Received: 5 August 2022 Revised: 12 March 2023 Accepted: 23 March 2023

DOI: 10.1111/wej.12868

REVIEW

Comparison of UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 advanced oxidation

processes in the degradation of contaminants from water and
wastewater: A review

Mahshid Farzanehsa 1 | Liam C. Vaughan 2 | Arash Zamyadi 2 | Stuart J. Khan 1

1
School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of New South Wales, Abstract
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Applications of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) in water and wastewater treat-
2
Water Research Australia, Adelaide, South
Australia, Australia
ment have been the subject of growing interest throughout the last decade. Although
UV/hydrogen peroxide (UV-H2O2) is the most established technology among the
Correspondence
Stuart J. Khan, School of Civil and UV-AOPs, UV-chlorine (UV-Cl) is emerging as a reliable and potentially more cost-
Environmental Engineering, University of New effective alternative. Recent studies have indicated that UV-Cl processes may be
South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
more efficient and economically favourable for the degradation of some chemicals of
Email: s.khan@unsw.edu.au emerging concern from contaminated water. Moreover, in terms of the formation of

Funding information
Australian Research Council (ARC) Future
Fellowships Program, Grant/Award Number:
FT170100371
disinfection by-products (DBPs), UV-H2O2 seems to have no superiority over UV-Cl.
This said, more investigation in the assessment of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of
DBPs is required. Additionally, more pilot-scale and full-scale studies are required to
establish UV-Cl as a reliable alternative to UV- H2O2. This paper compares UV-Cl
and UV-H2O2 AOPs for the degradation of intractable chemicals from water and
wastewater based on the practical considerations of efficiency, cost, DBP formation,
kinetics and sensitivity to water matrix variability. Finally, various modelling
approaches to UV-Cl have been reviewed. This review showed that UV-Cl is superior
to UV-H2O2 in terms of degradation efficiency and cost effectiveness and can be a
robust alternative in many UV-AOPs applications.

KEYWORDS
reuse, wastewater treatment, water industry, water quality

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N potential for degradation of contaminants. However, side reaction

Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are increasingly used for the
degradation of a wide range of highly stable chemicals in water and
wastewater (Chan et al., 2012; Ikehata et al., 2008). During advanced
oxidation, radical oxidants such as the hydroxyl radical are generated
to degrade contaminants, usually following the application of conven-
tional water treatment processes (Cao et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2012;
García-Espinoza et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2015a). AOPs have high
between primary and secondary radicals and contaminants may result
in unexpected nitration, nitrogen fixation and N-derivatives formation,
which need to be investigated more in future studies (Gągol
et al., 2020; Rayaroth et al., 2022). Moreover, in UV-Chlorine (UV-Cl)
AOPs, chlorine forms different reactive chlorine species because of
photolysis. Some of the reactive chlorine species react with organic
molecules and generate organohalide by-products (Guo et al., 2017;
Xiang et al., 2016).

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Water and Environment Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of CIWEM.

Water Environ J. 2023;37:633–643. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/wej 633

