Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Review

Evaluation survey of microbial disinfection methods in UV-LED water

treatment systems
Xiaoling Li a, Miao Cai a,⁎, Lei Wang a, Fanfan Niu a, Daoguo Yang a,⁎, Guoqi Zhang a,b
a
School of Mechanism and Electrical Engineering, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin 541004, China
b
Delft Institute of Microsystems and Nanoelectronics (Dimes), Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 6, 2628CD Delft, the Netherlands

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• The latest researches on ultraviolet

light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) for
water disinfection are reviewed.
• The disinfection mechanism by UV-
LEDs is discussed in detail.
• The influence rule of UV-LED light
source system parameters is illustrated.
• The influence rule of UV-LED water
treatment system settings is also pre-
sented.
• Conclusions and future suggestions for
UV-LEDs water disinfection are
proposed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is an early discovered technology that is currently and widely used for water treat-
Received 14 August 2018 ment and food hygiene treatment. A newly emerging technology of UV disinfection, that is, UV light-emitting di-
Received in revised form 22 December 2018 odes (UV-LEDs), has aroused considerable research attention. UV-LEDs feature numerous advantages compared
Accepted 22 December 2018
with traditional UV mercury vapor lamps and are expected to replace traditional UV lamps. Researchers currently
Available online 24 December 2018
perform studies to obtain data and develop methods for UV-LED water treatment systems. This article analyzes
Editor: Paola Verlicchi the latest research status and discusses the types of inactivation factors, such as the wavelength selectivity of UV
light source, control of UV dose, effect of inactivation rate constant (K) (cm2/mJ), working mode of water sample,
Keywords: external auxiliary system, and UV sensitivity of pathogenic bacteria in water. The wavelengths of approximately
Ultraviolet disinfection 260 and 280 nm normally feature strong inactivation characteristics. When compared with the approximately
Ultraviolet light emitting diodes (UV-LEDs) 260 nm wavelength chip, the around 280 nm wavelength chip proves to be a better choice as its higher wave-
Water treatment length light power can result in faster disinfection capacity of bacteria. UV dose can also be used as the reference
Inactivated effects value for disinfection of drinking water, whereas the inactivation rate constant (K) (cm2/mJ) varies with different
Standardization
microorganism internal structures. Changing the working mode or adding an auxiliary system can also enhance
the inactivation effect in water treatment system settings. In addition, we can compare the inactivation capacities
of several pathogens as follows: ΦX174 N Escherichia coli N T type bacteriophage N Bacillus subtilis N MS2 or Qβ
N human adenovirus. The in-depth investigation and discussion of inactivation factors and the mechanism of ac-
tion in UV-LEDs water treatment systems will establish a more efficient UV-LED disinfection method in the

⁎ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: caimiao105@163.com (M. Cai), daoguo_yang@163.com (D. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.344
0048-9697/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1416 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427

future, provide a guiding direction, and promote the standardization and normalization of pathogen inactivation
mechanism in UV-LED water treatment systems.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1416
2. UV disinfection mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1417
3. Influence rule of disinfection methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1419
3.1. Influence of UV-LED light source system parameters on inactivation mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1419
3.1.1. Wavelength of UV-LEDs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1419
3.1.2. UV dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1420
3.1.3. Inactivation rate constant (K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1422
3.2. Influence of UV-LED light source on water treatment system settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423
3.2.1. Working mode of water sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1423
3.2.2. Water treatment reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1424
3.2.3. Auxiliary system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1425
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1426
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1426

