IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 3, MARCH 2011
953
River Water Remediation Using Electrohydraulic
Discharges or Ozonation
T. Izdebski, M. Dors, and J. Mizeraczyk
Abstract—River water cleaning from microorganisms using
electrohydraulic discharges and ozonation was investigated. The
processed water was highly polluted with the total number of microorganisms (70 400 cfu/mL) and total Escherichia coli bacteria
(280 cfu/mL). The processing was conducted in a tube reactor with
a hollow needle-rod electrode configuration. A 400-mL sample of
river water was treated at different flow rates. Ozonation was
performed in a washing bottle with an ozone concentration of
20 g/m3 . The corona discharge treatment showed a steady decrease of bacteria and microorganisms but did not kill them completely. Spark discharge killed the bacteria and microorganisms
completely; however, its energy efficiency was much lower than
that of ozonation. The ozone treatment decreased the concentration of microorganisms and coli bacteria down to 785 and
10 cfu/mL, respectively, in 45 s which resulted in higher energy
efficiency than processing using corona and spark discharges. The
NPOC analysis of the treated samples showed its concentration of
5 ± 0, 4 ppm in all samples.
Index Terms—Disinfection,
ozonation.
electrohydraulic
discharges,
I. I NTRODUCTION
T
HE MOST frequent reason of epidemic formation is the
pollution of the surface and drinking water by wastewater
bacteria. The largest part of this pathogenic microorganisms
are fecal bacteria, for example, Escherichia coli (E. coli). The
wastewater treatment plants reduce the amount of fecal bacteria
by one to three orders of magnitude, depending on the initial
number of bacteria, which can be 104 −106 colony-forming
units (cfu) in 1 mL [1]. To enhance efficiency of bacteria
inactivation in the wastewater and drinking water, various methods are tested, like electrochemical [2] and photocatalytic [3]
disinfections, chlorination, ozonation [4], Fenton reaction [5]–
[7], UV irradiation [8], [9] and electrohydraulic discharges,
i.e., electrical discharges in water, such as, pulsed arc between
needle electrodes [10]–[12], pulsed corona between wire and
plate [13], and pulsed corona with the addition of gas as bubbles
[14] and without added gas [15], [16].
In spite of extensive investigations in many laboratories,
there is a lack of data on waste and drinking water purification by electrohydraulic discharges. Analysis of the literature
Manuscript received August 9, 2010; revised November 2, 2010; accepted
December 2, 2010. Date of publication January 20, 2011; date of current
version March 9, 2011. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science
and Higher Education, Poland, under Grant PB 3547/B/T02/2009/36.
The authors are with the Centre for Plasma and Laser Engineering, The
Szewalski Institute of Fluid-Flow Machinery, Polish Academy of Sciences,
80-952 Gdañsk, Poland (e-mail: mdors@imp.gda.pl).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPS.2010.2098889
allows determining the influence of electrohydraulic discharges
in deionised or distilled water on several organic compounds
such as phenols, trichloroethylene, polychlorinated biphenyl,
perchloroethylene and pentachlorophenol, acetophenone, organic dyes (such as methylene blue), aniline, anthraquinone,
monochlorophenols, methyl tert-butyl ether, benzene, toluene,
ethyl benzene, and 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene, 4-chlorophenol, and
3,4-dichloroaniline [17], [18]–[26]. The electrohydraulic discharges in the water also cause the destruction and inactivation
of viruses, yeast, and bacteria. It is generally assumed that a
mechanism of microorganism killing by the electrohydraulic
discharges involves an electric field, shock wave, UV radiation, and radical reactions. The destruction of microorganism
depends on the microorganism cell structure. It is different
for each bacterial species and depends also on the mode of
electrohydraulic discharge [17], [27]. In the case of corona
discharge, E. coli bacteria cells are destroyed mainly due to
reactions with oxidizing radicals, namely, OH and H2 O2 , with
compounds forming the bacterial cell wall [13], [15], whereas
in the spark and arc discharges, they are mainly damaged
by shock waves and UV radiation [11], [12]. Unfortunately,
detailed mechanisms of microorganism inactivation are still
not clarified. In the case of bacteria, including E. coli, strong
oxidants cause destruction of bacterial membrane through alteration of glycoproteins or glycolipids [28] and certain amino
acids such as tryptophan [29]. There is also disruption of enzymatic activity of bacteria by acting on the sulfhydryl groups of
certain enzymes [31] as well as affection of both purines and
pyrimidines in nucleic acids resulting in inhibited replication
of DNA [28]. The last kind of changes in DNA is also caused
by UV in the range 240–280 nm emitted by electrohydraulic
discharges. However, it must be noted that, under certain conditions, some organisms are capable of repairing damaged DNA
and reverting back to an active state in which reproduction
is again possible [30]. Typically, photoreactivation occurs as
a consequence of the catalyzing effects of sunlight at visible
wavelengths outside of the effective disinfecting range. The
extent of reactivation varies among organisms. Coli bacteria
and some bacterial pathogens such as Shigella have exhibited the photoreactivation mechanism; however, viruses (except
when they have infected a host cell that is itself photoreactive)
and other types of bacteria cannot photoreactivate [32]. In the
case of viruses, strong oxidants cause modification in the viral
capsid sites that the virion uses to fix on the cell surfaces. High
concentrations of ozone dissociate the capsid completely [30].