634
A variety of UV-based AOPs has been developed by applying var-
ious catalysts, including hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, persulfate and a
range of heterogeneous substances such as titanium dioxide, in con-
junction with high-intensity UV radiation. Recently, hybrid methods
such as combination of cavitation and AOPs have attracted attention
because of their enhanced oxidation capacity (Boczkaj
Fernandes, 2017; Cako et al., 2020; Fedorov et al., 2021, 2022;
Fernandes et al., 2019).
The application of UV/hydrogen peroxide (UV-H2O2) is widely
established in water and wastewater treatment plants including for
both direct and indirect potable reuse (Dwyer et al., 2008; Sultan &
Cho, 2016). There are various H2O2-based processes including perox-
one, photocatalytic AOPs and, as mentioned earlier, hybrid methods
(Fernandes et al., 2019, 2020). However, because of their relatively
high cost as a result of energy and oxidant dosage, the search for new
more cost-effective and simple alternatives remains attractive.
UV-Cl has recently emerged as a new technology with potential
benefits of simplified construction and higher efficiency compared
with UV-H2O2. UV-Cl has been efficient in the degradation of many
contaminants including pharmaceuticals and personal care products
(PPCPs), taste and odour compounds and natural organic matter (Bu
et al., 2018; Javier Benitez et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2018).
UV-Cl has been documented to be efficient in the degradation of
a broad range of recalcitrant trace organics (Huang et al., 2017; Sichel
et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2015b, 2012). However, there are other fac-
tors that need to be carefully evaluated in order to understand the rel-
ative advantages and disadvantages for water treatment plants that
may be considering adopting UV-Cl as an alternative to UV-H2O2.
Generation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) is among the main con-
cerns regarding UV-Cl AOPs (Wang et al., 2015a; Zhou et al., 2016).
FARZANEHSA ET AL.
For instance, chlorine-resistant pharmaceuticals such as ibuprofen
may be transformed into DBP precursors during the UV-Cl AOPs
(Wang et al., 2015b). Only limited research has been performed on
the possibility and mechanisms of DBP generation in UV-Cl systems.
Moreover, in comparing UV-Cl with other established UV/AOPs, the
& cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of the generated DBPs need to be
investigated.
To provide guidance for the future application of UV-Cl, this
paper aims to provide a critical review of the literature comparing the
well-established UV-H2O2 with the emerging UV-Cl AOPs. Limited lit-
erature compares the two technologies thoroughly and there exist
only a few papers investigating pilot-scale and full-scale studies of
UV-Cl performance. Gathering this information will be beneficial for
the design of future UV-Cl plants, as well as for the optimization of
future UV-Cl lab-scale experiments. This paper is also important for
decision-making for advanced water treatment plants that may be
considering the implementation of UV-Cl as an alternative to UV-
H2O2.
2 | METHODS
A systematic literature review was carried out based on the protocol
developed as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review
and Meta-Analyses (Figure 1). Original research papers were identified
on SCOPUS using an advanced topic search with keywords
(“Advanced oxidation” OR “AOP”) AND (“UV chlorine” OR “UV-Cl”
OR “UV/Cl”) AND (“UV hydrogen peroxide” OR “UV peroxide” OR
“UV-H2O2” OR “UV/H2O2”). Only original English research papers
were selected.
F I G U R E 1 Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses
recommendations flowchart.
FARZANEHSA ET AL.
Two hundred forty-two original English papers were identified
through an advanced search of SCOPUS. To screen the papers, selec-
tion criteria were set to select papers that compared UV-H2O2 and
UV-Cl technologies. Papers were manually screened based on the title
and abstract, and then, the full text of articles was acquired, and
assessed 87 articles were screened as potentially fulfilling criteria and
73 papers were then selected in this review after further assessing
the full texts. The two technologies were compared based on the per-
formance of UV-H2O2 and UV-Cl in terms of (1) contaminant degra-
dation, (2) cost and efficiency of the process, (3) DBP formation,
(4) kinetics and (5) pathway of contaminant degradation. The effect of
the water matrix on the treatment method was also studied in some
papers. These aspects will be discussed in the following sections.
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 | Performance of UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 in terms
of contaminant degradation
The degradation efficiency of UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 depends on vari-
ous factors including the structure of contaminants, types of radicals,
pH and water matrix.
Some contaminants are more receptive to oxidation by hydroxyl
radical as the primary radical. On the other hand, electron-rich com-
pounds are more susceptible to oxidation by reactive chlorine species
and degrade more efficiently in UV-Cl systems. Therefore, the struc-
ture of contaminant and type of generated radicals play a dominant
role in the degradation efficiency.
Depending on the type of lamp used in AOPs, the effect of pH
differs on UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 process. In low pressure (LP) lamps,
UV light is only produced at 254 nm. In such system, UV-Cl is more
efficient at pH lower than 7.5. For a medium pressure (MP) system,
UV-Cl is emitted in wavelengths higher than 254 nm (Guo
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). Therefore, the overall effect of pH
depends on the type of contaminants.
The degradation efficiency of emerging contaminants was investi-
gated in several studies (Kedir et al., 2016; Miklos et al., 2019; Rott
et al., 2018; Sgroi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015b; Yang et al., 2016).
For a broad range of trace organics, UV-Cl was more successful in the
degradation of a wider range of organic compounds than the other
investigated AOPs such as UV-H2O2 (Miklos et al., 2019). For exam-
ple, the degradation rate constants of some contaminants such as
atrazine and carbamazepine by UV-Cl at the same molar oxidant dos-
ages (70 μM) were 35% to 45% higher than their corresponding deg-
radation rates in UV-H2O2 processes (Cerreta et al., 2019; Sun
et al., 2019).
Higher efficiency of UV-Cl in the degradation of metoprolol, a ß-
blocker commonly used for cardiovascular diseases, compared with
UV-H2O2 was deemed to be because of the presence of secondary
radicals (ClO and_
Cl2•_) in UV-Cl systems (Gao, Zhang, et al., 2020;
Tian et al., 2020). Switching from UV-H2O2 to UV-Cl increased the
efficiency of metoprolol degradation from 57% to 95% within 15 min.
635
By increasing pH from 6 to 8, the contribution of reactive chlorine
species increased from 57.7% to 75.1% (Gao, Zhang, et al., 2020).
However, chlorine radicals are selective, so they cannot be as efficient
for all contaminants (Sichel et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2020).
A pilot plant study compared performances of various AOPs for
advanced treatment of municipal wastewater. The pilot system con-
sisted of six LP lamps with a total power of 0.48 kW. UV-fluence and
other experimental conditions were identical for UV-Cl and UV-H2O2
systems. Using both UV-Cl and UV-H2O2, log inactivation perfor-
mance for somatic coliphage, total coliform, Escherichia coli and
Enterococci was studied. UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 showed similar perfor-
mance in the inactivation of these microbial species from municipal
wastewater. Log inactivation for all the species was about three (Sgroi
et al., 2021). Changes in the fluorescing organic matter were also
investigated in another study of this pilot study and the results
showed that at the same level of UV-fluence, UV-Cl more efficiently
degraded fluorescing organic matter than UV-H2O2 (Sgroi et al., 2021).
In a full-scale treatment plant, the performance of UV-Cl and UV-
H2O2 were compared (Wang et al., 2019). The results showed that at
pH 6, the performance of UV-Cl in terms of reactive chlorine species
production for degradation of sucralose and caffeine increased com-
pared with the UV-H2O2 system. However, at pH 8, hydroxyl radical
production was decreased for UV-Cl compared with UV-H2O2 (Wang
et al., 2019). UV-Cl was found to be more efficient at acidic pH
(pH = 5.5) rather than at higher pH. At pH 7–8.3, fewer hydroxyl radi-
cals were generated (Chuang et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2018; Li
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019).
The removal efficiency of 1,4-dioxane for treatment of reverse
osmosis (RO) permeate in treatment trains for the potable reuse of
municipal wastewater was investigated using various AOPs including
UV-Cl, UV-H2O2 and UV-chloramines. It was indicated that degrada-
tion by UV-Cl was slower than by UV-H2O2 at pH 7 (Rott
et al., 2018).
The degradation efficiency of several emerging contaminants is
presented in Figure 2. As can be observed, in the majority of cases,
UV-Cl performs more efficiently than UV-H2O2. Except for the degra-
dation of diclofenac and iopamidol, degradation of other trace
organics is up to 50% higher in UV-Cl compared with UV-H2O2 (Kedir
et al., 2016; Miklos et al., 2019; Rott et al., 2018; Sgroi et al., 2018;
Wang et al., 2015b; Yang et al., 2016). In these studies, a comparison
of UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 was carried out using similar UV-lamp and UV
fluence.
The higher efficiency of UV-Cl compared with UV-H2O2 has been
attributed to the higher rate constants of photolysis of chlorine com-
pared with H2O2 (Li et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2018; Pati & Arnold, 2018;
Yang et al., 2016). This could be because of a more efficient hydroxyl
radical yield and reduced scavenging effect of HOCl compared with
H2O2 (Rott et al., 2018; Sichel et al., 2011; Watts et al., 2007). It
should also be added that Cl
radicals are more selective than hydroxyl
radicals, which favourably react with electron-rich compounds (Fang
et al., 2014; Guo et al., 2022).
The degradation of different compounds for UV-Cl and UV-H2O2
processes under similar conditions was compared in Table 1.
636 FARZANEHSA ET AL.

F I G U R E 2 Degradation of various contaminants in UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 advanced oxidation processes (Kedir et al., 2016; Miklos et al., 2019;
Rott et al., 2018; Sgroi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015b; Yang et al., 2016). UV-Cl, UV-chlorine; UV-H2O2, UV/hydrogen peroxide.

T A B L E 1 Comparison of
Degradation (%)
Oxidant dose contaminant degradation in UV-Cl and
Contaminant name UV-Cl UV-H2O2 UV lamp (mg/L) UV-H2O2 under similar conditions (Sichel
Benzotriazole 73 27 LP 40 W 5 et al., 2011; Wang, 2015; Yang
et al., 2016).
Tolybenzotriazole 72 30 LP 40 W 5
Desethylatrazine 20 25 LP 40 W 5
Diclofenac 90 100 LP 40 W 5
Iopamidol 58 100 LP 40 W 5
Geosmin 86 50 MP 1 kW 2
Caffeine 70 59.5 MP 1 kW 2
MIB 80 64 MP 1 kW 2
Triclosan 99 97 LP 10 W 5
Sulfamethoxazole 100 96 LP 10 W 5
EHMC 97 94 LP 10 W 5
Ciprofloxacin 98 85 LP 10 W 5
Tetracycline 100 40 LP 10 W 5
-BP3 97 50 LP 10 W 5
Trimethoprim 100 20 LP 10 W 5
Acetaminophen 83 30 LP 10 W 5
Carbamazepine 50 20 LP 10 W 5

