TI ww.
*Table 6 can be found in Appendix section
3.4.5 Capital Cost Calculations for Ultrasound
System
Capital cost estimation ($) of various AOPs for
degradation given in Table 7.
1.5 TL=1 $ (was assumed).
The total capital cost of ultrasound system=Cost of
ultrasound system=1000 $/year
Using Equation (3); Amortized capital cost (A)=80
$/year
Total amortized capital cost=A + Cost of ultrasound
system=120 TL + 1500 TL=1620 TL/year=1080
$/year
Table 7 summarizes the capital cost estimation in
different AOPs and in TI ww throughout sonication
process.
*Table 7 can be found in Appendix section
3.4.6 Operating and Maintenance (O & M) Cost
Calculations for Sonication Process
The O&M (operating and maintenance cost)
consists of labor costs, analytical costs, chemical
costs, energy (electrical) costs and part replacement
costs.
Total O&M cost=labor cost + analytical cost +
chemical cost + energy (electrical) cost + part
replacement cost
3.4.6.1 Labor Cost for Sonication Process
The labor costs consisted of water sampling cost,
general and specific system O&M costs. System
specific operation and maintenance consisted of
inspection, replacement and repair based on hours of
service life. General O&M annual labor consists of
general system oversight and maintenance such as
pressure gauges, control panels, leakages etc.
For ultrasonic systems, it was assumed that
sampling frequency (Sf)=2 samples/week; sampling
time (St)=2 min/sample=0.033 h/sample or 1
h/week and time required for O&M=17.16 h/year.
Breakdown of labor costs ($) of various AOPs for
degradation determined in Table 8.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
53
Volume 19, 2023
Ultrasound systems, the sampling frequency was
taking 2 samples/day. It was assumed to be 52
weeks in a year. The sampling period was 2
min/sample=(2 min/sample) * (2 samples/day)=4
min/day=(4 min/day) * (1 h/60 min)=0.067
h/day=(0.067 h/day) * (5 days/week) =0.335 h/week
Annual sampling labor=1 h/week * 52
weeks/year=52 h/year
Sampling labor hours=1 h/week
Ultrasound system O & M=1 h/week * 52
weeks/year=52 h/year.
Total annual labor hours=52 h/year + 52
h/year=104 h/year
The sample analysis labor cost is 30 TL/h.
Total annual labor cost=104 h/year * 30
TL/h=3120 TL/year=2080 $/year
Table 8 summarizes the labor cost estimation in
different AOPs and in TI ww throughout sonication
process.
*Table 8 can be found in Appendix section
3.4.6.2 Analytical Costs for Sonication Process
Analytical costs were based upon sampling
frequency, the labor required to do the analysis of
the samples and the cost of chemicals required for
analysis. These costs were considered at a rate of
200 $/h, [61]. Analytical costs ($) of various AOPs
for degradation shown in Table 9.
The sample analysis labor cost is 30 TL/h.
Annual analysis labor=1 h/week * 52
week/year=52 h/year
Total annual labor hours=52 h/year.
Total annual analysis labor hours=Annual analysis
labor + Total annual labor hours=52 h/year + 52
h/year=104 h/year
Total annual analysis labor cost=104 h/year * 30
TL/h=3120 TL/year=2080 $/year
Table 9 summarizes the analytical cost
estimation in different AOPs and in TI ww
throughout sonication process.
*Table 9 can be found in Appendix section
3.4.6.3 Chemical Costs for Sonication Process
The chemical costs include the costs of consumables
such as N2(g). These prices were obtained from
standard industrial suppliers such as International
Construction Information Society (ICIS) Pricing and
Inframat Advanced Materials, [62]. Chemical costs
($) of various AOPs for degradation indicated in
Table 10.
500 ml reactor volume was used during sonication
process.
For 500 ml sonication reactor=(1.00 TL/100 ml at 1
h) * 5=5 TL/500 ml at 1 h
For annual labor cost =52 h/year
The annual chemical cost for N2(g) during
ultrasound system=5 TL/h * 52 h/year=260 TL/500
ml bottle for 1 year=173.33 $/500 ml wastewater in
bottle for 1 year
Table 10 summarizes the chemical cost
estimation in different AOPs and in TI ww
throughout sonication.
*Table 10 can be found in Appendix section
3.4.6.4. Electrical Cost for Ultrasound System
Electrical costs were based on the power
consumption by a given AOP. The electricity cost
was calculated at a rate of 0.11 $/kWh. Power
consumption was calculated for each AOP based
upon the power consumed in a year multiplied by
the electricity rate. Electrical costs ($) of various
AOPs is demonstrated in Table 11.
Power consumption in the ultrasound
system=The sum of power consumed by ultrasound
system in an hour=640 W/h=0.64 kW/h
Power consumption in the ultrasound
system=The sum of power consumed by ultrasound
system in a day=640 W/h * 5 h/day=3200 W/day=
3.20 kW/day
Power consumption in the ultrasound
system=The sum of power consumed by ultrasound
system in a week=640 W/h * 5 h/day * 5
days/week=16000 W/week=16 kW/week
Power consumption in the ultrasound
system=The sum of power consumed by ultrasound
system in a month=640 W/h * 5 h/day * 5
days/week * 4 weeks/month=64000 W/month=64
kW/month
Power consumption in the ultrasound
system=The sum of power consumed by ultrasound
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
54
Volume 19, 2023
878
system in a year=640 W/h * 5 h/day * 5 days/week
* 52 weeks/year=832000 W/year =832 kW/year.
1 kWh=3.60x106 j=3.60x103 kj and electrical
energy consumed index constant per hour is 1.083
kW/h.
Total energy consumed in an hour=(1.083 kW/h)
* 0.64 kW/h=0.69 kW/h
Total energy consumed in a day=(1.083 kWh) *
3.20 kW/day * (24 h/day)=83.17 kWh/day
Total energy consumed in a week=(1.083 kWh)
* 16 kW/week * (5 days/week) * 5 h/day=433.20
kWh/week
Total energy consumed in a month=(1.083 kWh)
* 64.00 kW/month * (4 weeks/month) * (5
days/week) * (5 h/day)=6931.20 kWh/month
Total energy consumed in a year=(1.083 kWh) *
(832 kW/year) * (52 weeks/year) * (5 day/week) *
(5 h/day)=1171372.80 kWh/year
Rate of electricity=0.11 $/kWh
The total hourly electrical cost=0.165454
TL/kWh * 0.69 kWh=0.114 TL/h=0.076 $/h.
The total daily electrical cost=0.165454 TL/kWh
* 83.17 kWh=13.761 TL/day=9.174 $/day
The total weekly electrical cost=0.165454
TL/kWh * 433.20 kWh=71.675 TL/week=47.78
$/week
The total monthly electrical cost=0.165454
TL/kWh * 6931.20 kWh=1146.80 TL/month
=764.53 $/month
The total annual electrical cost=0.165454
TL/kWh * 1171372.80 kWh
=193808.32
TL/year
=129205.55 $/year
Table 11 summarizes the electrical cost
estimation in different AOPs and in TI ww
throughout sonication process.