In most investigations concerning the application of electrohydraulic discharges for water purification, the deionised
water with additives regulating conductivity was used. There
0093-3813/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
954
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 3, MARCH 2011
Fig. 1. Corona and spark discharge reactor with water pumping/cooling
system and pulsed power system (C1 = 2 nF, C2 = 22 nF, R = 10 kΩ).
are few studies on the influence of electrohydraulic discharges
on chemical pollutants and microorganism present in drinking
water as well as in surface water, i.e., rivers and lakes [33].
In this paper, we observed the influence of selected electrohydraulic discharges, i.e., corona and spark discharges, in the
water, as well as conventional ozonation of water on inactivation of all kinds of microorganisms, total coli, and E. coli.
Water samples were taken from the Strzyża river, in the Gdańsk
region. Strzyża is a type-IV sanitary class river, so it has a total
coli number of over 3000 cfu in 100 mL. Due to this fact,
it cannot be used to supply region inhabitants with drinking
water. This would be possible only after complete removal of
coli bacteria, e.g., by plasma processing.
II. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP
The processing of the river water samples was conducted in
a glass tube reactor (inner diameter of 22.5 mm) equipped with
water pumping and cooling systems (Fig. 1). Every sample had
a volume of 400 mL.
Water samples were being pumped once through the reactor
tube at different flow rates and discharge voltages. A pulsed
positive discharge was generated between a high-voltage stainless steel hollow needle electrode and a grounded brass rod
electrode (10 mm in diameter), both immersed in the water.
The inner and outer diameter of the hollow needle were 1.4 and
1.6 mm, respectively. The discharge was generated at the edge
of the hollow needle, whereas the rest of the needle was covered
with an insulator. Corona discharge was generated when the
needle-rod spacing was 45 mm, whereas the spark discharge
was formed in the spacing of 9 mm.
Part of the river water samples underwent ozonation process
in a washing bottle. The O3 concentration in the inlet gas was
20 g/m3 . The ozone was created in DBD reactor from pure
oxygen, at a flow rate of 1 L/min. The ozonator was operating
at 15 W.
The processed water was taken from the Strzyża river in
February 2010. The water initial characteristics were as follows: temperature 18 ◦ C, pH = 7.4, conductivity 376 μS, total
number of coli bacteria 11 750 cfu/mL, number of E. coli
280 cfu/mL, and the total number of microorganisms at 36 ◦ C
and 22 ◦ C were 30 500 and 74 500 cfu/mL, respectively.
Fig. 2.
Photographic image of the corona discharge.
Positive high-voltage pulses were applied to the hollow
needle electrode from a discharge capacitor C1 (2 nF)—Fig. 1.
The capacitor was charged from a dc power supply through
a resistor R (10 kΩ) and a capacitor C2 (22 nF). The pulse
repetition rate of 50 Hz was fixed by the rotation velocity of
a rotating spark gap switch. The amplitudes of the voltage and
current corona pulses were measured using a TEKTRONIX
P6015A high-voltage probe and a PEARSON 2878 current
monitor (Rogowski coil), respectively. The waveforms were
observed and recorded on a TEKTRONIX TDS 3052B oscilloscope after being averaged over up to 256 acquisitions to
eliminate a random noise.
The first set of polluted water samples was processed by
corona discharge at three different flow rates: 36, 69, and
175 mL/min. Second set of samples was treated by a spark
discharge at a flow rate of 38 and 71 mL/min. Third set of
samples was treated by ozonation for 45, 91, 152, and 212 s.