Abbreviations: LP, low pressure; MP, medium pressure; UV-Cl, UV-chlorine; UV-H2O2, UV/hydrogen
peroxide; MIB, 2-methylisoborneol; EHMC, 2-ethylhexyl-4-methoxycinnamate; BP3, benzophenone-3.
FARZANEHSA ET AL. 637

Although not many researchers investigated the overall treatment
efficiency in terms of total organic carbon (TOC) or chemical oxygen
demand (COD) removal, in a study conducted by Gao, Zhang, et al.
(2020), TOC of water contaminated by metoprolol decreased by 11.1
and 6.7 after UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 treatments.
3.2 | Cost and efficiency
The operational costs of UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 systems mainly reflect
electrical energy consumption (Guo et al., 2018; Sichel et al., 2011). In
UV-Cl systems, a considerable energy saving of 75% has been
reported for the degradation of hard to degrade contaminants, and
this energy saving was 30–70% for other trace organic compounds
(Guo et al., 2018). This can result in 0–50% energy reduction in opera-
tional and capital costs of the UV-Cl reactor, compared with UV-H2O2
systems.
In addition to operational cost advantages, UV-Cl-AOPs can also
provide capital cost advantages. Primary radical generation in UV-Cl is
more efficient compared with UV-H2O2 and also •OH scavenging
demand decreased in UV-Cl compared with UV-H2O2 which results in
a reduction in energy consumption of UV-Cl and the requirement for
a small chamber for UV reactors, which reduced the capital cost (Guo
et al., 2018; Kwon et al., 2020; Sichel et al., 2011).
Electrical energy consumption was investigated in the degrada-
tion of PPCPs. The electrical energy per order is defined as the elec-
tric energy in kilowatt hour, which is needed for the degradation of
one order of magnitude of the target pollutant in 1 m3 of water. It
was reported that savings of 3.5–93.5% electrical energy per order
can be achieved by UV-Cl compared with UV-H2O2 in simulated
water samples (Guo et al., 2018). This value was observed to increase
up to 19–98% for wastewater samples (Guo et al., 2018). To discuss
the difference in energy consumption, it should be noted that the
PPCPs can be divided into two groups: compounds that were highly
susceptible to oxidation by hydroxyl radical as the primary radical and
the compounds for which reactive chlorine species play a more impor-
tant role. In general, for the amount of energy applied, PPCPs in the
second group (PPCPs which are susceptible to reactive chlorine spe-
cies) degrade more efficiently in UV-Cl AOPs (Guo et al., 2018). In a
comparable study investigating the degradation of iopamidol, UV-Cl
appeared to be the most cost-effective for achieving a specific degree
of degradation among UV-induced technology tested on the
iopamidol-contaminated water samples (Tian et al., 2020).
Calculating the cost of oxidants and electrical energy for the met-
oprolol degradation showed that the operational cost of the UV-Cl
process is USD 0.0033 m 3

order 1
, which is roughly one fifth of the
3 1
UV-H2O2 process cost ($0.015 m order ) (Gao, Zhang,
et al., 2020).
A study on the degradation of dichloroacetonitrile (DCAN)
showed that 90% degradation could be achieved by UV-Cl using only
22% of the energy required by UV-H2O2. The comparison of the cost
of chemical dosage and electricity for these two AOPs revealed that
the chemical costs for UV-Cl is USD 0.03 which was only one tenth of
3
the chemical costs for UV-H2O2 (USD 0.3 m ) of treated water (Yin
et al., 2018). Similarly, because the degradation rate of DCAN by UV-
Cl is greater than by UV-H2O2, electricity costs are also lower in the
UV-Cl process compared with UV-H2O2. Therefore, the overall cost
of the UV-Cl was only 12% of the cost of UV-H2O2 (Yin et al., 2018).
This study was conducted in Hong Kong where the electricity price is
comparable with other large cities in developed countries such as the
United States (Global Petrol Prices, 2020). However, depending on
the price of electricity, the overall cost of UV-Cl relative to the UV-
H2O2 system might differ. The cost of contaminant degradation in
UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 was tabulated in Table 2.
3.3 | DBP formation
Studies on the production of DBPs indicate that for highly treated
water, there is no strong evidence that more DBPs will be generated
during the UV-Cl process compared with conventional chlorine disin-
fection. However, the production of chlorate is still an important con-
cern associated with UV-Cl (Wang et al., 2019).
The formation of DBPs after degradation of N, N-diethyl-
3-methyl benzoyl amide (DEET) and ibuprofen was studied in UV-Cl
and UV-H2O2 systems (Aghdam et al., 2017). DEET and ibuprofen
were chosen as they are not susceptible to conventional treatment
methods such as chlorination, ozonation or adsorption by activated

TABLE 2 The cost of contaminant degradation in UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 (Guo et al., 2018; Sichel et al., 2011; Yin et al., 2018).
3 3 3
EE/O (kWhm ) Electricity cost($m ) Reagent cost Total cost ($m )

Compound UV-Cl UV-H2O2 UV-Cl UV-H2O2 UV-Cl UV-H2O2 UV-Cl UV-H2O2

Benzotriazole 0.26 0.52 0.029 0.057 0.006 0.005 0.035 0.062
Tolybenzotriazole 0.24 0.59 0.026 0.065 0.006 0.005 0.032 0.070
Desethylatrazine 1 1 0.110 0.110 0.006 0.005 0.116 0.115
Carbamazepine 0.16 0.62 0.018 0.068 0.006 0.005 0.024 0.073
Sulfamethoxazole 0.20 0.29 0.022 0.032 0.006 0.005 0.028 0.037
Diclofenac 0.15 0.17 0.017 0.019 0.006 0.005 0.023 0.024
Iopamidole 0.29 0.42 0.032 0.046 0.006 0.005 0.038 0.051

