United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
Washington, DC 20460
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Superfund
EPA/540/2-91/025
October 1991
Engineering Bulletin
Chemical Oxidation
Treatment
Purpose
Section 121(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maxi-
mum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in
which treatment "permanently and significantly reduo s the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, and contaminants as a principal element." The Engi-
neering Bulletins are a series of documents that summarize
the latest information available on selected treatment and site
remediation technologies and related issues. They provide
summaries of and references for the latest information to help
remedial project, managers, on-scene coordinators, cor trac-
tors, and other site cleanup managers understand the type of
data and site characteristics needed to evaluate a technology
for potential applicability to their Superfund or olher ha -ard-
ous waste site. Those documents that describe individual
treatment technologies focus on remedial investigation -cop-
ing needs. Addenda will be issued periodically lo updatt the
original bulletin'-,.
Abstract
Oxidation destroys hazardous contaminants oy chemically
converting then to nonhazardous or less toxic compounds
that are ideally more stable, less mobile, and/or inert. However,
under some conditions, other hazardous compounds may be
formed, The oxidizing agents most commonly used foi the
treatment of hazardous contaminants are ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide, Cur-
rent research has shown the combination of these reagents or
ultraviolet (UV) light and an oxidizing agent (s) makes the pro-
cess more effective [1] [2] [3, p. 11]. Treatability studie- are
necessary to document the applicability and performance of
chemical oxidation systems technology for a specific site.
Chemical oxidation is a developed technology commonly
used to treat liquid mixtures containing amines, chlorophenois,
cyanides, halogenated aliphatic compounds, mercaptans,, phe-
^[reference number, page number]
nols, and certain pesticides [4, p. 7.76] [5, p. 7.42]. In lab-scale
tests, chemical oxidation has been shown to be effective for
chlorinated organics [6, p. 229].
This bulletin provides information on the technology appli-
cability, limitations, a technology description, the types of re-
siduals produced, site requirements, current performance data,
status of the technology, and sources of further information.
Technology Applicability
Chemical oxidation effectively treats liquids that contain
oxidizable contaminants; however, it can be used on slurried
soils and sludges. Because it is a nonselective treatment, it is
most suited to media with low concentrations of contaminants.
The effectiveness of chemical oxidation technology on
general contaminant groups is shown in Table 1. Examples of
constituents within contaminant groups are provided in "Tech-
nology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and
Sludges" [7|. This table is based on the current available infor-
mation or professional judgement when no information was
available. The proven effectiveness of the technology for a
particular site or waste does not ensure that it will be effective at
all sites or that the treatment efficiency achieved will be accept-
able at other sites. For the ratings used for this table, demon-
strated effectiveness means that, at some scale, treatability was
tested to show that, for that particular contaminant and matrix,
the technology was effective. The ratings of potential effective-
ness and no-expected-effectiveness are based upon expert judge-
ment. Where potential effectiveness is indicated, the technol-
ogy is believed capable of successfully treating the contaminant
group in a particular matrix. When the technology is not appli-
cable or will probably not work for a particular combination of
contaminant group and matrix, a no-expected-effectiveness
rating is given.
Chemical oxidation depends on the chemistry of the oxi-
dizing agent(s) and the chemical contaminants. Table 2 lists
selected organic compounds by their relative ability to be
oxidized. Chemical oxidation has also been used as part of a
treatment process for cynanide-bearing wastes and metals such
-------
as arsenic, iron, and manganese [8, p. 4.4]. Metal oxides formed
in the oxidation process more readily precipitate out of the
treated medium.