Every treated sample had a 400-mL volume for comparison
purposes and was tested for microbiological markers such as
the following: number of microorganisms after 24 h of growing
in 36 ◦ C, number of microorganisms after 72 h of growing in
22 ◦ C, total number of coli bacteria, and the number of E. coli
bacteria.
In all samples, the concentration of the total organic carbon
(TOC) was determined using Sievers InovOx TOC analyzer.
III. R ESULTS
A photographic image of the electrohydraulic corona discharge is shown in Fig. 2. This type of electrohydraulic discharge is named “corona” or “corona-like” due to the similar
shape as in streamer corona in gaseous phase [17]. For the
same reason, electrohydraulic discharge generated just after
bridging electrodes is named “spark.” However, one should remember that development mechanisms of such electrohydraulic
discharges are quite different than corona and spark discharges
in gases and still not well understood.
The amplitudes of the voltage and current corona pulses
were up to 40 kV and 35 A, respectively, with a full width
at half maximum (FWHM) of 3.8 μs. The amplitudes of the
voltage and current spark pulses were up to 27 kV and 30 A,
IZDEBSKI et al.: REMEDIATION USING ELECTROHYDRAULIC DISCHARGES OR OZONATION
Fig. 3.
Typical voltage pulses of corona and spark discharges.
respectively, with an FWHM of 1.4 μs. These current and
voltage pulses are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In Fig. 4, a zoom of
current waveform in the range of 0–3 μs is shown. In contrast
to the current waveform recorded by Ceccato et al. [34], we
did not observe streamer propagation phase separated from the
initiation one. This is probably caused by the geometry of active
electrode, which is a hollow needle in our experiment, whereas
Ceccato et al. [34] used a simple needle with conical tip. The
hollow needle electrode has a ring edge acting as a multipoint
electrode. Thus, the probability of simultaneous propagation
of several streamers is much higher than for simple needle,
which is more like a single-point electrode. As can be seen in
Fig. 4, initiation phase of the streamer is overlapped by the stray
capacitive current and its ripples at the beginning of the current
955
Fig. 4. Typical current pulses of corona and spark discharges.
waveform. This “stray” current superimposed with the initiation
current is LC ringing obtained when applying voltage, with L
from the power supply and the reactor circuit and C from the
interelectrode capacitance [34]. Thus, even these current ripples
are taken into account when calculating the pulse energy of the
discharge (Ep ) by the integration of the pulse voltage times the
current over the pulse duration
Ep q =
U (t)I(t)d(t).
(1)
pulse
Since the current pulse is shorter than the voltage one, the
Ep calculation ends with the current pulse. The integration
was carried out for five oscillograms and then averaged. For
956
Fig. 5. Concentration of microorganisms grown in 36 ◦ C river water samples
as a function of processing time using ozonation, spark discharge, and corona
discharge.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 3, MARCH 2011
Fig. 7. Concentration of the total number of coli bacteria in river water
samples as a function of processing time using ozonation, spark discharge, and
corona discharge.
Fig. 8. Concentration of E. coli bacteria in river water samples as a function
of processing time using ozonation, spark discharge, and corona discharge.
Fig. 6. Concentration of microorganisms grown in 22 ◦ C river water samples
as a function of processing time using ozonation, spark discharge, and corona
discharge.
the corona and spark discharges, the resulted pulse energy was
0.42 ± 0.02 J and 0.17 ± 0.01 J, respectively.
A comparison of bacteriological results of the total number
of microorganisms and coli bacteria concentrations in river
water samples treated by corona discharge, spark discharge, and
ozonation is shown in Figs. 5–8. Energy efficiencies of various
treatments are shown in Figs. 9–12. The energy efficiency η was
calculated using the following formulas:
1) for the ozonation
η=
P O · tp
(C − C0 ) · VS
(2)
where Po is the discharge power used in the ozonator
(15 W), tp is a processing time in seconds, C and C0
are the initial and final number of microorganisms in
IZDEBSKI et al.: REMEDIATION USING ELECTROHYDRAULIC DISCHARGES OR OZONATION
957
Fig. 9. Energy efficiency of inactivation of microorganisms grown in 36 ◦ C
river water samples as a function of processing time using ozonation, spark
discharge, and corona discharge.
Fig. 11. Energy efficiency of inactivation of the total number of coli bacteria
in river water samples as a function of processing time using ozonation, spark
discharge, and corona discharge.
Fig. 10. Energy efficiency of inactivation of microorganisms grown in 22 ◦ C
river water samples as a function of processing time using ozonation, spark
discharge, and corona discharge.