*Table 11 can be found in Appendix section
3.4.6.5 Part Replacement Cost for Sonication
Process
Part replacement cost may include bulb
replacements for UV systems, O3 generator parts for
O3 system, catalyst holder replacements for catalytic
systems, tip replacements or electronic circuit
replacements or transducer element replacements
for ultrasound systems. The part replacement costs
were assumed to be 0.5% of the capital cost, [61,
63]. For UV systems, the part replacement costs
were assumed to be 45% of the annual electrical
power consumption costs, [64, 65]. For O3 systems,
the annual part replacement cost was assumed to be
1.5% of the capital cost, [61]. Part replacement cost
($) of various AOPs is shown in Table 12.
Part replacement cost=0.5% of capital cost of
ultrasound system
=0.005 * 1500 TL/year=7.5
TL/year=5 $/year
Table 12 summarizes the part replacement cost
estimation in different AOPs and in TI ww
throughout sonication process.
*Table 12 can be found in Appendix section
Total O&M cost= total annual labor cost + total
annual analytical cost + total annual chemical cost +
total annual electrical cost + total annual part
replacement cost
Total O&M cost=3120 TL + 3120 TL + 3380 TL
+ 193808.32 TL + 7.50 TL
=203435.82 TL/year=135623.88
$/year
Total annual operating cost for ultrasound
system=Total amortized annual capital cost + annual
O&M cost=1620 TL + 203435.82
TL/year=205055.82 TL/year=136703.88 $/year
Annual operating and maintenance (O&M) cost
estimation ($) of various AOPs for degradation of
some parameters are shown in Table 13.
The total annual cost = total annual labor cost +
total annual analytical cost + total annual chemical
cost + total annual electrical cost + total annual
capital cost + total annual part replacement cost
Total annual cost=3120 TL + 3120 TL + 3380
TL + 193808.32 TL + 1500 TL + 7.50
TL=204935.82 TL/year=136623.88 $/year
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
55
Volume 19, 2023
*Table 13 can be found in Appendix section
3.4.7 General Procedure for Calculation of
Electric Energy per Order (EE/O) or Electrical
Energy per Unit Mass (EE/M)
3.4.7.1. EE/O Calculation for US System
Electric energy per order (EE/O) is the electric
energy in kilowatt hours [kWh] required to degrade
a contaminant by one order of magnitude in a unit
volume (e.g., 1 m3 = 1000 l) of contaminated water
or air, [66]. This figure-of-merit is best used for
situations where final concentration, (CA, mg/l) is
low (i.e., cases that are overall first-order in
concentration of pollutant) because the amount of
electric energy required to bring about a reduction
by one order of magnitude in concentration is
independent of (CA). Thus, it would take the same
amount of electric energy to reduce the contaminant
concentration from 10 mg/l to 1 mg/l in a given
volume as it would to reduce it from 10 μg/l to 1
μg/l. EE/O is, in general, a measure of operating
cost. It allows for easy and accurate scale up to a
full-scale design and costs. EE/O is defined by
Bolton et al., [66], as Equation (4).
A
AO
elec
C
C
V
tP
OEE
log*60*
1000**
/
(4)
where;
EE/O: Electric energy per order (kWh/m3/order)
Pelec: The input power (kW) to the AOP system
t: The irradiation time (min)
V: The volume in liter of water in the reactor (l)
CAO: Initial concentration in ppm (mg/l)
CA: Final concentration in ppm (mg/l)
for TI ww at 25oC;
Sonication power=640 W
Sonication time=150 min
Sonication volume=V=500 ml=0.50 l
COD0=CODinfluent=962.99 mg/l
CODeffluent=247.75 mg/l
EE/O=[0.64 kW * 150 min * 1000] / [0.50 l *
60 * log (962.99/247.75)]
=5427.33 kWh/m3/order CODdis
The electrical cost=0.165454 TL/kWh * 5427.33
kWh/m3/order CODdis
=897.97 TL/m3/order
CODdis=598.65 $/ m3/order CODdis
3.4.7.2 EE/M Calculation for US System
For zero order degradations, EE/M (electrical
energy per unit mass) is used instead of EE/O.
EE/M is defined as Equation (5):
AAO
elec CCMV
tP
MEE
*60**
1000**
/
(5)
where;
EE/M: Electrical energy per unit mass
(kWh/kg/order)
M: Mass (kg)
Pelec: The input power (kW) to the AOP system
t: The irradiation time (min)
V: The volume in liter of water in the reactor
CAO: Initial concentration in ppm (mg/l)
CA: Final concentration in ppm (mg/l)
For TI ww at 25oC;
Sonication power=640 W
Sonication time=150 min
Sonication volume=V=500 ml=0.50 l
COD0=CODinfluent=962.99 mg/l
CODeffluent=247.75 mg/l
EE/M=[0.64 kW * 150 min * 1000] / [0.50 l *
0.001 kg/g * 60 * (962.99-247.75)]
=4474.02 kWh/kg/order CODdis
The electrical cost=0.165454 TL/kWh * 4474.02
kWh/kg/order CODdis
=740.25 TL/kg/order
CODdis=493.50 $/ kg/order CODdis
3.4.8 Specific Energy Calculations for
Ultrasound System
The specific energy was calculated according to
Equation (6):
)1000/1(*)/(*)(
)1000/1(*)(*)(
)/(
0
0gkglgCODlV
jkjhTimeWpowerSonicator
CODkgkWhEs
(6)
where;
Es: The specific energy for the maximum CODdis
removal after sonication process (kWh/kg COD0),
Sonicator power: The input power of sonicator
during sonication experiments (W),
Time: The sonication time during sonication process
(h),
(1 kj/1000 j): The equation of transformation from 1
kilojoule to 1 joule,
V: The sample volume during sonication process (l),
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
56
Volume 19, 2023
COD0: Initial CODdis concentration before
sonication process (g/l),
(1 kg/1000 g): the equation of transformation from 1
kilogram to 1 gram.
For TI ww at 25oC;
Sonication power=640 W
Sonication time=150 min=2.50 h
Sonication volume=V=500 ml=0.50 l
COD0=962.99 mg/l=0.96299 g/l
Es = {[(640 W * 2.50 h * 1 kj/1000 j)] / [(0.50 l *
0.96299 g/l * 1 kg/1000g)]}
=3322.98 Wh / kg COD0=3.32 kWh / kg
COD0
The electrical cost=0.165454 TL/kWh * 3.32 kWh/
kg COD0
=0.55 TL/kg COD0=0.37 $/ kg
COD0
3.4.9 The Cost Comparison of Anaerobic,
Aerobic, UV, O3 and Sonication Treatment
In this study, the annual chemical cost of N2(g)
sparged were calculated as 260 TL/year (136.84
€/year), respectively. For N2(g) sparged systems the
annual chemical cost was calculated as 40 Euro/year
(76 TL/year), respectively, [61, 63]. In this study,
the total annual chemical cost of N2(g) sparged is
higher than the total annual chemical cost obtained
by Melin, [61], and Mahamuni and Adewuyi, [63],
as mentioned above.
Table 14 summarizes the cost comparison of
anaerobic, aerobic, UV, O3 and sonication
treatment, respectively. The electrical energy
requirements of conventional activated sludge
process reported by Eckenfelder et al., [67], between
250 and 1000 kWh/m3 water (75–300 TL
m3/h=655200–2620800 TL m3/year=436800–
1747200 $/year) with mechanic mixing and recycle
pump equipment (1 kWh/m3 electric energy=0.3 TL
m3/h) was assumed. In this study, 193808.32
TL/year (=129205.55 $/year) total annual electrical
cost was observed for sonication process in TI ww.