Abbreviations: EE/O, electrical energy per order; UV-Cl, UV-chlorine; UV-H2O2, UV/hydrogen peroxide.
638
carbon. DEET is a widely detected insect repellent, and ibuprofen is a
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (Aghdam et al., 2017). It has been
reported that UV-Cl may lead to greater production of a range of
DBPs compared with UV-H2O2. Nevertheless, the composition of
DBPs might vary based on the compounds to be degraded (Aghdam
et al., 2017).
The formation of DBPs during UV-Cl AOP was compared with
their formation during the UV-H2O2 process for the degradation of
carbamazepine and atrazine. These two compounds were selected
because they have different reactivity towards reactive chlorine spe-
cies and can be representative of other trace organics with similar
properties. At pH 6, similar concentrations of dichloroacetic acid
(DCAA), trichloroacetic acid (TCAA), trichloromethane (TCM), chloral
hydrate, DCAN, trichloropropanone, and total organic chlorine were
generated compared with UV-H2O2 ( p < 0.05) (Sun et al., 2019). How-
ever, at pH 7 and 8, the production of DCAA and TCAA was increased
during UV-Cl AOP treatment (Sun et al., 2019). The differences in the
yields of DCAA and TCAA at pH 7 and 8 are presumably because of
the differences between radical species in UV-Cl and UV-H2O2. In
UV-Cl system, both OH. radical and reactive chlorine species are gen-
erated and the contribution of reactive chlorine species in contami-
nant degradation increases with the increase of pH (Fang et al., 2014;
Guo et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2019). However, in UV-H2O2, only OH.
radical is generated which is not susceptible to pH changes (Sun
et al., 2019; Vogna et al., 2004).
A few studies analysed the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of DBPs.
Applying UV-Cl AOP to secondary wastewater effluent, Hua et al.
(2021) showed that genotoxicity of treated effluent can decrease up
to 76% after UV-Cl treatment. In another study conducted by Sun
et al. (2019), analysis of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity showed that rel-
ative to UV-H2O2, UV-Cl did not increase genotoxicity but did
decrease the measured cytotoxicity. More investigations on the evalu-
ation of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity are essential in future studies.
Assessment of DBPs production during UV-Cl and UV-H2O2
AOPs for treatment of RO permeate for potable reuse showed that
the concentration of total halogenated DBPs (<15 μg/L) in the RO
permeate was similar to the concentration of total halogenated DBP
following UV-AOP. However, there were differences in the formation
of specific DBP species following various AOP treatments. The forma-
tion of haloacetaldehydes was observed to be increased by UV-Cl,
whereas the formation of chloropicrin was increased by UV-H2O2.
TABLE 3 Concentration of different DBPs in UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 treatments.
Type of DBP Concentration after UV-Cl treatment (μg/L)
Ttrichloromethane TCM 340
Dichloroacetaldehyde DCAL 75
Trichloroacetaldehyde TCAL 275
Dichloroacetonitrile DCAN 16
Trichloroacetonitrile TCAN 1.3
Note: [chlorine]0 = [H2O2]0 = 0.2 mM, pH = 7 (Gao, Zhang, et al., 2020).
Abbreviations: DBP, disinfection by-product; UV-Cl, UV-chlorine; UV-H2O2, UV/hydrogen peroxide.
FARZANEHSA ET AL.
The total concentration of DBP and the associated toxicity in UV-Cl
were comparable with the other conventional treatment methods,
such as chlorine disinfection (Zhang et al., 2019).
Following UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 AOPs, the concentrations of four
major DBPs, including TCM, dichloroacetaldehyde, trichloroacetalde-
hyde and DCAN, increased. Names and concentrations of toxic DBPs
produced in UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 processes were shown in Table 3.
For example, the formation of TCM increased 249% and 166% in UV-
Cl and UV-H2O2 systems, and TCM concentration grew 80% in UV-Cl
and 116% in UV-H2O2 (Gao, Zhang, et al., 2020). Although hydroxyl
radicals may degrade some contaminants through hydroxylation, com-
plete mineralization is generally not achieved (Gao, Zhang,
et al., 2020). Therefore, hydroxylated products may act as precursors
to DBPs during subsequent chlorine disinfection. Consequently, yields
of DBPs may increase following treatment by UV-Cl and UV-H2O2
AOPs (Gao, Zhang, et al., 2020). It should be noted that in this experi-
ment, UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 systems were similar in terms of the type
and intensity of lamps and hydraulic flow conditions.
3.4 | Kinetics
Reaction kinetics and pathways of PPCP degradation in UV-H2O2 and
UV-Cl AOPs have been investigated in several studies (Aghdam
et al., 2017; Dao et al., 2018; Gao, Zhang, et al., 2020; Pan
et al., 2018; Sgroi et al., 2021; Xiang et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2018; Zhu
et al., 2018). These studies showed that the degradation of the major-
ity of PPCPs and trace organics follows pseudo-first-order kinetics.
1
Rate constant during UV-Cl oxidation was 0.146 min which was up
to eight times higher than the rate constant observed for UV-H2O2
treatment (0.0176 min 1) at pH 7.2 (Pan et al., 2018; Zhu
et al., 2018). It was also stated that the contributions of chlorination,
hydroxyl radicals and reactive chlorine species were 26%, 15% and
59%, respectively (Zhu et al., 2018). Therefore, the higher degradation
rate in UV-Cl compared with UV-H2O2 can indicate the higher molar
absorption coefficient of free chlorine compared with that of H2O2.
The molar absorption coefficients at room temperature are 59 and
1 1
19.2 M cm for free chlorine and H2O2, respectively (Gao, Zhang,
et al., 2020).
pH is an important parameter in the efficiency of AOPs. In the
degradation of ibuprofen, at pH 6, the first-order rate constant has
Concentration after UV-H2O2 treatment (μg/L)
260
50
200
19
1.7
FARZANEHSA ET AL.
been described to be about three times greater during UV-Cl oxida-
tion, compared with UV-H2O2 (Xiang et al., 2016). Increasing pH from
6 to 9 decreased the constant rate from 3.1  10 3
to 5.5  10
(Xiang et al., 2016). Although both reactive chlorine species and
hydroxyl radicals contribute to ibuprofen degradation, an increase in
pH from 6 to 9 increases the contribution of reactive chlorine species
from 22% to 30%, mainly because increasing pH will cause an increase
in OH scavenging (Aghdam et al., 2017; Dao et al., 2018; Xiang
et al., 2016). Oxidation reactions at pH 6.5 are dominated by hydroxyl
radicals. Although at pH 8, they are dominated by reactive chlorine
species (Wang et al., 2019). Moreover, the formation of AOX is
increased by approximately 10 μg-Cl/L at pH 6.5 than at pH 8 which
might be attributed to the high concentration of hydroxyl radicals at
pH 6.5 which means an increase in adsorbable organohalide (AOX) is
mainly because of the presence of hydroxyl radicals, rather than reac-
tive chlorine species (Wang et al., 2019).
Studies on the kinetics and pathways of a group of trace organics
showed that at pH 6, DEET degradation by UV-Cl follows pseudo-
first-order kinetics with a rate constant of 0.006 (mJ/cm2)
the constant rate of pseudo-first-order kinetics in the degradation of
DEET by UV-H2O2 was 0.002 (mJ/cm2) 1
, which was 67% lower than
what was observed for the UV-Cl process (Wang et al., 2019). The
study was conducted using 16 MP/UV lamps for both UV-Cl and UV-
H2O2.
Although the majority of previous studies indicates the superior-
ity of UV-Cl over UV-H2O2, a study conducted on the degradation of
six pharmaceuticals by UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 found that UV-Cl was less
efficient in contaminant degradation for water samples. Applying
pseudo-first-order reaction rate analysis, chemical degradation rate
constants from UV-H2O2 oxidation were observed to be higher than
the corresponding rate constants from UV-Cl (Ngumba et al., 2020).
For the treatment of trimethoprim-contaminated water, Ngumba
et al. (2020) reported the rate constant of 8.33  10
1.83  10 4
s 1
for UV-H2O2 and UV-Cl treatments.
3.5 | Sensitivity to matrix composition
A few studies investigated the sensitivity of these AOPs to specific
water matrix characteristics (Guo et al., 2018; Xiang et al., 2016). At
pH 7, the degradation rate of ibuprofen in deionized water was 10%
faster than in RO permeate water samples. The reduced rate of degra-
dation was attributed to the presence of bicarbonate and dissolved
organic matter in drinking water samples, which is mainly responsible