The oxidation of some compounds will require a combi-
nation of oxidizing agents or the use of UV light with an
oxidizing agent(s) [1][2] [3, p. 10]. An example of such a
situation is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which do not
Table 1
Effectiveness of Chemical Oxidation on General
Contaminant Groups for Liquids, Soils, and Sludges'
—
0
O
O
O
v»
O
Hi
O
ex
Contaminant Groups
Haiogenated volatiles
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
PCBs
Pesticides
Dioxins/Furans
Organic cyanides
Organic corrosives
Volatile metals
Nonvolatile metals
Asbestos
Radioactive materials
Inorganic corrosives
Inorganic cyanides
Liquids Soils, Sludges
m v
• V
• V
• V
m j
• T
T J
• •
T V
• ' T'
• T
LI Ji
LJ J
LJ LJ
• •
Oxidizers ; -1 -1
Reducers \ • V
Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability test at some scale
completed
Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology wilt work
No Expected Effectiveness: Expert opinion that technology wil! not work
Enhancement of the chemical oxidation process is required for the >e$s
easily oxidizable compounds for some contaminant groups.
Table 2
Selected Organic Compounds by
Relative Ability to be Oxidized
Ability to be Oxidized
High
Medium
Low
Examples
phenols, aldehydes,
amines, some sulfur
compounds
alcohols, ketones, organic
acids, esters, alkyl-
substituted anomalies,
nilro-subsli luted aromatics,
carbohydrates
halogenated hydrocarbons
saturated aliphalics,
benzene
react with ozone alone, but have been destroyed by combined
UV-ozone treatment [5, p. 7.48]. Enhanced chemical oxidation
has been used at several Superfund sites [3][9].
Limitations
If oxidation reactions are not complete, residual hazardous
compounds may remain in the contaminant stream. In addition,
intermediate hazardous compounds may be formed (e.g.,
trihalomethanes, epoxides, and nitrosamines) [10][11, p. 190].
Incomplete oxidation may be caused by insufficient quantity of the
oxidizing agent(s), inhibition of oxidation reactions by low or high
pH, the strength of the oxidizing agent(s), the presence of interfer-
ing compounds that consume reagent, or inadequate mixing or
contact time between contaminant and oxidizing agent(s) [12, p.
10.52]. It is important to monitor the concentrations of residual
oxidizing agent(s), contaminants, and products to ensure a com-
plete reaction has occurred. It may be necessary to monitor
reaction conditions such as pH, temperature, and contact time to
optimize the reaction. Determination of potential reactions and
rates may be critical to prevent explosions or formation of un-
wanted compounds.
Oil and grease in the media should be minimized to opti-
mize the efficiency of the oxidation process. Oxidation is not
cost-effective for highly concentrated wastes because of the
large amounts of oxidizing agent(s) required.
Chemical oxidation can be used on soils and sludges if
there is complete mixing of the oxidizing agent(s) and the
oxidizable hazardous component in the matrix.
Ozonation systems generally have higher capital costs than
those using other oxidizing agents because an ozone generator
must be used. They must also have an ozone decomposition
unit to prevent emission of excess ozone into the ambient air
which futher adds to the cost.
Although hydrogen peroxide is considered a relatively safe
oxidant, proper storage and handling is required [5, p. 7.44].
The hydrogen peroxide reaction may be explosive when intro-
duced into high-organic materials [11, p. 190].
The cost of generating UV light and the problem of scaling
or coating on the lamps are two of the biggest drawbacks to
UV-enhanced chemical oxidation systems. They do not per-
form as well in turbid waters and slurries because the reduced
light transmission lowers the effectiveness [1 3].
Technology Description
Chemical oxidation is a process in which the oxidation
state of a contaminant is increased while the oxidation state of
the reactant is lowered. The electrons gained by the oxidizing
agent are lost by the contaminant. An example of a common
oxidation reaction is:
NaCN
(sodium
cyanide)
H202
(hydrogen
peroxide)
H20
NaCNO
(sodium + (water)
cyanate)
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment
-------
In this reaction, the oxidation state of carbon in the sodium
cyanide is increased while the oxidation state of each oxygen in
the hydrogen peroxide is decreased.