Fig. 12. Energy efficiency of inactivation of E. coli bacteria in river water
samples as a function of processing time using ozonation, spark discharge, and
corona discharge.
colony-forming unit per milliliter, respectively, and Vs is
a sample volume (400 mL);
2) for the corona and spark discharges
η=
Ep · f · t p
(C − C0 ) · VS
(3)
where Ep is the pulse energy calculated from (1) and f
is a pulse repetition rate (60 Hz). Other symbols have the
same meaning as in (2). Processing time tp is calculated
from the following formula:
tp =
VS
Q
(4)
where Q is a water flow rate (mL/s).
It is seen that processing by corona discharge caused significant reduction in the concentrations of microorganisms
and bacteria but did not kill them completely. The lower the
958
flow rate, the more energy efficient it was. Comparing to the
EU regulations for drinking water, i.e., 0 cfu/100 mL for coli
and E. coli bacteria and 100 and 20 cfu/mL for the number of
microorganisms grown in 22 ◦ C and 36 ◦ C, respectively [35],
microbial quality of water processed by corona discharge is far
from satisfactory.
The spark discharge was much more effective than the
corona, causing a 100% decrease in the number of microorganisms and bacteria after 622 s of processing, except for the
total number of microorganisms in 36 ◦ C, which survived in
the number of 36 cfu/mL. This number is only slightly higher
than the regulation, and we believe that it can be improved. As
seen in Figs. 9–12, the energy efficiency of spark discharge was
three times higher than the corona but still much below that of
ozonation.
The ozonation process caused a fast decrease of the total
bacteria concentrations with increasing treatment time. After
45 s of processing, the total coli number dropped from initial
11 750 to 10 cfu/mL and E. coli number from 280 to 1 cfu/mL.
Processing time of 152 s resulted in killing all of the coli
bacteria and microorganisms. The energy efficiency was a
magnitude higher than that of the electrohydraulic discharges.
The reason for the higher efficiency of ozonation against corona
and spark discharges is the saturation of all water volume with
ozone and sustaining this saturation to the end of the ozonation
process by ozone excess. In the case of corona and spark
electrohydraulic discharges, water flowing through the reactor
cannot be saturated with oxidizing radicals due to their short
lifetime. Thus, their action is limited to plasma vicinity. UV
generated by discharges is strongly absorbed by the water, so it
is harmful also for microorganism in the region close to plasma,
whereas pressure waves are relatively strong only in the case of
spark discharge, however not intense enough to inactivate all
microorganisms.
The TOC concentrations measured in every water sample are
similar, i.e., 5 ± 0.4 ppm. It is seen that TOC concentrations
were not affected by the treatment in this experiment. It shows
that neither electrohydraulic discharges nor ozonation oxidized
organic compounds to CO2 . Thus, their action was limited to
inactivation of microorganisms, possibly with the destruction
of their structure and to the oxidation of one organic compound
into another. Due to the fact that real river water contains
different kinds of microorganisms, i.e., bacteria, viruses, fungi,
and protozoa, mechanisms of disinfection in our experiment
probably involves all known processes induced by oxidizing
agents, pressure wave, and UV irradiation [30]. It is known
that ozone and OH radicals cause destruction of bacterial
membrane through alteration of glycoproteins or glycolipids
[28], conversion of certain amino acids such as tryptophan in
bacterial cells [29], disruption of enzymatic activity of bacteria
by acting on the sulfhydryl groups of certain enzymes [31],
affection of both purines and pyrimidines in nucleic acids [28],
and modification of the viral capsid sites that the virion uses to
fix on the cell surfaces (high concentrations of ozone dissociate
the capsid completely) [30]. Pressure waves can mechanically
damage microorganism structure, whereas UV irradiation, in
particular, in the range of 240–280 nm, is able to alter nucleic
acids [30].
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 3, MARCH 2011
Destruction of microorganism cells means that their contents,
inter alia, nucleic acids, contaminated the water. This process
may be an explanation for the observed increase in conductivity
from initial 376 μS to 657–680 μS in all samples. Presence
of organic acids, both nucleic and other formed through the
oxidation of organic compounds [17], [19] should result in
increased pH. However, measurements of pH showed that there
were no changes of this parameter. This may be caused by
possible presence of phosphorous fertilizers, which very often
contaminate, which act as chemical buffers sustaining pH at the
same level.
IV. C ONCLUSION
Our experiment has demonstrated that ozonation is the most
efficient method of water disinfection comparing to pulsed
spark and pulsed corona discharges. The pulsed spark discharge
in the water is capable to kill all microorganisms similarly to
ozonation, however with much lower energetic efficiency. The
pulsed corona discharge turned to be the less effective method
of water disinfection.