method for water disinfection (Bowker et al., 2011; Kheyrandish et al.,

Nomenclature 2017a; Kim et al., 2017). UV irradiation has drawn considerable atten-
tion in water disinfection and food industries, especially in water treat-
CPD Cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer ment applications (Kim et al., 2017). UV disinfection has also been
A Adenine recommended as a substitute for chemical additives for surface water
G Guanine treatment according to a US Environmental Protection Agency report;
T Thymine it can effectively inactivate viruses at 4 log reduction in surface water
C Cytosine in water disinfection systems (USEPA, 2006). To date, more than 7000
MP Medium-pressure mercury lamp municipal UV disinfection installations exist worldwide (Muller,
LP 254 nm Low-pressure mercury lamp 2011), and small household UV disinfection systems are also available
E. coli Escherichia coli (Brownell et al., 2008). UV disinfection equipment from the global mar-
B. subtilis Bacillus subtilis ket is expected to reach $2.8 billion by 2020 (Allied Analytics LLP, 2014).
B. pumilus Bacillus pumilus Conventionally, UV light is generated from mercury lamps, including
L. pneumophila Legionella pneumophila low-pressure (LP) mercury lamps, which emit nearly monochromatic
P. aeruginosa Pseudomonas aeruginosa UV light at a wavelength of 254 nm, and medium-pressure lamps
HAdV Human adenovirus (MP), which emit a polychromatic spectrum with various wavelengths
K Inactivation rate constant (Bolton and Cotton, 2008). However, UV mercury lamps are packaged
DOM Dissolved organic matter by glass, which is fragile. UV mercury lamps easily cause mercury spills
in the external environment, releasing harmful vapors into the air for
weeks or years. In recent years, a new friendly method was developed
to generate UV light, that is, UV light-emitting diodes (UV-LEDs).
Vilhunen et al. (2009) used UV-LEDs at 269 and 276 nm wavelengths
as an optimal method for bacterial disinfection; other studies also sup-
1. Background port that UV-LEDs can work effectively in disinfection. However, UV-
LEDs feature drawbacks: the UV-LED chip is prone to lattice defects, dif-
The safety of drinking water remains an important issue worldwide, ficult to develop, and features low internal light efficiency (Wang et al.,
especially in most developing countries and numerous rural areas (Song 2015; Yan et al., 2017). The chip packaging is also prone to various prob-
et al., 2016). Drinking water is easily polluted by major pollutant lems, such as UV aging, internal interconnection failure, interface shed-
sources such as biological pollutants, which include various pathogenic ding, wire bonding failure, and light decay failure (Kheyrandish et al.,
microorganisms, easily causing the spread and epidemic of water-borne 2017a, 2017b; Beck et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2016; Arik et al., 2004; Lu
diseases (Wang et al., 2009). Polluted drinking water will result in et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016a, 2016b), and notable challenges occur in
proliferation of various human enteric viruses, including hepatitis A the application mechanism research and development (R&D) design
virus, rotavirus, and norovirus. Human enteric viruses may cause severe of encapsulated UV-LED products; these challenges include improving
diseases, such as hepatitis, poliomyelitis, and meningitis (Kim et al., the performance of UVC-LED reactors, creating a predictive model that
2017). can predict the average fluence rate, and developing measurement
In 2000, the US Food and Drug Administration approved ultraviolet techniques and accurate protocols for measuring and controlling the
(UV) disinfection as an effective method that can inactivate the replica- UV-LED output. Still, UV-LED chip R&D technology achieves continuous
tion of pathogens and spoilage microorganisms in food, water, and progress, although the epitaxial slice with a short wavelength is difficult
beverages. UV disinfection is a chemical-free process, generates no by- to develop, and lattice failures within the chip are less manageable.
products, and hardly affects the nutritional values of food. Disinfection Short wavelength development has also shown remarkable progress.
by UV radiation features no risk of overdosing, making it a viable Chips with wavelengths of below 280 nm have been developed, with
 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
200 nm to 280 nm being the most useful disinfection bands. In addition,
chip packaging module output efficiency is constantly improved in chip
encapsulation mode, including single chips. The multiple-chip array