Chemical oxidation is used when hazardous contaminants
can be destroyed by converting them to nontoxic o less haz-
ardous compounds. Contaminants are detoxified by actually
changing their chemical forms. The process is nonselective;
therefore, any oxidizable material reacts. The oxidizing agent(s)
must be well mixed with the contaminants in a reactor to
produce effective oxidation. In order for the oxidatio i reaction
to occur, the pH must be maintained at a proper level; therefore,
pH adjustment may be necessary [10][14].
Figure 1 shows a process flow diagram for a chemical
oxidation system. The main component is the process reactor.
Oxidant is fed into the mixing unit (1), then the reactor (2).
Reaction products and excess oxidant are scrubbed prior to
venting to the ambient air. The pH and the temperature in the
reactor are controlled to ensure the reaction goes to completion.
The reaction can be enhanced with the addition of UV light
Common commercially available oxidants include ozone,
hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine arid chlonne diox-
ide. Treatment of hazardous contaminants requires a strong
oxidizing agent(s), such as ozone or hydrogen peroxide. Ozone
and combinations of ozone and hydrogen peroxide react rap-
idly with a large number of contaminants [3, p. 11 j. Ozone has
a half-life of 20 to 30 minutes at 20°C (68°F); therefor-?, it must
be produced onsite. This requirement eliminates storage and
handling problems associated with other oxidants.
Systems that use ozone in combination with hydrogen
peroxide or UV radiation are catalytic ozonation processes. They
accelerate ozone decomposition, thereby increasing the hydroxyl
radical concentration and promoting the oxidation rate of the
compounds of interest [3, p. 10]. Specifically, hydrogen perox-
ide, hydrogen ion, and UV radiation have been found to initiate
ozone decomposition and accelerate the oxidation of refractory
organics via the free radical reaction pathway [6, p. 228]. Reac-
tion times can be 100 to 1000 times faster in the presence of UV
light [II, p. 195]. Minimal emissions result from the UV-en-
hanced systems [15, p. 35].
Process Residuals
Residuals produced from chemical oxidation systems can
include partially oxidized products (if the reaction does not go to
completion) which may require further treatment. In some
cases, inorganic salts may be formed [10]. Depending on the
oxidizing agent used and the chlorine content of the contami-
nant, oxidation of organic compounds may result in the forma-
tion of HCI and NO2. Ozone and hydrogen peroxide have an
advantage over oxidants containing chlorine because potentially
hazardous chlorinated compounds are not formed [11, p. 187].
Acid gas control is required for reactions that produce HCI.
Any precipitate formed has to be filtered out and may require
additional treatment to comply with the appropriate regula-
tions [10].
Site Requirements
Equipment requirements for oxidation processes include
storage vessels, metering equipment, and reactor vessels with
some type of agitation device. UV light may also be required.
All the equipment is readily available and can be skid-mounted
and sent to the site.
Ozone must be generated onsite because it is not practical
to store. Other oxidizing agents require onsite storage and
handling. A site safety plan would have to be developed to
Figure 1
Process Flow Diagram for Chemical Oxidation System
tf ENT GAS
Scrubber
(3)
pH Adjustmenl N
CONTAMINANTS »~
Temperature Adjustment •
Oxidant
Storage
Tank
!
r
Reactor
(2)
WATER
EFFLUENT
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment
-------
provide for personnel protection and special handling mea-
sures. Standard 440V, three-phase electrical service may be
required depending on the reactor configuration. Water must
be available onsite for cleaning and descaling operations, al-
though the treated effluent might be used for this purpose.
Water would also be needed for slurrying soils and sludges. The
quantity of water needed is vendor- and site-specific.
Onsite analytical equipment may be needed to conduct
pH, oil, and grease analyses. Liquid and gas chromatographs
Lorentz Barrel
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
pH
7.2
6.2
5.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
Table 3
and Drum SITE Testing
Time
(min)
40
40
40
60
20
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Ozone
dose
(mg/l)
75
75
75
75
75
110
38
110
110
no
110
110
no
Parameters [3]
H202
dose
(mg/l)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
38
13
13
13
13
13
UV
Lamps
all o i
all o i
all on
all on
all on
all on
all on
all on
all 01 !