However, further studies using other electrode configurations
and materials, e.g., using porous ceramics increasing the number of discharge channels [36], as well as reactor geometry, e.g.,
asymmetric shape prohibiting subtraction of pressure waves
reflected from the reactor opposite walls, may improve energy
efficiency of spark and/or corona discharge and make them
competitive to ozonation.
R EFERENCES
[1] Waste-Water Treatment Technologies: A General Review, United Nations, New York, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://www.escwa.un.org/
information/publications/edit/upload/sdpd-03-6.pdf
[2] M. I. Kerwick, S. M. Reddy, A. H. L. Chamberlain, and D. M. Holt, “Electrochemical disinfection, an environmentally acceptable method of drinking water disinfection,” Electrochim. Acta, vol. 50, no. 25/26, pp. 5270–
5277, Sep. 2005.
[3] P. S. M. Dunlop, J. A. Byrne, N. Manga, and B. R. Eggins, “The photocatalytic removal of bacterial pollutants from drinking water,” J. Photochem.
Photobiol. A: Chem., vol. 148, no. 1–3, pp. 355–363, May 2002.
[4] T. A. Ternesa, J. Stüber, N. Herrmanna, D. McDowell, A. Ried,
M. Kampmann, and B. Teiser, “Ozonation: A tool for removal of pharmaceuticals, contrast media and musk fragrances from wastewater?” Water
Res., vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1976–1982, Apr. 2003.
[5] H. F. Diao, X. Y. Li, J. D. Gu, H. C. Shi, and Z. M. Xie, “Electron microscopic investigation of the bactericidal action of electrochemical disinfection in comparison with chlorination, ozonation and Fenton
reaction,” Process Biochem., vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1421–1426, Jul. 2004.
[6] J. C. Joret, V. Mennecart, C. Robert, B. Compagnon, and P. Cervantes,
“Inactivation of indigenous bacteria in water by ozone and chlorine,”
Water Sci. Technol., vol. 35, no. 11/12, pp. 81–86, 1997.
[7] M. Sato, T. Soutome, S. Mii, T. Ohshima, and Y. Yamada, “Decomposition
of phenol in water using water surface plasma in wetted-wall reactor,” Int.
J. Plasma Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 71–75, Mar. 2007.
[8] J. Koivunen and H. Heinonen-Tanski, “Inactivation of enteric microorganisms with chemical disinfectants, UV irradiation and combined
chemical/UV treatments,” Water Res., vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1519–1526,
Apr. 2005.
[9] V. Lazarova, P. Savoye, M. L. Janex, E. R. Blatchley, and M. Pommepuy,
“Advanced wastewater disinfection technologies: State of the art and
perspectives,” Water Sci. Technol., vol. 40, no. 4/5, pp. 203–213, 1999.
[10] R. d’Agostino, P. Favia, Y. Kawai, H. Ikegami, N. Sato, and
F. Arefi-Khonsari, Advanced Plasma Technology. Weinheim, Germany:
WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2008, ch. 24, pp. 421–432.
[11] M. B. Emelko, A. J. Arnold, C. A. Santillan, S. E. Dickson, and
J. S. Chang, “Treatment of drinking water with pulsed arc electrohydraulic discharge: Promising outcomes and future challenges,” in Proc.
IZDEBSKI et al.: REMEDIATION USING ELECTROHYDRAULIC DISCHARGES OR OZONATION
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
Asia-Pacific Int. Symp. Air Water Treatments Green Oxidation/Reduction
Technol.—Catalyst, Plasma and Hybrid Systems, Dalian, China, 2006.
W.-K. Ching, A. J. Colussi, H. J. Sun, K. H. Nealson, and M. R. Hoffman,
“Escherichia coli disinfection by electrohydraulic discharges,” Environ.
Sci. Technol., vol. 35, no. 20, pp. 4139–4144, Oct. 2001.
A. Abou-Ghazala, S. Katsuki, K. H. Schoenbach, F. C. Dobbs, and
K. R. Moreira, “Bacterial decontamination of water by means of pulsedcorona discharges,” IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1449–
1453, Aug. 2002.
K. Yasuoka and K. Sato, “Development of repetitive pulsed plasmas in
gas bubbles for water treatment,” Int. J. Plasma Environ. Sci. Technol.,
vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 22–27, 2009.