module is also commonly used today; it remarkably improves the out-
put power of the entire device. Disinfection application products made
by UV-LED packaging constantly emerge in the market. UV-LEDs feature
more advantages compared with UV mercury lamps in a number of
ways; UV-LEDs possess an adjustable wavelength and can emit
radiation from 210 nm up to visible light and are promising UV radiation
sources (Shur and Gaska, 2010). UV-LEDs cause no disposal problem
(mercury-free), leave a small footprint (flexible architecture), are
mechanically robust, and possess an instant on–off functionality
(high-frequency response), low voltage, low power requirements, and
long lifetimes (reduced frequency of replacement) (Würtele et al.,
2011).
UV-LEDs feature numerous advantages, but owing to the current
overall technical difficulties, various aspects remain underdeveloped.
Most UV-LED applications are still in the state of R&D, and no standard
measurement scheme and description determine how UV-LEDs can
achieve the disinfection mechanism. Meanwhile, the measurement
technology of traditional mercury lamp has developed. As early as
2003, Bolton and Linden have developed a standardized protocol and
obtained accurate and consistent results for microbiological and photo-
chemical experiments by determining an accurate UV fluence (Bolton
and Linden, 2003). A protocol was also developed for measuring UV
mercury lamp output through researching different parameters
(Sasges and Robinson, 2005). Later, more practical protocols were intro-
duced, and different industry participants, including the International
Ultraviolet Association, showed much interest (Lawal et al., 2008;
Adam et al., 2010). However, these measurement protocols were devel-
oped for UV mercury lamps and were unsuitable for UV-LEDs, which
possess different structures and output specifications (Kheyrandish
et al., 2017a). Therefore, a measurement and analytic system for UV-
LED must be launched. A number of scholars carried out studies on var-
ious aspects of UV-LED water treatment in recent years. Consequently, a
standard protocol should be established to accurately control and mon-
itor the output of UV-LEDs and assess the consistency of UV-LEDs with
an accurate and reliable method in different experiments and devices;
protocols must also be developed for measuring and controlling UV-
LED output, radiation profile, radiant power, and UV dose for water dis-
infection applications (Kheyrandish et al., 2017a, 2017b; Simons et al.,
2014). Other researchers investigated the synergistic effects of dual
wavelength to compare log inactivation values (Beck et al., 2017;
Chevremont et al., 2012b). Scholars also showed interest in adding aux-
iliary equipment, such as an ultrasonic pretreatment system, for achiev-
ing better antibacterial rate (Zhou et al., 2017; Andrej et al., 2014).
Studies on disinfection of air surfaces, such as by an automatic disinfec-
tion stethoscope device made by UV-LED lamp, solved the problem on
transmission of hospital pathogens through the stethoscope (Messina
et al., 2015; Messina et al., 2016; Messina et al., 2018). The UV-LED sys-
tem will improve gradually, but forming a comprehensive, standard-
ized, and normalized UV-LED disinfection mechanism remains
extremely urgent.
This article thoroughly analyzes the latest research status, with dis-
cussion by horizontal and vertical comparisons, and determines the in-
terconnections among inactivation factors and the mechanism of action
from the influence rule of UV-LED water treatment systems. We will
conduct in-depth investigation and discussion to highlight the disinfec-
tion mechanism to gain insights into the related inactivation mecha-
nism. As a result, researchers can expand the relevant design and
research work in UV-LED water treatment systems. This paper also ex-
plores the methods of deep UV-LED disinfection for the establishment
of a more efficient UV-LED disinfection technique in the future, provides
a guiding direction, and promotes the standardization and normaliza-
tion of pathogen inactivation mechanism in UV-LED water treatment
systems.
1417
2. UV disinfection mechanism
People historically discovered DNA or RNA as the key target in vari-
ous organisms; UV disinfection causes the death of organisms when
their DNA or RNA absorbs UV light (Hijnen et al., 2006). Numerous stud-
ies were conducted on mutagenic DNA lesions induced by UV irradia-
tion. According to microbiological experiments, mutagenic DNA
lesions induced from UV irradiation belong to two major classes,
namely, cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and 6–4 photoproducts;