1/2 en
1 /2 o i
all or
all or
capable of determining site-specific organic compounds may
be required for the operation to be more efficient and to
provide better information for process control.
Performance Data
Performance of full-scale chemical oxidation systems has
been reported by several sources, including equipment ven-
dors. Some of the data presented for specific contaminant
removal effectiveness were obtained from publications devel-
oped by the respective chemical oxidation system vendors. The
quality of this information has not been determined; however,
it does give an indication of the efficiency of chemical oxida-
tion. Data on chemical oxidation systems at Superfund sites are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Ultrox International installed its system at the Lorentz Bar-
rel and Drum Superfund site in San Jose, California. The system
uses ozone and hydrogen peroxide with UV radiation to treat
contaminated groundwater whose main contaminants were
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethylene (TCE), and 1,1-
dichloroethane (DCA). Demonstration of this system at the
Lorentz site was also part of the Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation (SITE) program. During the SITE testing, hy-
draulic retention time (reaction time), ozone dose, hydrogen
peroxide dose, UV radiation intensity, and pH level were varied,
as shown in Table 3, to assess the system's performance. The
results of the testing are listed in Table 4 [3].
The system destruction efficiency averaged more than 90
percent of the TCE in the contaminated groundwater over the
range of operating parameters. Destruction efficiencies for
1,1,1 -TCA and 1,1 -DCA increased when the ozone dosage was
increased. During these runs, the destruction efficiency for
Run
Influent0
Table 4
Lorentz Barrel and Drum SITE Test Results (contaminated groundwater) [3]
1,1,1-TCA
Effluent"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
4.0
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.7
3.5
4.3
3.4
3.8
3.3
3-2
1.2
0.6
1.3
1.8
1.4
1.0
3.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.5
Removed
70
83
65
53
66
73
37
80
83
82
80
87
85
a Mean Value
ifluent0
dig/')
86.0
55.0
64.0
56.0
50. is
73.0
70,0
59.0
65.0
57.0
57. (
52, (
49. t
TCE
Effluent0
(ug/i)
4.6
2.4
3.6
3.4
6.2
1.0
17.0
0.7
1.2
1.6
1.3
0.6
0.6
Removed
95
96
94
94
88
98
76
99
98
97 !
98
99
99
Influent0
(H9/I)
11.5
10.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
9.8
11.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
1,1 -DCA
Effluent0
fag/i)
6.2
3.2
6.7
7.8
6.4
5.2
9.2
4.7
5.3
3.9
5.4
3.8
4.2
%
Removed
46
69
35
32
36
54
30
52
54
62
50
65
60
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment
-------
1,1,1-TCA was over 80 percent and almost 60 percent for 1,1-
DCA. For a more detailed discussion, the reader should consult
reference 3.
The Ultrox'--' system was also used to treat contaminated
groundwater in Muskegon, Michigan Before treat-pent, the
TCE concentration was reported to be as high as 7 parts per
million (ppm). The Ultrox* system has reduced effluent levels
to under 2 parts per billion (ppb) [1 3, p. 90].
Solarchem Environmental Systems installed its Rayoxk en-
hanced oxidation unit at the Oswego, New York, Superfund
site. This demonstration system, which uses UV radiation en-
hancement with ozone and hydrogen peroxide, treated col-
lected leachate from a landfill site. Results of the testing are
listed in Table 5 [9].
Peroxiclation Systems' perox-pure™ Organic Destruction
process uses hydrogen peroxide and UV light to destroy dis-
solved organic contaminants. It has been used at a number of
sites to reduce contaminants up to 90 percent. The perox-
pure™ has much lower effectiveness on aliphatic compounds,
such as TCA, because they are not as reactive [15]. Table 6 is a
partial list of contaminants treated and applications where the
perox-pure V1 process has been used [16].