In this study, the total annual electrical cost is lower
than the total annual electrical cost obtained by
Eckenfelder et al., [67], as mentioned above.
Table 14. The cost comparison of Anaerobic,
Aerobic, UV, O3 and Sonication treatment
processes, [67].
Paramet
ers
Anaero
bic
Treatm
ent
Aerobi
c
Treatm
ent
UV
Treatm
ent
O3
Treatm
ent
Sonicat
ion
Treatm
ent
Energy
requirem
ents
Low
High
High
Mediu
m
Low
Nutrient
requirem
ents
Low
High
(for
certain
industri
al
wastes)
No
No
No
Alkalinit
y
requirem
ents
High
(for
certain
industri
al
wastes)
Low
No
No
Low
Chemica
ls costs
High
Mediu
m
No
No
Low
Reactor
requirem
ent
High
Mediu
m
High
High
Low
Part
replacem
ent cost
(generat
or,
piping,
pumps,
valves,
etc).
High
High
High
High
Low
Analytic
al cost
High
Mediu
m
Mediu
m
High
Low
CH4
producti
on cost
High
No
No
No
No
Natural
gas
(biogas)
producti
on cost
(electric
energy
requirem
ent in
anaerobi
c
digester)
Yes
(net
benefit
is
conting
ent on
the
need
for
reactor
heating
)
No
No
No
No
Sludge
producti
on
(mechan
ic
mixing,
recycle
pump,
etc.)
Low
High
No
No
No
Site
work
Low
High
Mediu
m
Mediu
m
Very
low
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
57
Volume 19, 2023
Site /
area
requirem
ent
Low
High
Mediu
m
Mediu
m
Very
low
Labor
costs
High
High
High
High
Very
low
Engineer
ing costs
High
High
High
High
Very
low
Contract
or costs
High
High
High
High
Very
low
Continge
ncy
costs
High
High
High
High
Low
Cleaning
costs
High
High
Low
Low
Very
low
Capital
cost
High
High
High
Mediu
m
Low
UV: ultrasound
Tchobanoglous and Burton, [68], the electrical
energy requirements of CH4(g) gas production in an
anaerobic digester; 60 to 100 kWh/m3 water (18–30
TL m3/h=157248–262080 TL m3/year=104832–
174720 $/year). In the present study, 193808.32
TL/year (=129205.55 $/year) total annual electrical
cost was measured for sonication process in TI ww.
In this study, the total annual electrical cost is lower
than the total annual electrical cost found by
Tchobanoglous and Burton, [68], as mentioned
above.
The electrical energy requirement of sonication
process in a sonicator; only 1–10 kWh/m3 water
(0.3–3 TL m3/h=2620.80-26208 TL
m3/year=1747.20–17472 $/year) was found by
Zhang et al., [69]. In this study, 193808.32 TL/year
(=129205.55 $/year) total annual electrical cost was
measured for sonication process in TI ww. In this
study, the total annual electrical cost is higher than
the total annual electrical cost obtained by Zhang et
al., [69], as mentioned above.
The electrical energy consumption of natural gas
(biogas, etc) production in an anaerobic digester was
higher than 110 kWh/m3 water (33 TL m3/h=288288
TL m3/year=192192 $/year) was reported by
Tchobanoglous and Burton, [68]. In this study,
193808.32 TL/year (=129205.55 $/year) total
annual electrical cost was calculated for sonication
process in TI ww. In this study, the total annual
electrical cost is lower than the total annual
electrical cost observed by Tchobanoglous and
Burton, [68], as mentioned above.
The sonication process does not require the use
of extra chemicals (e.g. oxidants and catalysts)
commonly used in several AOPs (e.g. ozonation,
Fenton reagent), thus eliminating the need to pre-
discharge excess toxic compounds as well as the
associated costs, [40]. The operating and
maintenance (O&M) cost in sonication systems
consists of labor costs, analytical costs, chemical
costs, electrical costs and part replacement costs.
For ultrasonic systems, the annual analysis labor
time is 52 h/year (sampling frequency is 2
samples/week), sampling time (1 h/week) while the
total annual labor cost is 3120 TL/year (=2080
$/year).
The total annual analytical cost was calculated as
3120 TL/year (=2080 $/year) with sonication
process in TI ww at 35 kHz, at 640 W, at 500 ml
after 150 min sonication time, respectively.
The capital cost and the part replacement costs
were 1500 TL/year (=1000 $/year) and 7.5 TL/year
(=5 $/year), respectively.
The total energy consumed was measured as 3.2
kW/day to obtain 71% CODdis removal without
additives at 35 kHz, at 640 W, at 500 ml, after 150
min sonication time, at 25oC, respectively. The
annual total energy utilization was 832 kWh/year
while the annual total energy cost was 193808.32
TL/year =129205.55 $/year. The electricity cost was
calculated at a rate of electricity of 0.17 TL/kWh
(=0.11 $/kWh).
5427.33 kW/m3/order COD electric energy per
order (EE/O) values calculated in TI ww, at 35 kHz,
at 640 W, at 500 ml, without additives, after 150
min sonication time, at 25oC, respectively. 897.97
TL/m3/order COD electrical costs were obtained in
TI ww for EE/O values during sonication process.
4474.02 kWh/kg/order COD electrical energy
per unit mass (EE/M) values were measured in TI
ww, respectively, at 35 kHz, at 640 W, at 500 ml,
without additives, after 150 min sonication time, at
25oC, respectively. 740.25 TL/kg/order COD
electrical costs were calculated in TI ww for EE/M
values during sonication process.
3.32 kWh / kg COD0 specific energy (Es) values
were calculated in TI ww, at 35 kHz, at 640 W, at
500 ml, without additives, after 150 min sonication
time, at 25oC, respectively. 0.55 TL/kg COD0
electrical costs were observed in TI ww for Es
values during sonication process.
Finally, sonication process is cheaper than that
the anaerobic, aerobic treatment processes and the
other AOPs processes. Sonication process is a cost-
effective AOP for the treatment of toxic and
recalcitrant compounds in TI ww, compared to the
anaerobic, aerobic, UV and O3 treatment processes
(Table 14).
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
58
Volume 19, 2023
4 Conclusion
The results of this study showed that
sonodegradation is a very useful process in the
removal of toxic and refractory compounds in TI
ww. Low frequency (35 kHz) sonication proved to
be a viable tool for the effective degradation of
refractory compounds in TI ww. The removals
increased after 60 min, 120 min and 150 min
sonication time, at 30oC and at 60oC. The sonication
process could prove to be less land-intensive, less
expensive and require less maintenance than
traditional biological treatment processes and other
AOPs processes. Sonication technology can provide
a cost-effective alternative for destroying and
detoxifying refractory compounds in TI ww.
4.1 The Removal of Toxic and Refractory
Compounds in TI ww during Sonication with
only Sonication
CODdis, color and TAAs yields in TI ww were
measured during sonication process with only
sonication. The effects of only sonication to the
yields of the parameters given above were
investigated. Toxic and refractory compounds
removal efficiencies were determined in TI ww after
60 min, 120 min and 150 min sonication time, at
30oC and at 60oC with only sonication process. The
maximum CODdis (E=84.92%), color (E=87.66%),
TAAs (E=34.12%) yields in TI ww were measured
at 60oC after 150 min sonication time only with
sonication process.