for the reduction in the rate constant from 1.0  10
7.9  10 4
s 1
(Xiang et al., 2016).
The degradation of 28 PPCPs by UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 was stud-
ied using synthetic and wastewater samples. The results showed that
in wastewater samples, UV-Cl was more efficient in PPCPs degrada-
tion than UV-H2O2 implying that the effect of the water matrix on
UV-Cl was lower than that of UV-H2O2 (Guo et al., 2018). It was pre-
sumed that the lower sensitivity of UV-Cl to the water matrix was
because of the higher concentration of ClO and secondary radicals
639
such as Br•, Br2, ClBr• and CO3•. Secondary radicals can contribute to
PPCP degradation. Concentrations of secondary radical were at least
4
s 1
two orders of magnitude higher than that in UV/H2O2 (Guo
et al., 2018).
In addition to hydroxyl radicals, UV-Cl can also generate reactive
chlorine species (Stefan, 2012). The presence of reactive chlorine spe-
cies in UV-Cl can be useful in removing contaminants that are resis-
tant to hydroxyl radicals. Other matrix components such as Br– and
HCO3– can scavenge with HO. and reactive chlorine species and form
secondary radicals such as reactive bromine species and CO3–. These
secondary radicals can selectively degrade contaminants that are
resistant to primary radicals (OH and Cl) (Guo et al., 2018). Secondary
radicals have been reported to be more than two orders of magnitude
higher in UV-Cl compared with UV-H2O2 AOPs which can effectively
contribute to the degradation of large groups of PPCPs (Guo
et al., 2018).
1
whereas 3.6 | Type and fluence of lamp
Usually, two types of lamps are applied in UV-AOPs: LP and MP
lamps. LP lamps generate monochromatic emissions at 254 nm with a
low output of around 30–600 W, whereas MP lamps generate emis-
sions with a wide wavelength range between 200 and 320 nm with a
high output of 1–12 kW (Stefan, 2012).
Photons are emitted by the lamps and are absorbed by the oxi-
dant. Then, the radicals are formed as the result of the oxidant break-
down. The photon absorption ability of an oxidant varies with
wavelength. At wavelength higher than 220 nm, chlorine absorbs UV
light better than H2O2. Using LP lamps (254 nm) showed that the
photon absorption ability of H2O2 is almost one third of that of chlo-
rine. MP lamps emit photons at a higher wavelength that are not
and absorbed by H2O2 which makes MP lamps less efficient for UV-H2O2
systems. Moreover, the absorbance of chlorine is much higher than
H2O2 in a system with MP lamps (Schalk et al., 2006; Stefan, 2012). In
MP lamps, there are many photons which are emitted at higher wave-
lengths and are not absorbed by H2O2. Therefore, MP lamps are less
energy efficient than LP lamps for UV-H2O2 processes (Schalk
et al., 2006; Stefan, 2012).
The type and fluence of lamps used were varied in different UV-
Cl studies. Many researchers investigated the use of LP mercury
lamps with different power (Aghdam et al., 2017; Kwon et al., 2020;
Sánchez-Montes et al., 2020; Sgroi et al., 2018; Sichel et al., 2011;
Szczuka et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). The reported fluence intensi-
3
to ties for LP mercury lamps were between 191 and 1150 mJ cm 2
.
Although most of the studies preferred using LP lamps over MP
lamps, medium- to high-pressure lamps were used in some studies
(Fang et al., 2020; Wang, 2015). The main advantage of using MP
lamps over an LP lamp is that they have higher intensity output. In
experimental setups with MP lamps, one lamp can often be used
instead of several lamps in LP lamp setups. Therefore, MP lamps can
be more favourable in circumstances where there are limitations in
terms of space or material.
640
There are limited studies investigating the type of lamps in
UV-Cl systems. However, a comparison of LP ultraviolet and ultra-
violet light-emitting diode lamps in UV-Cl systems showed that
ultraviolet light-emitting diode lamps were more efficient in the
degradation of organic contaminants than LP ultraviolets (Gao, Lin,
et al., 2020).
3.7 | Environmental impacts of UV-Cl and UV-
H2O2
AOPs are successful in the degradation of a wide range of contami-
nants in water and wastewater. However, some intermediate by-
product of these processes such as chlorinated and nitrated com-
pounds might be more toxic than the original contaminants (Rayaroth
et al., 2022). As discussed in Section 3.3, there is no major differences
in the amount of DBPs produced in UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 technologies
(Gao, Zhang, et al., 2020). Therefore, the environmental impacts of
UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 are nearly similar.
4 | FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
There is a growing understanding of the UV-Cl AOP technology,
but there are still several areas which require improvement. For
example, there is a knowledge gap in the effective modelling of UV-
Cl AOPs. Pseudo-steady-state models have been used by manufac-
turers and consultants within the water industry to model UV-H2O2
AOPs. These steady-state models offer relative simplicity. However,
because UV AOP is not a steady-state process, this simple model-
ling approach introduces inaccuracies. Under nonsteady-state condi-
tions, chloramines and oxidants are consumed in photolysis
reactions and reactions with other radicals including hydroxyl radi-
cals. These factors influence AOP performance because they change
radical scavenger demand and radical formation (Kishimoto, 2019;
Kwon et al., 2020).
Potentially useful modelling approaches include kinetic equation
models, which utilize a series of ordinary differential equations for
each influencing reaction to model nonsteady-state conditions.
Nonsteady-state models can be validated using a comparison
between field and controlled study data and the model's predicted
outcomes (Minakata et al., 2017). The objective is to develop the vali-
dated model into a tool, which takes water quality parameters includ-
ing pH, alkalinity, total organic carbon and chloramine concentrations
as input. This tool will then output values for predicted oxidant con-
sumption, UV transmittance (UVT) through the reactor and target
contaminant degradation as a function of oxidant and UV dosage.
Results from this tool can be used by utilities and manufacturers to
help them decide on appropriate treatment and design specifications.
The other future direction of our research will involve testing and
validating UV-Cl system for different source water including surface
water and groundwater in terms of contaminants degradation, energy
consumption and DBP formation.
FARZANEHSA ET AL.
Another critical research need is to evaluate the formation of
DBPs in UV-Cl AOPs comprehensively. Most of the reviewed studies
indicated that there is a significant difference between UV-Cl and UV-
H2O2 in terms of DBP formation. However, there are not enough
studies on the formation of chlorate, bromate, perchlorate and
organohalide.
A well-known performance metric for AOP system is investigating
the removal of 1,4 dioxane (Chuang et al., 2017; Rott et al., 2018;
Zhang et al., 2019) which is evaluated in a few studies. These studies
reported that UV-Cl is superior to UV-H2O2 in the degradation of
1,4-dioxane (Zhang et al., 2019). However, testing and validating
1,4-dioxane removal in various source water is another area of con-
cern that needs to be addressed in future studies.
Evaluating the potential of radical scavenging in a UV-Cl system is
an important part of the preliminary design of an AOP system which
depends on the presence of organic and inorganic compounds in the
water sample. Unfortunately, there is little information in this area.
Future research should be involved an accurate estimation of radical
scavenging potential in various water sources.
5 | CONC LU SIONS
UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 AOPs for degradation of a variety of recalcitrant
chemicals were compared based on efficiency, cost, DBP formation,
kinetics and sensitivity to the water matrix. Studies showed that the
degradation efficiency of contaminants using UV-Cl is higher or com-
parable with that of UV-H2O2. According to the reviewed literature,
UV-Cl was up to 90% more cost-effective than UV-H2O2. Although
the production of DBPs has been observed to be greater following
UV-Cl, there is no strong evidence that the cytotoxicity and genotoxi-
city of these products are greater than those generated by the UV-
H2O2 process. Although both UV-Cl and UV-H2O2 AOPs follow