Table 7 lists performance data for several sites using the
full-scale perox-pure™ system [17] [18]. Most organics were
reduced to extremely low levels by the perox-pure™ treatment
system at every site. At Site 1, the perox-pure1'" system,
followed by an air stripper, was able to destroy 4 of the 6
organics below detection limits. It also eliminated over 90
percent of the air emissions as compared to the previous ar-
Table 5
Oswego Leachate Test Results [9]
Volatile
Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Methylene chloride (MeCI)
1,1 -Dichloraethylene (DCE)
1,1-DCA
t-l,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
1,1,1 -TCE
Benzene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
M-,P-Xylene
O-Xylene
Inlet Outlet %
(ppb) (ppb) Removed
204
118
401
3690
701
261
469
47
344
3620
704
2263
4635
6158
1
0
15.7
149
109
3 1
1 8
2.2
4.2
3.9
0
1.1
1.3
2.4
•>9.5
1 00
<>6
''9.6
K5
"8.9
"9.6
V5.8
'^8.8
-------
air streams from air stripping of groundwater and vacuum
extraction of soils under the SITE emerging technology pro-
gram at LLNL.
Other case studies have shown greater than 99 percent
destruction of the pesticides DDT, PCP, PCB, and Malathion
with ozone/UV radiation [4, p. 7.67].
Technology Status
Chemical oxidation is a well-established technology used
for disinfection of drinking water and wastewater and r a
common treatment for cyanide wastes. Enhanced systems .ire
now being used more frequently to treat hazardous streams.
This technology has been applied to Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act (RCRA) wastes and has been used on Super-
fund wastes [7]. In 1988, chemical oxidation was listed in the
Record of Decision at Lorentz Barrel & Drum in San Jose,
California and Southern Maryland Wood, in Hollywood, MD. In
1989, chemical oxidation was listed at Sullivan's Ledge in New
Bedford, Massachusetts; Bog Creek Farm in Howell Twp., New
Jersey; Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical in Dalton Twp., Michigan;
Burlington Northern in Somers, Montana; and Sacramento
Army Depot in Sacramento, California.
Operating costs can be competitive with other treatment
technologies such as air stripping and activated carbon. How-
ever, oxidation is becoming a more attractive option because
the contaminants are destroyed rather than transfered to an-
Table 7
Full-Scale perox-purelv1 Performance Data [17][18]
Location
Site 1
Source of influent not reported
Site 2
Concentrated Wastewater
Site 3
Contaminated Groundwater
Site 4
Source of influent not reported
Contaminant
MeCI
1,1-DC A
1,2-DCE
1,1,1 -TCA
TCE
PCE
Hydrazine
Moriomethvl Hydrazine
Unsvminetr-cal dimethyl
Hydra/in*'
Nitrosodimrthylamine
Chlorinated Organics
Pesticides/h erbicides
1,2-DCH
TCE
Chloroform
MeCI
1,1,1 -TCA
1,2-DCf:
Influent fog/1)
Effluent fog/1)
30
42
2466
1606
1060
3160
1,200,000
100,000
1,500,000
1,500
75,000
500
6.2
66.3
2.1
600-800
200-400
50-250
1.5
BDL
BDL
12118
BDL
BDL
<0.02
BDL
BDL
BDL
33
26
Site 5
Contaminated Groundwater
Site 6
Contaminated Groundwater
Detection Limits not Reported
BDL = Below Detection Limit
ND = Nondetectfd
* With Pretreatment
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzcne
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
MeCI
1, !, 1 -TCA
7,600
24,000
8,800
3,300
46,000
903
60
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
11
6
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment
-------
other media. Operating costs for mobile chemical oxidation
systems have ranged from $70 to $150 per 1,000 gallons of
water treated [8, p. 4.5]. Operating costs for the Ultrox"
enhanced system have varied dramatically from $0.1 > to $90/
1000 gallons treated, depending on the type of contaminants,
their concentration, and the desired cleanup standard. The
greatest expense for this system is the cost of electricity to
operate the ozone generator and UV lamps [1 3, p. 92].