4.2 The Removal of Toxic and Refractory
Compounds in TI ww during Sonication with
the Addition of N2(g) sparging
CODdis, Color and TAAs yields in TI ww were
measured during sonication process with the
addition of N2(g) sparging. The removal yields in
the parameters given above were investigated in TI
ww after 60 min, 120 min and 150 min sonication
time, at 30oC and at 60oC with the addition of N2(g)
sparging. The maximum CODdis (E=98.23%), color
(E=95.30%), TAAs (E=68.08%) removals in TI ww
were observed with 30 min N2(g) [6 mg/l N2(g)]
sparging at 60oC after 150 min sonication time.
The initial rate of H2O2 formation associated to
the toxic and refractory pollutants (CODdis, color
and TAAs) treatments by sonication process in TI
ww decreases with increasing sonication time (60
min, 120 min and 150 min) at 60oC. The high H2O2
production through sonication of TI ww verified the
presence of high OH ion concentrations. The high
OH ion concentration is the major process for
complete degradation of toxic and refractory
pollutants (CODdis, color and TAAs) in TI ww. This
showed that hydroxylation is the main mechanism
for the removal of the toxic and refractory pollutants
(CODdis, color and TAAs) in TI ww by sonication
process.
4.3 The Evaluation of Specific Energies in
CODdis (Es), Electric Energy per Unit
Volume in CODdis (EE/O) and Electrical
Energy per Unit Mass in CODdis (EE/M)
Values in TI ww during only Sonication
The specific energy in CODdis (Es) parameter was
calculated 3.32 kWh / kg CODdis in TI ww at 35
kHz, at 640 W, at 500 ml after 150 min sonication
time, at 25oC with only sonication process. The cost
of this specific energy for CODdis (Es) parameter
was found 0.55 TL/kg CODdis in TI ww at 35 kHz,
at 640 W, at 500 ml, after 150 min sonication time,
at 25oC, with only sonication process.
The electric energy per unit volume in CODdis
(EE/O) parameter was calculated as 5427.33
kW/m3/CODdis in TI ww at 35 kHz, at 640 W, at 500
ml after 150 min sonication time, at 25oC with only
sonication process. The cost of this electric energy
per unit volume for CODdis (EE/O) parameter was
measured 897.97 TL/m3/CODdis in TI ww at 35 kHz,
at 640 W, at 500 ml after 150 min sonication time,
at 25oC, with only sonication process.
The electric energy per unit mass in CODdis
(EE/M) parameter was calculated 4474.02
kWh/kg/CODdis in TI ww at 35 kHz, at 640 W, at
500 ml, after 150 min sonication time, at 25oC with
only sonication process. The cost of this electric
energy per unit mass for CODdis (EE/M) parameter
was measured 740.25 TL/kg/CODdis in TI ww at 35
kHz, at 640 W, at 500 ml after 150 min sonication
time, at 25oC, with only sonication process.
4.4 The Evaluation of Costs in TI ww during
Sonication Process with only Sonication and
with the Addition of N2(g) sparging
The evaluation of costs in TI ww during sonication
process with only sonication and with the addition
of some chemicals were calculated for annual,
monthly, weekly, daily and hourly time periods.
3120, 3120, 193808.32, 7.50, 200055.82, 120, 1500,
1620, 201675.82 and 201555.82 TL/year was
calculated for total annual labor cost, total annual
analysis cost, total annual electrical cost, total
annual part replacement cost, total annual O&M
cost, amortized capital cost, total annual capital cost,
total annual amortized capital cost, total annual
operating cost and total annual cost, respectively,
for TI ww with only sonication process. The total
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
59
Volume 19, 2023
annual cost with only sonication was calculated as
201555.82 TL/year (=134370.55 $/year) including
the annual labor costs, the annual analytical costs,
the annual chemical costs, the annual energy
(electrical) costs, the annual capital costs and the
annual part replacement costs.
The evaluation of costs in TI ww during
sonication process with the addition of N2(g)
sparging were calculated for annual, monthly,
weekly, daily and hourly time periods. 3120, 3120,
650, 193808.32, 7.50, 200705.82, 120, 1500, 1620,
202325.82 and 202205.82 TL/year was calculated
for total annual labor cost, total annual analysis cost,
total annual N2(g) chemical cost, total annual
electrical cost, total annual part replacement cost,
total annual O&M cost, amortized capital cost, total
annual capital cost, total annual amortized capital
cost, total annual operating cost and total annual
cost, respectively, for TI ww with the addition of
N2(g) sparging during sonication process. The total
annual cost with N2(g) sparging was calculated as
202205.82 TL/year (=134803.88 $/year) including
the annual labor costs, the annual analytical costs,
the annual chemical costs, the annual energy
(electrical) costs, the annual capital costs and the
annual part replacement costs.
4.5 The Discussions of Specific Energy and
Cost in TI ww during Sonication Process
with only Sonication and with the Addition
of N2(g) Sparging
Less specific energy (3.32 kWh / kg CODdis) is
required to derive a better sonication treatment and
cost savings for TI ww treatment plants with only
sonication and with the addition of N2(g) sparging
compared to the other AOPs processes.
4.6 The Comparison of Anaerobic, Aerobic,
Ultraviolet (UV), Ozone (O3) and Sonication
Treatment Processes
Anaerobic pretreatment is most effectively applied
to wastewaters with high concentrations of readily
degradable organic constituents. The cost-
effectiveness of anaerobic pretreatment is specific to
each wastewater and associated parameters (for
example, ability to use biogas, power costs, sludge
disposal costs).
For the operating and maintenance (O&M) cost
components, off-site sludge disposal costs and
macro-nutrients costs are linear functions of the
wastewater strength for both treatment methods;
however, absolute costs for the aerobic option are
much higher. The energy requirement for aerobic
treatment increases rapidly with wastewater
strength, since aeration comprises most of the
energy needs. For anaerobic systems, the electricity
consumption is much lower and virtually constant
for the influent strength range, since only pumping
costs are incurred. Maintenance costs for both
systems are considered aa function of capital costs
in this analysis. Alkalinity requirements for
anaerobic treatment are higher than for aerobic
treatment and increase proportionately with influent
strength. This is a consequence of the sensitivity of
anaerobic processes to low pH upsets and the
necessity to buffer volatile acids generated during
the initial reaction step. Labor requirements for both
treatment options are not a function of wastewater
strength for the plant sizes considered. Heating is
specific for anaerobic treatment only. Since heating
is mostly a function of the wastewater flow (reactor
volume), it does not increase with wastewater
strength in the range considered. O&M costs of the
anaerobic plant are credited with the biogas
generated during the treatment, and the credits are
proportional to the mass of organic matter removed
(wastewater strength).
Though high energy requirement and high
removal efficiencies observed with UV treatment
methods in many industrial wastewaters, however,
high capital and high operating area are required for
the UV treatment process. Energy requirement,
startup time, operation time and capital cost of UV
treatment are higher than sonication treatment for
many industrial wastewaters.
Although, high removal efficiencies provided
with O3 treatment process in many industrial
wastewater, high capital cost and medium operating
area are required for O3 treatment process. Energy
requirement, startup time, operation time and capital
cost of O3 treatment are higher than Sonication
treatment for many industrial wastewaters.
