lastID = -292181
Skip to main content Skip to top navigation Skip to site search
Top of page
  • My citations options
    Web Back (from Web)
    Chicago Back (from Chicago)
    MLA Back (from MLA)
Close action menu

You need to login to use this feature.

Please wait a moment…
Please wait while we update your results...
Please wait a moment...
Description: Access Water
Context Menu
Description: Book cover
Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection
  • Browse
  • Compilations
    • Compilations list
  • Subscriptions
Tools

Related contents

Loading related content

Workflow

No linked records yet

X
  • Current: 2022-06-14 20:00:04 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-06-14 20:00:03 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-26 22:50:12 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-03-26 22:50:11 Adam Phillips
  • 2020-01-31 21:11:03 Administrator
  • 2020-01-31 21:11:02 Administrator
Description: Access Water
  • Browse
  • Compilations
  • Subscriptions
Log in
0
Accessibility Options

Base text size -

This is a sample piece of body text
Larger
Smaller
  • Shopping basket (0)
  • Accessibility options
  • Return to previous
Description: Book cover
Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection

Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection

Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection

  • New
  • View
  • Details
  • Reader
  • Default
  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • New
  • View
  • Default view
  • Reader view
  • Data view
  • Details

This page cannot be printed from here

Please use the dedicated print option from the 'view' drop down menu located in the blue ribbon in the top, right section of the publication.

screenshot of print menu option

Description: Book cover
Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection
Abstract
Five municipal utilities in Colorado evaluated wastewater disinfection alternatives as part of the process to construct, expand, or upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities. Four of the five cases involved existing wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs), three of which had historically used gaseous chlorine for disinfection. The fourth had historically used ozone. The fifth case involved an entirely new wastewater treatment facility with no prior disinfection history. The treatment system design capacities ranged from less than 3 million gallons per day (mgd) to over 60 mgd based on peak hourly design flow rate. The capital costs of disinfection facilities varied widely in relation to the lifetime operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the systems. Capital costs depended largely on the character of existing structures. O&M costs were primarily a function of chemical and energy costs. In all cases, both economic and noneconomic factors were considered in the analysis; and in each case the factors, and the way they were perceived, were different. Four of the five utilities selected ultraviolet (UV) light as their preferred method of wastewater disinfection. One utility selected gaseous chlorine. In every case the O&M costs for UV disinfection were estimated to be substantially lower than the O&M costs for the other alternatives evaluated.
Five municipal utilities in Colorado evaluated wastewater disinfection alternatives as part of the process to construct, expand, or upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities. Four of the five cases involved existing wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs), three of which had historically used gaseous chlorine for disinfection. The fourth had historically used ozone. The fifth case involved an...
Author(s)
Boyd HanzonJenny HartfelderSean O'ConnellDave Murray
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 10: Wastewater Design
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2005
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20050101)2005:1L.783;1-
DOI10.2175/193864705783978366
Volume / Issue2005 / 1
Content sourceDisinfection and Reuse Symposium
First / last page(s)783 - 799
Copyright2005
Word count212

Purchase price $11.50

Get access
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: Book cover
Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection
Pricing
Non-member price: $11.50
Member price:
-292181
Get access
-292181
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.

Details

Description: Book cover
Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection
Abstract
Five municipal utilities in Colorado evaluated wastewater disinfection alternatives as part of the process to construct, expand, or upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities. Four of the five cases involved existing wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs), three of which had historically used gaseous chlorine for disinfection. The fourth had historically used ozone. The fifth case involved an entirely new wastewater treatment facility with no prior disinfection history. The treatment system design capacities ranged from less than 3 million gallons per day (mgd) to over 60 mgd based on peak hourly design flow rate. The capital costs of disinfection facilities varied widely in relation to the lifetime operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the systems. Capital costs depended largely on the character of existing structures. O&M costs were primarily a function of chemical and energy costs. In all cases, both economic and noneconomic factors were considered in the analysis; and in each case the factors, and the way they were perceived, were different. Four of the five utilities selected ultraviolet (UV) light as their preferred method of wastewater disinfection. One utility selected gaseous chlorine. In every case the O&M costs for UV disinfection were estimated to be substantially lower than the O&M costs for the other alternatives evaluated.
Five municipal utilities in Colorado evaluated wastewater disinfection alternatives as part of the process to construct, expand, or upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities. Four of the five cases involved existing wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs), three of which had historically used gaseous chlorine for disinfection. The fourth had historically used ozone. The fifth case involved an...
Author(s)
Boyd HanzonJenny HartfelderSean O'ConnellDave Murray
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
SubjectSession 10: Wastewater Design
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Jan, 2005
ISSN1938-6478
SICI1938-6478(20050101)2005:1L.783;1-
DOI10.2175/193864705783978366
Volume / Issue2005 / 1
Content sourceDisinfection and Reuse Symposium
First / last page(s)783 - 799
Copyright2005
Word count212

Actions, changes & tasks

Outstanding Actions

Add action for paragraph

Current Changes

Add signficant change

Current Tasks

Add risk task

Connect with us

Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Connect to us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on YouTube
Powered by Librios Ltd
Powered by Librios Ltd
Authors
Terms of Use
Policies
Help
Accessibility
Contact us
Copyright © 2024 by the Water Environment Federation
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: WWTF Digital Boot 180x150
WWTF Digital (180x150)
Created on Jul 02
Websitehttps:/­/­www.wef.org/­wwtf?utm_medium=WWTF&utm_source=AccessWater&utm_campaign=WWTF
180x150
Boyd Hanzon# Jenny Hartfelder# Sean O'Connell# Dave Murray. Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Web. 8 Jun. 2025. <https://www.accesswater.org?id=-292181CITANCHOR>.
Boyd Hanzon# Jenny Hartfelder# Sean O'Connell# Dave Murray. Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection. Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, USA: Water Environment Federation, 2018. Accessed June 8, 2025. https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-292181CITANCHOR.
Boyd Hanzon# Jenny Hartfelder# Sean O'Connell# Dave Murray
Comparing UV and Chlorine for Wastewater Disinfection
Access Water
Water Environment Federation
December 22, 2018
June 8, 2025
https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-292181CITANCHOR