pseudo-first-order kinetics, studies reported that the rate constant of
UV-Cl is larger than that of UV-H2O2 resulting in the faster degrada-
tion of contaminants. Investigating the effect of water matrix on the
efficiency of AOPs showed that the UV-Cl is less sensitive than UV-
H2O2 to the water matrix.
In conclusion, having the benefit of higher efficiency, lower
energy consumption and easy construction, UV-Cl is a promising tech-
nology that can be applied for the degradation of recalcitrant chemi-
cals as an alternative to the more well-established UV-H2O2.
However, more investigations on the assessment of cytotoxicity and
genotoxicity of DBPs and more comprehensive pilot studies are
essential to establish UV-Cl as a reliable technique for trace organics
degradation. Because there is some variability in the literature, it
would be appropriate for water utilities to undertake bench or pilot-
scale testing before assuming that one technology will perform signifi-
cantly better than the other. Moreover, in order to get accurate con-
clusions, the experiments should not be limited to the AOP
specifically but should take into account the potential production of
precursors and hence impacts on subsequent chlorine disinfection
processes.
FARZANEHSA ET AL.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The project was supported by funding provided by the Australian
Research Council (ARC) Future Fellowships Program, FT170100371.
Open access publishing facilitated by University of New South Wales,
as part of the Wiley - University of New South Wales agreement via
the Council of Australian University Librarians.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST ST AT E MENT
The authors declare that there are no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author (MF) upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Mahshid Farzanehsa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8063-9127
RE FE R ENC E S
Aghdam, E., Xiang, Y., Sun, J., Shang, C., Yang, X. & Fang, J. (2017) DBP
formation from degradation of DEET and ibuprofen by UV/chlorine
process and subsequent post-chlorination. Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 58, 146–154. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.
2017.06.014
Boczkaj, G. & Fernandes, A. (2017) Wastewater treatment by means of
advanced oxidation processes at basic pH conditions: a review. Chemi-
cal Engineering Journal, 320, 608–633. Available from: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385894717304436, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.084
Bu, L., Zhou, S., Zhu, S., Wu, Y., Duan, X., Shi, Z., et al. (2018) Insight into
carbamazepine degradation by UV/monochloramine: reaction mecha-
nism, oxidation products, and DBPs formation. Water Research, 146,
288–297. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.
09.036
Cako, E., Gunasekaran, K.D., Cheshmeh Soltani, R.D. & Boczkaj, G. (2020)
Ultrafast degradation of brilliant cresyl blue under hydrodynamic cavi-
tation based advanced oxidation processes (AOPs). Water Resources
and Industry, 24, 100134. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S2212371720300330, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wri.2020.100134
Cao, Y., Qiu, W., Li, J., Jiang, J. & Pang, S. (2021) Review on UV/sulfite pro-
cess for water and wastewater treatments in the presence or absence
of O2. Science of the Total Environment, 765, 142762. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142762
Cerreta, G., Roccamante, M.A., Oller, I., Malato, S. & Rizzo, L. (2019) Con-
taminants of emerging concern removal from real wastewater by UV/-
free chlorine process: a comparison with solar/free chlorine and
UV/H2O2 at pilot scale. Chemosphere, 236, 124354. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124354
Chan, P.Y., Gamal El-Din, M. & Bolton, J.R. (2012) A solar-driven UV/-
chlorine advanced oxidation process. Water Research, 46(17), 5672–
5682. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.047
Chuang, Y.H., Chen, S., Chinn, C.J. & Mitch, W.A. (2017) Comparing the
UV/monochloramine and UV/free chlorine advanced oxidation pro-
cesses (AOPs) to the UV/hydrogen peroxide AOP under scenarios rel-
evant to potable reuse. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(23),
13859–13868. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.
7b03570
Dao, Y.H., Tran, H., Tran-Lam, T., Pham, T. & le, G. (2018) Degradation of
paracetamol by an UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process: influenc-
ing factors, factorial design, and intermediates identification.
641
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
15(12), 2637. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph15122637
Dwyer, J., Kavanagh, L. & Lant, P. (2008) The degradation of dissolved
organic nitrogen associated with melanoidin using a UV/H2O2 AOP.
Chemosphere, 71(9), 1745–1753. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chemosphere.2007.11.027
Fang, J., Fu, Y. & Shang, C. (2014) The roles of reactive species in micro-
pollutant degradation in the UV/free chlorine system. Environmental
Science & Technology, 48(3), 1859–1868. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1021/es4036094
Fang, Z., Huang, R., How, Z.T., Jiang, B., Chelme-Ayala, P., Shi, Q., et al.
(2020) Molecular transformation of dissolved organic matter in pro-
cess water from oil and gas operation during UV/H2O2, UV/chlorine,
and UV/persulfate processes. Science of the Total Environment, 730,
139072. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.
139072
Fedorov, K., Dinesh, K., Sun, X., Darvishi Cheshmeh Soltani, R., Wang, Z.,
Sonawane, S., et al. (2022) Synergistic effects of hybrid advanced oxi-
dation processes (AOPs) based on hydrodynamic cavitation
phenomenon—a review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 432, 134191.
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1385894721057648, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.134191
Fedorov, K., Sun, X. & Boczkaj, G. (2021) Combination of hydrodynamic
cavitation and SR-AOPs for simultaneous degradation of BTEX in
water. Chemical Engineering Journal, 417, 128081. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1385894720341978, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.128081
Fernandes, A., Makos, P., Khan, J.A. & Boczkaj, G. (2019) Pilot scale degra-
dation study of 16 selected volatile organic compounds by hydroxyl
and sulfate radical based advanced oxidation processes. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 208, 54–64. Available from: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618330968, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.081
Fernandes, A., Makos, P., Wang, Z. & Boczkaj, G. (2020) Synergistic effect
of TiO2 photocatalytic advanced oxidation processes in the treatment
of refinery effluents. Chemical Engineering Journal, 391, 123488. Avail-
able from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1385894719329018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123488
Gągol, M., Cako, E., Fedorov, K., Soltani, R.D.C., Przyjazny, A. & Boczkaj, G.
(2020) Hydrodynamic cavitation based advanced oxidation processes:
studies on specific effects of inorganic acids on the degradation effec-
tiveness of organic pollutants. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 307,
113002. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0167732219355461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.
2020.113002
Gao, Y., Zhang, J., Li, C., Tian, F.X. & Gao, N.Y. (2020) Comparative evalua-
tion of metoprolol degradation by UV/chlorine and UV/H2O2 pro-
cesses. Chemosphere, 243, 125325. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125325
Gao, Z., Lin, Y.L., Xu, B., Xia, Y., Hu, C.Y., Zhang, T.Y., et al. (2020) A com-
parison of dissolved organic matter transformation in low pressure
ultraviolet (LPUV) and ultraviolet light-emitting diode (UV-LED)/chlor-
ine processes. Science of the Total Environment, 702, 134942. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134942
García-Espinoza, J.D., Robles, I., Durán-Moreno, A. & Godínez, L.A. (2021)
Photo-assisted electrochemical advanced oxidation processes for the
disinfection of aqueous solutions: a review. Chemosphere, 274,
129957. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2021.129957
Global Petrol Prices, (2020). Global petrol prices.
Guo, K., Wu, Z., Chen, C. & Fang, J. (2022) UV/chlorine process: an effi-
cient advanced oxidation process with multiple radicals and functions
in water treatment. Accounts of Chemical Research, 55(3), 286–297.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.1c00269
642
Guo, K., Wu, Z., Shang, C., Yao, B., Hou, S., Yang, X., et al. (2017) Radical
chemistry and structural relationships of PPCP degradation by UV/-
chlorine treatment in simulated drinking water. Environmental Science &
Technology, 51(18), 10431–10439. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1021/acs.est.7b02059
Guo, K., Wu, Z., Yan, S., Yao, B., Song, W., Hua, Z., et al. (2018) Compari-
son of the UV/chlorine and UV/H2O2 processes in the degradation of
PPCPs in simulated drinking water and wastewater: kinetics, radical
mechanism and energy requirements. Water Research, 147, 184–194.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.048
Hua, Z., Li, D., Wu, Z., Wang, D., Cui, Y., Huang, X., et al. (2021) DBP for-
mation and toxicity alteration during UV/chlorine treatment of waste-
water and the effects of ammonia and bromide. Water Research, 188,
116549. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0043135420310848, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.
2020.116549
Huang, N., Wang, T., Wang, W.L., Wu, Q.Y., Li, A. & Hu, H.Y. (2017)
UV/chlorine as an advanced oxidation process for the degradation of
benzalkonium chloride: synergistic effect, transformation products and
toxicity evaluation. Water Research, 114, 246–253. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.015
Ikehata, K., El-Din, M.G. & Snyder, S.A. (2008) Ozonation and advanced
oxidation treatment of emerging organic pollutants in water and
wastewater. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 30(1), 21–26. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01919510701728970
Javier Benitez, F., Real, F.J., Acero, J.L. & Casas, F. (2017) Assessment of
the UV/Cl2 advanced oxidation process for the degradation of the
emerging contaminants amitriptyline hydrochloride, methyl salicylate
and 2-phenoxyethanol in water systems. Environmental Technology
(United Kingdom), 38(20), 2508–2516. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1080/09593330.2016.1269836
Kedir, A.J., Tawabini, B., al-Shaibani, A. & Bukhari, A.A. (2016) Treatment
of water contaminated with methyl tertiary butyl ether using UV/-
chlorine advanced oxidation process. Desalination and Water Treat-
ment, 57(42), 19939–19945. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/
19443994.2015.1106980
Kishimoto, N. (2019) State of the art of UV/chlorine advanced oxidation
processes: their mechanism, byproducts formation, process variation,
and applications. Journal of Water and Environment Technology, 17(5),
302–335. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2965/jwet.19-021
Kwon, M., Royce, A., Gong, Y., Ishida, K.P. & Stefan, M.I. (2020) UV/chlor-
ine: vs. UV/H2O2 for water reuse at Orange County Water District,
CA: a pilot study. Environ Sci (Camb), 6(9), 2416–2431. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00316F
Li, W., Jain, T., Ishida, K. & Liu, H. (2017) A mechanistic understanding of
the degradation of trace organic contaminants by UV/hydrogen perox-
ide, UV/persulfate and UV/free chlorine for water reuse. Environmen-
tal Science: Water Research and Technology, 3(1), 128–138. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EW00242K
Miklos, D.B., Wang, W.L., Linden, K.G., Drewes, J.E. & Hübner, U. (2019)
Comparison of UV-AOPs (UV/H2O2, UV/PDS and UV/chlorine) for
TOrC removal from municipal wastewater effluent and optical surro-
gate model evaluation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 362(November
2018), 537–547. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.
01.041
Minakata, D., Kamath, D. & Maetzold, S. (2017) Mechanistic insight into
the reactivity of chlorine-derived radicals in the aqueous-phase UV-
chlorine advanced oxidation process: quantum mechanical calcula-
tions. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(12), 6918–6926.
Ngumba, E., Gachanja, A. & Tuhkanen, T. (2020) Removal of selected anti-
biotics and antiretroviral drugs during post-treatment of municipal
wastewater with UV, UV/chlorine and UV/hydrogen peroxide. Water
and Environment Journal, 0, 1–12.
Pan, M., Wu, Z., Tang, C., Guo, K., Cao, Y. & Fang, J. (2018) Emerging
investigators series: comparative study of naproxen degradation by
FARZANEHSA ET AL.
the UV/chlorine and the UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation processes.
Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 4(9), 1219–
1230. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EW00105G
Pati, S.G. & Arnold, W.A. (2018) Reaction rates and product formation dur-
ing advanced oxidation of ionic liquid cations by UV/peroxide, UV/-
persulfate, and UV/chlorine. Environmental Science: Water Research
and Technology, 4(9), 1310–1320.
Rayaroth, M.P., Aravindakumar, C.T., Shah, N.S. & Boczkaj, G. (2022)
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) based wastewater treatment—
unexpected nitration side reactions—a serious environmental issue: a
review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 430(P4), 133002. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.133002
Rott, E., Kuch, B., Lange, C., Richter, P., Kugele, A. & Minke, R. (2018)
Removal of emerging contaminants and estrogenic activity from
wastewater treatment plant effluent with UV/chlorine and UV/H2O2
advanced oxidation treatment at pilot scale. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(5), 935. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050935
Sánchez-Montes, I., Wachter, N., Silva, B.F. & Aquino, J.M. (2020) Compar-
ison of UVC-based advanced oxidation processes in the mineralization
of bisphenol A: identification of oxidation by products and toxicity
evaluation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 386(December 2019),
123986. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123986
Schalk, S., Adam, V., Arnold, E., Brieden, K., Voronov, A. & Witzke, H.D.
(2006) UV-lamps for disinfection and advanced oxidation—lamp types,
technologies and applications. IUVA News, 8(1), 32–37.
Sgroi, M., Anumol, T., Vagliasindi, F.G.A., Snyder, S.A. & Roccaro, P. (2021)
Comparison of the new Cl2/O3/UV process with different ozone- and
UV-based AOPs for wastewater treatment at pilot scale: removal of
pharmaceuticals and changes in fluorescing organic matter. Science of
the Total Environment, 765, 142720. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142720
Sgroi, M., Snyder, S.A. & Roccaro, P. (2021) Comparison of AOPs at pilot
scale: energy costs for micro-pollutants oxidation, disinfection by-
products formation and pathogens inactivation. Chemosphere,
273, 128527.
Sgroi, M., Vagliasindi, F.G.A., Snyder, S.A. & Roccaro, P. (2018)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and its precursors in water and
wastewater: a review on formation and removal. Chemosphere, 191,
685–703. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2017.10.089
Sichel, C., Garcia, C. & Andre, K. (2011) Feasibility studies: UV/chlorine
advanced oxidation treatment for the removal of emerging contami-
nants. Water Research, 45(19), 6371–6380. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.09.025
Stefan, M.I. (2012) Advanced oxidation processes for water treatment: Fun-
damentals and Applications, IWA Publishing, Canada.
Sultan, T. & Cho, J. (2016) Optimization of a UV/H2O2 AOP system using
scavenger radicals and response surface methodology. Chemical
Engineering Communications, 203(8), 1093–1104. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00986445.2015.1124097
Sun, J., Kong, D., Aghdam, E., Fang, J., Wu, Q., Liu, J., et al. (2019) The
influence of the UV/chlorine advanced oxidation of natural organic
matter for micropollutant degradation on the formation of DBPs and
toxicity during post-chlorination. Chemical Engineering Journal,
373(May), 870–879. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.
2019.05.096
Szczuka, A., Huang, N., MacDonald, J.A., Nayak, A., Zhang, Z. & Mitch, W.
A. (2020) N-Nitrosodimethylamine formation during UV/hydrogen
peroxide and UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process treatment fol-
lowing reverse osmosis for potable reuse. Environmental Science and
Technology, 54(23), 15465–15475. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1021/acs.est.0c05704
Tian, F.X., Ye, W.K., Xu, B., Hu, X.J., Ma, S.X., Lai, F., et al. (2020) Compari-
son of UV-induced AOPs (UV/Cl2, UV/NH2Cl, UV/ClO2 and
FARZANEHSA ET AL. 643