M. Sato, T. Ohgiyama, and J. S. Clements, “Formation of chemical
species and their effects on microorganisms using a pulsed high-voltage
discharge in water,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 106–112,
Jan./Feb. 1996.
M. Dors, E. Metel, J. Mizeraczyk, and E. Marotta, “Coli bacteria inactivation by pulsed corona discharge in water,” Int. J. Plasma Environ. Sci.
Technol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 34–37, 2008.
B. R. Locke, M. Sato, P. Sunka, M. R. Hoffmann, and J.-S. Chang,
“Electrohydraulic discharge and nonthermal plasma for water treatment,”
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 882–905, Feb. 2006.
B. Sun, M. Sato, and J. S. Clements, “Use of a pulsed high-voltage discharge for removal of organic compounds in aqueous solution,” J. Phys.
D, Appl. Phys., vol. 32, no. 15, pp. 1908–1915, Aug. 1999.
D. R. Grymonpré, W. C. Finney, R. J. Clark, and B. C. Locke, “Hybrid
gas-liquid electrical discharge reactors for organic compound degradation,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1975–1989, Apr. 2004.
C. M. Miller, R. L. Valentine, M. E. Roehl, and P. J. J. Alvarez, “Chemical
and microbiological assessment of pendimethalin-contaminated soil after
treatment with Fenton’s reagent,” Water Res., vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 2579–
2586, Nov. 1996.
K. H. Chan and W. Chu, “The dose and ratio effects of Fe(II) and H2 O2 in
Fenton’s process on the removal of atrazine,” Environ. Technol., vol. 24,
no. 6, pp. 703–710, Jun. 2003.
A. L. Barros, T. M. Pizzolato, E. Carissimi, and I. A. H. Schneider, “Decolorizing dye wastewater from the agate industry with Fenton oxidation
process,” Minerals Eng., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 87–90, Jan. 2006.
N. Kang, D. S. Lee, and J. Yoon, “Kinetic modeling of Fenton oxidation of
phenol and monochlorophenols,” Chemosphere, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 915–
924, Jun. 2002.
M. Pera-Titusa, V. Garcia-Molina, M. A. Baños, J. Giménez, and
S. Esplugas, “Degradation of chlorophenols by means of advanced oxidation processes: A general review,” Appl. Catal. B: Environ., vol. 47,
no. 4, pp. 219–256, Feb. 2004.
959
[25] J. S. Chang, “Thermal plasma solid waste and water treatments: A critical
review,” Int. J. Plasma Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 67–84,
2009.
[26] M. Sato, “Degradation of organic contaminants in water by plasma,” Int.
J. Plasma Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 8–14, 2009.
[27] A. Mizuno, “Recent progress and applications of non-thermal plasma,”
Int. J. Plasma Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2009.
[28] D. B. M. Scott and E. C. Lesher, “Effect of ozone on survival and permeability of Escherichia coli,” J. Bacteriol., vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 567–576,
Mar. 1963.
[29] B. D. Goldstein and E. M. McDonagh, “Effect of ozone on cell membrane
protein fluorescence I. In vitro studies utilizing the red cell membrane,”
Environ. Res., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 179–186, Apr. 1975.
[30] Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual, U.S. Environ.
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, Apr. 1999. EPA 815-R-99-014
[31] A. C. Giese and E. Christensen, “Effects of ozone on organisms,” Physiol.
Zool., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 101–115, 1954.
[32] Hazen and Sawyer, Disinfection Alternatives for Safe Drinking Water.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.
[33] T. Vykouk, M. Clupek, and P. Lukes, “Inactivation of Escherichia coli by
pulsed corona discharge in water,” in Proc. 10th Int. Symp. High Pressure
Low Temp. Plasma Chem., Saga, Japan, 2006, pp. 229–233.
[34] P. H. Ceccato, O. Guaitella, M. Rabec Le Gloahec, and A. Rousseau,
“Time-resolved nanosecond imaging of the propagation of a corona-like
plasma discharge in water at positive applied voltage polarity,” J. Phys. D,
Appl. Phys., vol. 43, no. 17, p. 175 202, May 2010.
[35] Council Directive 98/83/EC, “On the quality of water intended for human
consumption,” Official J. of the European Communities1998.
[36] P. Lukes, M. Clupek, V. Babicky, and P. Sunka, “Pulsed electrical discharge in water generated using porous-ceramic-coated electrodes,” IEEE
Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1146–1147, Aug. 2008.
T. Izdebski, photograph and biography not available at the time of publication.
M. Dors, photograph and biography not available at the time of publication.
J. Mizeraczyk, photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.