EPA Contact
Technology-specific questions regarding chemical oxida-
tion may be directed to:
Dr. James Heidman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
FTS 684-7632
(513) 569-7632
Acknowledgments
This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio, by
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under con-
tract No. 68-C8-0062. Mr. Eugene Harris served as the EPA
Technical Project Monitor. Mr. Gary Baker was SAIC's Work
Assignment Manager. This bulletin was authored by Ms. Marg-
aret M. Groeber of SAIC. The author is grateful to Mr. Ken Dostal
of EPA, RREL, who has contributed significantly by serving as a
technical consultant during the development of this document.
The following other Agency and contractor personnel have
contributed their time and comments by participating in the
expert review meetings and/or peer reviewing the document:
Mr. Clyde Dial
Mr. James Rawe
Dr. Thomas Tiernan
Dr. Robert C. Wingfield, Jr.
Ms. Tish Zimmerman
SAIC
SAIC
Wright State University
Fisk University
EPA-OERR
REFERENCES
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
Ku, Y arid S-C Ho. The Effects of Oxidants on UV
Destruction of Chlorophenols. Environmental Progress
9(4): 21 8, 1990.
Kearney, P.C. et al. UV-Ozonation of Eleven Major
Pesticides as a Waste Disposal Pretreatment. Chemo-
sphere. 16 (10-1 2): 2321 -2330, 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology
Evaluation Report: SITE Program Demonstration of the
Ultrox® International Ultraviolet Radiation/Oxidation
Technology. EPA 540/5-89/012. January 1990.
Novak, f .C. Ozonation. In: Standard Handbook of
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Harry M.
Freeman, ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1989.
Fochtman, E.G. Chemical Oxidation and Reduction. In:
Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal, Harry Freeman, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
New York, 1989.
Glaze, W.H. Drinking-Water Treatment with Ozone.
Environmental Science and Technology. 21(3): 224-230
1987.
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA
Soils and Sludges. EPA/540/2-88/004, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,1989.
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund Wastes.
EPA 540/2-86/003(f), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
9. Marketing Brochure for Rayox®. Leachate Remediation
at the Oswego Superfund Site using Rayox® — A Second
Generation Enhanced Oxidation Process. Solarchem
Environmental Systems, Inc., Richmond Hill, Ontario.
10. Seminar Publication Corrective Action: Technologies and
Application. EPA/625/4-89/020, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1989.
11. Systems to Accelerate In Situ Stabilization of Waste
Deposits. EPA/540/2-86/002, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986.
12. Handbook Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites
(Revised). EPA/625/6-85/006, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1985.
13. Roy, K. Researchers Use UV Light for VOC Destruction,
Hazrnat World, May: 82-92, 1990.
14. A Compendium of Techniques Used in the Treatment of
Hazardous Wastes. EPA/625/8-87/014, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1987.
15. Roy, K. UV-Oxidation Technology Shining Star or Flash
in the Pan?, Hazmat World, June: 35-50, 1990.
16. Marketing Brochure for perox-pure™ organic destruc-
tion process. Peroxidation System Inc., Tucson, Arizona,
September 1990.
1 7. Froelich, E. The perox-pure™ Oxidation System - A
Comparative Summary. Presented at The American
Institute of Chemical Engineers. 1990 Summer National
Meeting, San Diego, CA, August 19-22, 1990.
Engineering Bulletin: Chemical Oxidation Treatment
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
18. Froelich, E. Advanced Chemical Oxidation of Contami-
nated Water Using perox-pure™ Oxidation System.
Presented at Chemical Oxidation: Technology for the
1990's. Vanderbuilt University, February 20-22,
19. New UV Lamp Said to Achieve Photolysis of Organics,
HazTECH News. 6(2):9, 1991.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Infor nation
Cincinnati, OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. C-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |