Product category:
Filters and Centrifuges
News Release from: Hanovia | Subject: medium pressure uv
Edited by the Processingtalk Editorial
Team on 06 May 2003
Life cycle costs reduced with medium
pressure UV
The total life cycle cost of plant and equipment is an increasingly important factor in procurement decision-making for operators of large-scale ultraviolet (UV) water disinfection systems
The total life cycle cost (LCC) is the sum of all the costs incurred during the working life of the plant in question Many of these costs may not be obvious at the time of purchase, however, and the user can end up paying considerably more than initially budgeted for over the system's lifetime
This article was originally published on Processingtalk on 24 Feb 2003 at 8.00am (UK)
Related stories
GlaxoSmithKline upgrades UV disinfection
GlaxoSmithKline has opted to upgrade the existing Hanovia ultraviolet (UV) water disinfection units at one of its UK installations with new state-of-the-art Hanovia Photon medium pressure UV systems
Process water treated by UV disinfection
British company Hanovia will supply Sasol Technology Ltd with four medium pressure UV disinfection systems for its South African production plant, to enable secondary effluent re-use
UV disinfection systems are split into two distinct types: low pressure (LP) and medium pressure (MP).
For LP systems to be effective at destroying microorganisms, a large number of UV lamps are required.
This has obvious cost and maintenance implications for the operator.
All UV lamps have set lifespans and need replacing after a certain number of hours (normally several thousand).
The more lamps there are, the greater the likelihood that the system will need to be stopped to replace those that fail.
UV monitoring is also more difficult with a large number of lamps - UV monitors are located on the wall of the UV chamber, so if a lamp located away from the chamber wall fails, it may not be detected.
In addition, a large number of lamps impedes fluid flow through the UV chamber, resulting in pressure headloss and higher pumping costs.
For these reasons many operators are now switching to the newer, more efficient MP technology.
With a wider and more powerful UV output than LP lamps, far fewer MP lamps are required for the same level of disinfection.
Headloss is significantly reduced and monitoring is far more effective.
Maintenance costs are also reduced as there are physically fewer lamps to replace.
Typically, 10-12 LP lamps are required to produce the same UV output as one MP lamp.
The initial capital outlay is similar for LP and MP technologies.
Power consumption is higher in MP systems, but these costs are generally highly regulated and therefore predictable.
The greater LCC for LP systems is mainly associated with lamp and sleeve replacement and disposal.
The implications of these findings are significant, because over the total life of both systems, the LCC costs will be considerably lower for MP as opposed to LP systems.
• Hanovia: contact details and other news
• Email this article to a colleague
• Register for the free Processingtalk email newsletter
• Processingtalk Home Page