The TI ww have been treated using biological
treatment, physical-chemical treatment and their
combinations. On the other hand, the TI ww was
treated using aerobic biological processes,
physico/chemical processes and their modifications.
The most commonly employed biological processes
are conventional and extended activated sludge
system. Nevertheless, these processes cannot be
degraded the dyes, CODdis in TI ww ultimately.
Therefore, sonication process easily removed the
CODdis color and TAAs from TI ww.
The extent of sonodegradation is a function of
sonication time and operating conditions such as
ultrasound intensity, ultrasonic frequency,
sonication power, sonication temperature and initial
concentration, and also depends on the presence of
matrix species. These can produce more cavities and
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
60
Volume 19, 2023
free radicals. They may have either a beneficial or
detrimental impact on degradation depending on
their type and function i.e. whether they act as
radical promoters or scavengers. Furthermore, their
presence may alter the physicochemical properties
of the reaction mixture and consequently affect the
cavitation process and associated reaction
mechanisms and pathways. Sonication is
economical for effectively degrading and destroying
way fort the all pollutant parameters and some
intermediates in TI ww.
Sonication process works on the principle of
generating free radicals and their subsequent attack
on the contaminant molecules with the aim of either,
completely mineralizing the contaminants or
converting it into less harmful or lower chain
compounds which cannot be efficiently treated by
biological processes.
The sonolysis process can be removed the
toxicity and can be increased the biodegradability of
pollutant compounds. The chemicals are
mineralized or degraded to smaller molecules with
improved biodegradability or lower toxicity. The
intensification of the organic matter solubilization
induced by the ultrasonic action, can lead to an
increase of the bioavailability of some
micropollutants to the degrader consortium.
The combination of ultrasonic treatment with
some additives and biodegradation represents a
promising new technique in the field of
environmental engineering. Toxic compounds
inhibiting the microbial degradation processes can
be removed by ultrasounds.
The sonication process could prove to be less
land-intensive, less expensive and require less
maintenance and undergo lesser inhibition by the
anions than other treatment processes in TI ww with
only sonication and the addition of N2(g) sparging.
Sonication process is recommended for the
treatment of TI ww containing toxic and refractory
compounds. Sonication process can be applied as a
pre-treatment or post-treatment in combination with
other water purification processes.
Acknowledgement:
This research study was undertaken in the
Environmental Microbiology Laboratories at Dokuz
Eylül University Engineering Faculty
Environmental Engineering Department, İzmir,
Turkey. The authors would like to thank this body
for providing financial support.
References:
[1] E.H. Robinson, M.H. Li, B.B. Manning,
Evaluation of corn gluten feed as a dietary
ingredient for pond-raised channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus, Journal of the World
Aquaculture Society, Vol.32, 2001, pp. 68–
71.
[2] H. Keharia, D. Madamwar, Bioremediation
concept for treatment of dye containing
wastewater: a review, Indian Journal of
Experimental Biology, Vol.41, 2003, pp.
1068–1075.
[3] A.A. Khan, Q. Husain, Decolorization and
removal of textile and non-textile dyes from
polluted wastewater and dyeing effluent by
using potato (Solanum tuberosum) soluble
and immobilized polyphenol oxidase,
Bioresource Technology, Vol.98, 2007, pp.
1012–1019.
[4] R.G. Saratale, G.D. Saratale, J.S. Chang, S.P.
Govindwar, Bacterial decolorization and
degradation of azo dyes: a review, Journal of
the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Vol. 42, 2011, pp. 138–157.
[5] R.V. Khandare, S.P. Govindwar,
Phytoremediation of textile dyes and
effluents: current scenario and future
prospects, Biotechnology Advances, Vol.33,
2015, pp. 1697–1714.
[6] S.K. Garg, A. Kalla, A. Bhatnagar, Evaluation
of raw and hydrothermically processed
leguminous seeds as supplementary feed for
the growth of two Indian major carp species,
Aquaculture Research, Vol.33, 2002, pp.
151–163.
[7] IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans,
Vol. 100, 1982.
[8] S.V. Sharma, D.W. Bell, J. Settleman, D.A.
Haber, Epidermal growth factor receptor
mutations in lung cancer, Nature Reviews:
Cancer, Vol.7, 2007, pp. 69–81.
[9] S. Jadhav, V. Gulati, E.M. Fox, A. Karpe, D.J.
Beale, D. Sevior, M. Bhave, E.A. Palombo,
Rapid identification and source tracking of
Listeria monocytogenes using MALDITOF
mass spectrometry, International Journal of
Food Microbiology, Vol.202, 2015, pp. 1–9.
[10] S. Yesiladali, P. Gulseren, B. Hakan, A. Idil,
O. Derin, T. Candan, Bioremediation of
textile azo dyes by Trichophyton rubrum
LSK27, World Journal of Microbiology and
Biotechnology, Vol.22, 2006, pp. 1027–1031.
[11] K. Sarayu, S. Sandhya, Rotating biological
contactor reactor with biofilm promoting mats
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
61
Volume 19, 2023
for treatment of benzene and xylene
containing wastewater, Applied Biochemistry
and Biotechnology, Vol.168, 2012, pp. 1928–
1937.
[12] U. Asghar, M.T. Herrera-Abreu, R. Cutts, I.
Babina, A. Pearson, N.C. Turner,
Identification of subtypes of triple negative
breast cancer (TNBC) that are sensitive to
CDK4/6 inhibition, Journal of Clinical
Oncology, Vol.33, 2015, pp. 11098.
[13] E.K. Lee, R.J. Gallagher, D.A. Patterson, A
linear programming approach to discriminant
analysis with a reserved judgment region,
INFORMS Journal on Computing, Vol.15,
2003, pp. 23–41
[14] D.P. Edwards, L.K. Emmons, D.A.
Hauglustaine, D.A. Chu, J.C. Gille, Y.J.
Kaufman, G. Pétron, L.N. Yurganov, L.
Giglio, M.N. Deeter, V. Yudin, D.C. Ziskin,
J. Warner, J.-F. Lamarque, G.L. Francis, S.P.
Ho, D. Mao, J. Chen, E.I. Grechko, J.R.
Drummond, Observations of carbon
monoxide and aerosols from the Terra
satellite: Northern Hemisphere variability,
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 109,
2004, pp. D24202.
[15] J.-S. Bae, H.S. Freeman, Aquatic toxicity
evaluation of new direct dyes to the Daphnia
magna, Dyes and Pigments, Vol.73, 2007, pp.
81–85.
[16] J. Easton, The dye maker’s view. Color in
dyehouse effluent, In Society of dyers and
colourists. (11) Bradford UK. 1995.
[17] J. Garcia-Montano, X. Domenech, J.A. Garcia-
Hortal, F. Torrades, J. Peral, The testing of
several biological and chemical coupled
treatments for Cibacorn Red FN-R azo dye
removal, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Vol.154, 2007, pp. 484-490.
[18] G. Tezcanli-Guyer, N.H. Ince, Degradation
and toxicity reduction of textile dyestuff by
ultrasound, Ultrasonics
Sonochemistry,.Vol.10, 2003, pp. 235-240.