UV/H2O2) in the degradation of iopamidol: kinetics, energy require- oxidation process treatment for potable reuse. Water Research, 164,
ments and DBPs-related toxicity in sequential disinfection processes. 114939. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 398(February), 125570. Available from: 114939
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.125570 Zhou, S., Xia, Y., Li, T., Yao, T., Shi, Z., Zhu, S., et al. (2016) Degradation of
Vogna, D., Marotta, R., Andreozzi, R., Napolitano, A. & d'Ischia, M. (2004) carbamazepine by UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process and for-
Kinetic and chemical assessment of the UV/H2O2 treatment of antie- mation of disinfection by-products. Environmental Science and Pollution
pileptic drug carbamazepine. Chemosphere, 54(4), 497–505. Available Research, 23(16), 16448–16455. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00757-4 1007/s11356-016-6823-x
Wang, C., Moore, N., Bircher, K., Andrews, S. & Hofmann, R. (2019) Full- Zhu, Y., Wu, M., Gao, N., Chu, W., Li, K. & Chen, S. (2018) Degradation of
scale comparison of UV/H2O2 and UV/Cl2 advanced oxidation: the phenacetin by the UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process: kinetics,
degradation of micropollutant surrogates and the formation of disin- pathways, and toxicity evaluation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 335-
fection byproducts. Water Research, 161, 448–458. Available from: (June 2017), 520–529. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.033 2017.10.070
Wang, D. (2015) Application of the UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process
for drinking water treatment. PhD thesis, University of Toronto,
Canada.
Wang, D., Bolton, J.R., Andrews, S.A. & Hofmann, R. (2015a) Formation of How to cite this article: Farzanehsa, M., Vaughan, L.C.,
disinfection by-products in the ultraviolet/chlorine advanced oxidation Zamyadi, A. & Khan, S.J. (2023) Comparison of UV-Cl and
process. Science of the Total Environment, 518-519, 49–57. Available UV-H2O2 advanced oxidation processes in the degradation of
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.094
contaminants from water and wastewater: A review. Water
Wang, D., Bolton, J.R., Andrews, S.A. & Hofmann, R. (2015b) UV/chlorine
control of drinking water taste and odour at pilot and full-scale. and Environment Journal, 37(4), 633–643. Available from:
Chemosphere, 136, 239–244. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/ https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12868
j.chemosphere.2015.05.049
Wang, D., Bolton, J.R. & Hofmann, R. (2012) Medium pressure UV
combined with chlorine advanced oxidation for trichloroethylene
destruction in a model water. Water Research, 46(15), 4677–4686.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.06.007 AP PE NDIX A: COST ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS
Watts, M.J., Rosenfeldt, E.J. & Linden, K.G. (2007) Comparative OH radical
oxidation using UV-Cl2 and UV-H2O2 processes. Journal of Water
Supply: Research and Technology - AQUA, 56(8), 469–477. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2007.028
Xiang, Y., Fang, J. & Shang, C. (2016) Kinetics and pathways of ibuprofen
degradation by the UV/chlorine advanced oxidation process. Water
Research, 90, 301–308. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.watres.2015.11.069
Yang, X., Sun, J., Fu, W., Shang, C., Li, Y., Chen, Y., et al. (2016) PPCP
degradation by UV/chlorine treatment and its impact on DBP
formation potential in real waters. Water Research, 98, 309–318.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.04.011
Yin, R., Zhong, Z., Ling, L. & Shang, C. (2018) The fate of dichloroacetoni-
trile in UV/Cl2 and UV/H2O2 processes: implications on potable water
reuse. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 4(9),
1295–1302. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EW00195B
Zhang, W., Zhou, S., Wu, Y., Zhu, S. & Crittenden, J. (2021) Computerized
pathway generator for the UV/free chlorine process: prediction of
byproducts and reactions. Environmental Science and Technology, 55(4),
2608–2617. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07080
Zhang, Z., Chuang, Y.H., Szczuka, A., Ishida, K.P., Roback, S., Plumlee, M.H.,
et al. (2019) Pilot-scale evaluation of oxidant speciation, 1,4-dioxane
degradation and disinfection byproduct formation during UV/-
hydrogen peroxide, UV/free chlorine and UV/chloramines advanced