Laserfiche WebLink
<br />represent more efficient treatment. The E EO is presented for all 11 runs in Table 2 and plotted in <br />Figure 7 as a function of the measured influent H 2 O 2 concentrations. The first conclusion from <br />examining Figure 7 is that the E EO decreases as H 2 O 2 dose increases. Also, although the system flow <br />rate does not have a significant impact on the E EO it does appear that the lowest flow of 0.5 gpm did <br />result in slightly higher values. This is consistent with our expectations of the reactor hydraulic <br />efficiency as a function of flow rate. It is also apparent that the correlation between E EO and H 2 O 2 <br />dose is non-linear. This is also consistent with the expected diminishing benefit of increasing the H 2 O 2 <br />dose, as explained above. <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 7: 1,4-Dioxane Electrical Energy per Order as a Function of H 2 O 2 Dose and Flow <br /> <br />The same data is examined in Figure 8 which plots the measured log reduction of 1,4-dioxane as a <br />function of the electrical energy dose (EED). The EED term was introduced in Section 2 and is <br />determined by dividing the UV system power by the flow rate. This is a measure of the UV energy <br />provided per unit volume of water treated. As Figure 8 demonstrates, the log reduction of 1,4-dioxane <br />is proportional to both the EED and the H 2 O 2 dose. Note that the effluent 1,4-dioxane concentration <br />was below the MDL for the highest EED and highest H2 O 2 dose. <br /> 15