[19] A.S. Özen, V. Aviyente, G. Tezcanli-Güyer,
N.H. Ince, Experimental and modeling
approach to decolorization of azo dyes by
ultrasound. Degradation of the hydrazone
tautomer, The Journal of Physical Chemistry,
Vol.109, 2005, pp. 3506-3516.
[20] L.A. Crum, Comments on the evolving filed
of sonochemistry by a cavitation physicist,
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, Vol. 1995, pp.
147-152.
[21] T.J. Mason, C. Pétrier, Advanced oxidation
processes for water and wastewater
treatment, in: S. Parson, (Ed.), Ultrasound
processes, IWA Publishing, London. 2004,
pp. 185-208.
[22] P.R. Gogate, M. Sivakumar, A.B. Pandit,
Destruction of Rhodamine B using novel
sonochemical reactor with capacity of 7.5 l,
Separation and Purification Technology,
Vol.34, 2004a, pp. 13-24.
[23] P.R. Gogate, S. Mujumdar, J. Thampi, A.M.
Wilhelm, A.B. Pandit, Destruction of phenol
using sonochemical reactors: scale up aspects
and comparison of novel configuration with
conventional reactors, Separation
Purification Technology, Vol.34, 2004b, pp.
25-34.
[24] P.S. Vankar, R. Shanker, Ecofriendly
ultrasonic natural dyeing of cotton fabric with
enzyme pretreatments, Desalination, Vol.230,
2008, pp. 62-69.
[25] R.S. Ellis, M. Colless, T. Broadhurst, J. Heyl,
K. Glazebrook, Autofib redshift survey I.
Evolution of the galaxy luminosity function,
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol.280, 1996, pp. 235.
[26] I.K. Kapdan, R. Oztekin, The effect of
hydraulic residence time and initial COD
concentration on color and COD removal
performance the anaerobic–aerobic SBR
system, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Vol.136, 2006, pp. 896-901.
[27] M. Azizi, M. Sapoval, P. Gosse, M. Monge, G.
Bobrie, P. Delsart, M. Midulla, C. Mounier-
Véhier, P.-Y. Courand, P. Lantelme, T.
Denolle, C. Dourmap-Collas, H. Trillaud,
Pereira, P.-F. Plouin, G. Chatellier, Optimum
and stepped care standardised
antihypertensive treatment with or without
renal denervation for resistant hypertension
(DENERHTN): a multicentre, open-label,
randomised controlled trial, Lancet, Vol.385,
2015, pp. 1957-1965.
[28] D.T. Sponza, M. Işık, Decolorization and azo
dye degradation by anaerobic/aerobic
sequential process, Enzyme and Microbial
Technology, Vol.31, 2002, pp. 102-110.
[29] S.D.N. Lourenço, D. Gallipoli, D.G. Toll, E.D.
Evans, Development of commercial
tensiometer for triaxial testing of unsaturated
soils, proc. 4th International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, Vol. 2, Arizona, USA,
2006, pp. 1875–1886.
[30] U.B. Pandey, Z. Nie, Y. Batlevi, B.A. McCray,
G.P. Ritson, N.B. Nedelsky, S.L. Schwartz,
N.A. DiProspero, M.A. Knight, O.
Schuldiner, R. Padmanabhan, M. Hild, D.L.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
62
Volume 19, 2023
Berry, D. Garza, C.C. Hubbert, T.P. Yao,
E.H. Baehrecke, J.P. Taylor, HDAC6 rescues
neurodegeneration and provides an essential
link between autophagy and the UPS, Nature,
Vol.447, 2007, pp. 859-863.
[31] S. Popli, U.D. Patel, Destruction of azo dyes
by anaerobic– aerobic sequential biological
treatment: a review, International Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol.12, 2015, pp. 405–420.
[32] S. Esplugas, P.L. Yue, M.I. Pervez,
Degradation of 4-chlorophenol by photolytic
oxidation, Water Research, Vol.28, 1994, pp.
1323–1328.
[33] S.J. Masten, S.H.R. Davies, The use of
ozonation to degrade organic contaminants in
wastewaters, Environmental Science &
Technology, Vol.28, 1994, pp. 180A–185A.
[34] X.B. Chen, S.S. Mao, Titanium dioxide
nanomaterials: synthesis, properties,
modifications, and applications, Chemical
Reviews, Vol.107, 2007, pp. 2891–2959
[35] M. Besson, C. Descorme, M. Bernardi, P.
Gallezot, F. Di Gregorio, N. Grosjean, D.
Pham Minh, A. Pintar, Supported noble metal
catalysts in the catalytic wet air oxidation of
industrial wastewaters and sewage sludges,
Environmental Technology, Vol.31, 2010, pp.
1441–1447.
[36] R. Jain, S. Sikarwar, Semiconductor-mediated
photocatalyzed degradation of erythrosine dye
from wastewater using TiO2 catalyst,
Environmental Technology, Vol.31, 2010, pp.
1403–1410.
[37] H.R. Pouretedal, H. Beigy, M.H. Keshavarz,
Bleaching of Congo red in the presence of
ZnS nanoparticles, with dopant of CO2+ ion,
as photocatalyst under UV and sunlight
irradiations, Environmental Technology,
Vol.31, 2010, pp. 1183–1190.
[38] M.S. Vohraa, S.M. Selimuzzaman, M.S. Al-
Suwaiyan, NH4 + -NH3 removal from
simulated wastewater using UV, TiO2
photocatalysis: effect of co-pollutants and pH,
Environmental Technology, Vol.31, 2010, pp.
641–654.
[39] M. Papadaki, R.J. Emery, M.A. Abu-Hassan,
A. Diaz-Bustos, I.S. Metcalfe, et al.
Sonocatalytic oxidation processes for the
removal of contaminants containing aromatic
rings from aqueous effluents, Separation and
Purification Technology, Vol.34, 2004, pp.
35-42.
[40] E. Psillakis, G. Goula, N. Kalogerakis, D.
Mantzavinos, Degradation of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in aqueous solutions
by ultrasonic irradiation, Journal of
Hazardous Materials B, Vol.108, 2004, pp.
95-102.
[41] D.T. Sponza, R. Oztekin, Destruction of some
more and less hydrophobic PAHs and their
toxicities in a petrochemical industry
wastewater with sonication in Turkey,
Bioresource Technology, Vol.101, 2010, pp.
8639-8648.
[42] D.T. Sponza, R. Oztekin, Contribution of
oxides, salt, and carbonate to the sonication of
some hydrophobic polyaromatic
hydrocarbons and toxicity in petrochemical
industry wastewater in İzmir, Turkey, Journal
of Environmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol.137, 2011, pp. 1012-1025.
[43] R.B. Baird, A.D. Eaton, E.W. Rice, E.W. Rice,
(editors), Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, 23rd.
Edition, American Public Health Association
(APHA), American Water Works Association
(AWWA), Water Environment Federation
(WEF). American Public Health Association
800 I Street, NW Washington DC: 20001-
3770, USA, 2017.
[44] M. Olthof, W.W. Eckenfelder, Coagulation of
textile wastewater, Textile, Chemistry and
Colorists, Vol.8, 1976, pp. 18-22.
[45] W.W. Eckenfelder, Industrial Water Pollution
Control (2nd ed), Signapore: McGraw-Hill
Inc.,1989.
[46] J.H. Zar, Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 1984.
[47] Statgraphics Centurion XV, sofware, StatPoint
Inc, Statgraphics Centurion XV, Herndon,
VA, USA, 2005.
[48] Y.G. Adewuyi, Sonochemistry: Environmental
science and engineering applications,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research, Vol.40, 2001, pp. 4681-4715.
[49] L.H. Thompson, L.K. Doraiswamy,
Sonochemistry: Science and engineering,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research, Vol.38, 1999, pp. 1215-1249.
[50] D.E. Kritikos, N.P. Xekoukoulotakis, E.
Psillakis, D. Mantzavinos, Photocatalytic
degradation of Reactive Black 5 in aqueous
solutions: Effect of operating conditions and
coupling with ultrasound irradiation, Water
Research, Vol.41, 2007, pp. 2236-2246.
[51] T. Velegraki, I. Poulios, M. Charalabaki, N.
Kalogerakis, P. Samaras, D. Mantzavinos,
Photocatalytic and sonolytic oxidation of
Acid Orange 7 in aqueous solution, Applied
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
63
Volume 19, 2023
Catalysis B: Environmental, Vol.62, 2006,
pp. 159-168.
[52] H.S. Fogler, D. Barnes, The shift in the
optimal power input in an ultrasonic reaction,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Fundamentals, Vol.7, 1968, pp. 222-229.
[53] H.S. Fogler, Elements of Chemical Reaction
Engineering (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall Publications, USA, 2004.
[54] R. Kidak, N.H. Ince, Ultrasonic destruction of
phenol and substituted phenols: A review of
current research, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry,
Vol.13, 2006, pp. 195-199.
[55] M.A. Beckett, I. Hua, Impact of ultrasonic
frequency on aqueous sonoluminescence and
sonochemistry, Journal of Physical Chemistry
A, Vol.105, 2001, pp. 3796-3802.
[56] H. Destaillats, A.J. Colussi, J.M. Joseph, M.R.
Hoffmann, Synergistic effects of sonolysis
combined with ozonolysis for the oxidation of
azobenzene and Methyl Orange, Journal of
Physical Chemistry A, Vol.104, 2000a, pp.
8930-8935.
[57] H. Destaillats, H.-M. Hung, M.R. Hoffmann,
Degradation of alkylphenol ethoxylate
surfactants in water with ultrasonic
irradiation, Enviromental Science and
Technology, Vol.34, 2000b, pp. 311-317.
[58] T. Lesko, A.J. Colussi, M., Hoffman,
Sonochemical decomposition of phenol:
evidence for a synergistic effect of ozone and
ultrasound for the elimination of total organic
carbon from water, Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol.40, 2006, pp. 6818-
6823.
[59] W. Zheng, M. Maurin, M.A. Tarr,
Enhancement of sonochemical degradation of
phenol using hydrogen atom scavengers,
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, Vol.12, 2005, pp.
313-317.
[60] Y. Zhou, R.S.J. Tol, Implications of
desalination for water resources in China —
an economic perspective, Desalination,
Vol.164, 2004, pp. 225-240.
[61] G. Melin, Treatment technologies for removal
of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from
drinking water: Air stripping, advanced
oxidation processes, Granular activated
carbon and synthetic resin sorbents, in:
G.Melin (Ed.). Center for Groundwater
Restoration and Protection, National Water
Research Institute, CA, 1999.
[62] International Construction Information Society
(ICIS) Pricing and Inframat Advanced
Materials. (2011). Retrieved January 9, 2011,
from http://www.advancedmaterials.us/
[63] N.N. Mahamuni, Y.G. Adewuyi, Advanced
oxidation processes (AOPs) involving
ultrasound for waste water treatment: A
review with emphasis on cost estimation,
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, Vol.17, 2010, pp.
990-1003.
[64] M. Hyman, R. Dupont, Groundwater and soil
remediation process design and cost
estimating of proven technologies, Reston,
VA: ASCE Press, 2001.
[65] United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) and Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality [DEQ]. (2006).
Portland harbor joint source control strategy.
Final Report. Retrieved September 24, 2009,
from
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/CLEANUP.NSF
/6d62f9a16e249d7888256db4005fa293/31ae4
5c9c90a674988256e470062ced9/$FILE/Final
%20PH%20JSCS_September%242009%20w
ith%20Appendices%20compacted.pdf.
[66] J.R. Bolton, K.G. Bircher, W. Tumas, C.A.
Tolman, Figures-of-merit for the technical
development and application of advanced
oxidation technologies for both electric- and
solar-driven systems (IUPAC Technical
Report), The International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry, Vol.73, 2001, pp. 627-
637.
[67] W.W.Jr. Eckenfelder, J.B. Patozka, G.W.
Pulliam, Anaerobic versus aerobic treatment
in the USA. (105-114), A ware incorporated
227 French, Landing Nashnele TN 37228,
USA, 2008.
[68] G. Tchobanoglous, F.L. Burton, Anaerobic
sludge digestion, Wastewater engineering,
treatment, disposal and Reuse, (3rd ed.),
(823-826). Singapore: Medcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991.
[69] G. Zhang, P. Zhang, J. Gao, Y. Chen, Using
acoustic cavitation to improve the bio-activity
of activated sludge, Bioresource Technology,
Vol.99, 2008, pp. 1497-1502.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
64
Volume 19, 2023
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
Post-Dr. Rukiye Öztekin and Prof. Dr. Delia Teresa
Sponza took an active role in every stage of the
preparation of this article.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
This research study was undertaken in the
Environmental Microbiology Laboratories at Dokuz
Eylül University Engineering Faculty
Environmental Engineering Department, İzmir,
Turkey. The authors would like to thank this body
for providing financial support.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
65
Volume 19, 2023
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
that are relevant to the content of this article.
APPENDIX
Table 3. Operating conditions for different wastewaters and different AOPs.
Process
Waste
water
Pollut
ant
Param
eter
Remo
ved
Param
eter
React
ion
Volu
me
Initial
Concentr
ation
UV
Sourc
e
US
Source
O3
Sourc
e
Oxid
ant
Catal
yst
Refere
nces
For
reactive
azo dye
UV, US,
O3,
UV+US
US + O3,
UV+O3,
US + UV
+ O3
TI ww
COD,
color
color
1200
ml
19.95
mg/l
254
nm,
Philip
s, PL-
L
18WT
UV
two
lamps
520
kHz,
Undati
m
Ultraso
nics,
600W
Ozon
elab
OL-
100
model
,
36W
at
0.25
l/min
O3
40
mg/l
-
Tezcan
li-
Güyer
& Ince
(2004)
US
TI ww
(a)
(a)
500
ml
962.99
mg/l
-
35
kHz,
640 W
-
(b)
In this
study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; (b) N2(g); US: ultrasound; UV: ultraviolet; O3: ozone
Table 6. Summary of cost estimation of various AOPs for degradation of some parameters
Waste
water
Ite
m
Remov
ed
Param
eter
k
(1/m
in)
Pele
c
(k
W)
t
(min
)
V
(lit
er)
C0
(CO
Ddis)
C
(CO
Ddis)
Ener
gy
Dens
ity
(W/
ml)
Spec
ific
Ener
gy
(kW
h /
kg
CO
D0
EE/
O or
EE/
M
Cos
t $/
379
0
liter
s
References
TI ww
UV
(25
4
nm)
color
No
0.0
36
60
1.2
20
20
0.03
-
1.38x
109
-
Tezcanli-
Güyer and
Ince (2004)
TI ww
O3
(12.
40
mg/
l)
color
0.01
108
0.0
36
207.
814
1.2
20
2
0.03
-
103.9
1
4.08
39
Tezcanli-
Güyer and
Ince (2004)
TI ww
US
(a)
0.00
015
0.6
4
150
0.5
962.9
9
247.7
5
1.28
3.32
5423.
73
100
0
In this
study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; US: ultrasound
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
66
Volume 19, 2023
Table 7. Capital cost estimation ($) for various AOPs for degradation of some parameters.
Item
Rem
oved
Para
mete
r
AOP
Reac
tor
($)
Pipin
g,
Valv
es,
Elect
rical
(30
%)
($)
Site
Wor
k
(10
%)
Subt
otal
($)
Cont
racto
r
O&P
(15
%)
Subt
otal
($)
Engi
neeri
ng
(15
%)
Subt
otal
($)
Cont
inge
ncy
(20
%)
Total
Capi
tal
($)
Amo
rtize
d
Ann
ual
Capi
tal
Cost
($)
Referenc
es
UV
phen
ol
2.47x
108
7.4x1
07
2.47x
107
3.46x
108
5.18x
107
3.97x
108
5.96x
107
4.57x
108
9.14x
107
5.48x
108
4.42x
107
Kidak
and Ince
(2007)
US
phen
ol
9x10
9
2.7x1
09
9x10
8
1.26x
1010
1.89x
109
1.45x
1010
2.17x
109
1.67x
1010
3.33x
109
2x10
10
1.61x
109
Kidak &
Ince
(2007)
O3
phen
ol
3.4x1
04
1.02x
104
3.4x1
03
4.76x
104
7.14x
103
5.47x
104
8.21x
103
6.30x
104
1.26x
104
7.55x
104
7.55x
104 a
Entezari
et al.
(2003)
US+
Fento
n
phen
ol
7.14x
107
2.14x
107
7.14x
106
1.00x
108
1.50x
107
1.15x
108
1.72x
107
1.32x
108
2.64x
107
1.59x
108
1.28x
107
Entezari
et al.
(2003)
UV
color
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tezcanli-
Guyer &
Ince
(2004)
O3
color
2.04x
105
6.12x
104
2.04x
104
2.86x
105
4.28x
104
3.28x
105
4.93x
104
3.78x
105
7.55x
104
4.53x
105
4.53x
105 a
Tezcanli-
Guyer &
Ince
(2004)
US,
TI
ww
(a)
1x10
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
8x10
1
-
1x10
3
1.08x
103
In this
study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; UV: ultraviolet; US: ultrasound.
Table 8. Labor costs ($) of various AOPs for degradation of some parameters and sonication process used in
this study.
Wastewat
er
Ite
m
Remove
d
Paramet
er
Sampling
Frequency
(Samples/We
ek)
Sampli
ng
Annual
Labor
(h) a
AOP
Syste
m
O&M
(h/yea
r)
General
O&M
whole
Treatme
nt Plant
(h/year)
Total
Annu
al
Labor
(h)
Total
Annu
al
Labor
Cost
($)
References
TI ww
UV
color
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tezcanli-
Güyer & Ince
(2004)
TI ww
O3
color
4
208
48
312
568
45440
Tezcanli-
Güyer & Ince
(2004)
TI ww
US
(a)
2
52
52
-
104
2080
In this study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; UV: ultraviolet; US: ultrasound.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
67
Volume 19, 2023
Table 9. Analytical costs ($) of various AOPs for degradation of some parameters and sonication process used
in this study.
Wastewater
Item
Removed
Parameter
Sampling
Frequency
(samples/week)
Analysis
Annual Labor
(hours/year)
Total
Annual
Analytical
Cost ($) a
References
TI ww
UV
Color
-
-
-
Tezcanli-
Güyer & Ince
(2004)
TI ww
O3
Color
4
208
41600 a
Tezcanli-
Güyer & Ince
(2004)
TI ww
US
(a)
2
104
20800 a
In this study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; UV: ultraviolet; US: ultrasound.
Table 10. Chemical costs ($) of various AOPs for degradation of some parameters and sonication process used
in this study.
Wastewater
Item
Removed
Parameter
Chemicals
Amount of
Chemicals
Consumed
(g)
Cost of
Chemicals
($)
Total Cost
of
Chemicals
($)
References
TI ww
UV
color
-
-
-
-
Tezcanli-
Güyer &
Ince (2004)
TI ww
O3
color
-
-
-
-
Tezcanli-
Güyer &
Ince (2004)
TI ww
US
color
N2(g)
5x102
1.73x102
1.73x102
In this study
UV: ultraviolet; US: ultrasound.
Table 11. Electrical costs ($) of various AOPs for degradation of some parameters and sonication process used
in this study.
Wastewater
Item
Removed
Parameter
Removal
Efficiencies
(%)
(at 60oC)
Power
Consumed
(kW/year)
Total
Annual
Power
Consumed
(kWh/year)
Power
Cost ($) a
References
TI ww
US
color
-
1.88x104
1.65x108
1.35x107
Drijvers et
al. (1999)
TI ww
O3
color
-
34.98
3.06x107
2.45x106
Tezcanli-
Guyer &
Ince (2004)
TI ww
US
(a)
84.92%
CODdis
832
1.17x106
1.29x105
In this study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; US: ultrasound
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
68
Volume 19, 2023
880
Table 12. Part replacement cost ($) of various AOPs for degradation of some parameters and sonication process
used in this study.
Wastewater
Item
Removed
Parameter
Removal
Efficiencies
(%)
(at 60oC)
Part
Replacement
Cost ($/year)
References
TI ww
UV
(45% of
electrical cost)
color
-
-
Tezcanli-Güyer &
Ince (2004)
TI ww
O3
(1.5% of capital
cost)
color
-
3.06x103
Tezcanli -Güyer &
Ince (2004)
TI ww
US
(a)
84.92%
COddis
5
In this study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; UV: ultraviolet; US:ultrasound.
Table 13. Annual O&M cost estimation ($) of various AOPs for degradation of some parameters and sonication
process used in this study.
Wastew
ater
Ite
m
Remov
ed
Parame
ter
Remova
l
Efficien
cies (%)
(at
60oC)
Part
Replace
ment
Cost ($/y)
Labor
Cost
($/y)
Analyti
cal
Cost
($/y)
Chemi
cal
Cost
($/y)
Electri
cal
Cost
($/y)
Total
Annu
al
O&M
Cost
($/y)
Referen
ces
TI ww
UV
color
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tezcanli
-Güyer
& Ince
(2004)
TI ww
O3
color
-
3.06x104
4.54x
105
4.16x10
5
-
2.45x1
05
1.15x
106
T.-
Güyer
& Ince
(2004)
TI ww
US
(a)
84.92%
CODdis
5
2.08x
103
2.08x10
3
2.25x1
03
1.29x1
05
1.35x
105
In this
study
(a): CODdis, TOC, color and TAAs; UV: ultraviolet; US: ultrasound.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ENVIRONMENT and DEVELOPMENT
DOI: 10.37394/232015.2023.19.5
Ruki
ye Özteki
n, Deli
a Teresa Sponza
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
69
Volume 19, 2023