although the possibly existing Dewar valence isomers are extremely
low to count, CPDs are the most abundant and compose around 75%
of UV-induced DNA damage products in mutagenic DNA lesion inducers
(Sinha and Häder, 2002). Fig. 1 shows the construction and generative
process of cyclobutane thymine pyrimidine dimers (Bolton and
Cotton, 2008).
Maximum UV light absorption from DNA is reached at a wavelength
of ~260 nm; however, in most cases, the absorption peak wavelength
distribution, which varies among organisms, becomes dependent on
the target organism (Bolton and Cotton, 2008; Chen et al., 2009). For ex-
ample, Chen (2009) presented that Bacillus subtilis spores feature two
absorption maxima: one below 240 nm and another around 270 nm.
Cabaj et al. (2002) and Mamane and Linden (2005) obtained similar re-
sults and showed that the wavelength of fluence inactivation response
curves totals 254 and 279 nm, respectively. Different target organisms
exhibit different sensitivities under UV irradiation (Aoyagi et al.,
2011). Although the genetic material of pathogens is either DNA or
RNA, they also contain other components, such as proteins and a cell
membrane. Thus, we should perform various analyses for complex
organisms.
The action spectrum arises primarily from the DNA that absorbs UV
photon and matches the relative absorbance of DNA extracted from an
organism; for instance, the action spectrum of S. typhinium matches
well with the relative absorbance of the DNA extracted from the organ-
ism (Chen et al., 2009). The absorbance of other components to photons,
rather than the DNA in spores, are also non-negligible, as these compo-
nents maybe involved in the inactivation effect by germicidal UV light
(Chen et al., 2009).
The formula of the first-order model of Chick–Watson (Hijnen et al.,
2006) is described by Eq. (1):
LogðN0=NÞ ¼ K UVdose ð1Þ
where N0 and N refer to the number of colonies (CFU/mL) before and
after UV irradiation, respectively; UV dose (mJ/cm2) is the fluence at a
given wavelength; K (cm2/mJ) is the proportional coefficient used to de-
scribe inactivation, that is, the inactivation rate constant (Li et al., 2017).
The time-based and fluence-based inactivation rate constants (K) by
UV-LED for Escherichia coli are higher than those for other species, and
their differences among viruses show statistical significance (Oguma
et al., 2016). Considering the order of sensitivity among four microbial
species, namely, E. coli K12 IFO 3301, Qβ, MS2, and human adenoviruses
(HAdV), E. coli is the most sensitive, whereas HAdV are the most resis-
tant, similar to the order of sensitivities observed for an LP UV lamp in
the work of Hijnen (Hijnen et al., 2006; Rattanakul et al., 2014;
Oguma et al., 2016). However, UV sensitivity is distinguished in terms
of the generic material, which can be single- (ssDNA) or double-
stranded DNA and single- (ssRNA) or double-stranded RNA, which is
inherited by viruses, such as the ssDNA of ΦX 174 viruses or ssRNA of
MS2 and Qβ viruses. The UV sensitivity of viruses has also been evalu-
ated by the inactivation rate constant (K) (cm2/mJ) (Hijnen et al.,
2006; Song et al., 2016). MS2 and Qβ yield similar inactivation rate con-
stants (K) (cm2/mJ) values and show no significant difference regard-
less of the kind of treatment condition. However, ΦX 174 exhibits
statistically high UV sensitivity and inactivation rate constant (Kim
et al., 2017). Regarding the exploration of different species in terms of
inactivation capacities or anti-UV ability, biological inactivation
1418 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
Fig. 1. Double-stranded DNA chain showing how the formation of thymine dimers disrupts the structure chain (top); photochemical dimerization of two thymine bases (bottom) (Bolton
and Cotton, 2008).
capacities, which mean the capacities of microorganism to be
inactivated by UV light, must be compared. The exploration of each spe-
cies in terms of the absorption wavelength will determine the optimum
disinfection wavelength for each microorganism.
UV-LEDs comprise UVC (200–280 nm), UVB (280–315 nm), and
UVA (315–400 nm). The inactivation mechanism of UVC irradiation is
based on the absorption of UV photons from the genetic material and
produces dimers that can inhibit the transcription and replication of
genes from cells (Bolton and Linden, 2003; Oguma et al., 2002). How-
ever, most DNA repairs, including photoreactivation and dark repair,
occur under low UV doses. In photoreactivation repair, which is the
major process of DNA repair, photoenzymes are specifically identified
as enzymes that can repair CPD dimers by absorbing light energy in
the 310–480 nm wavelength (UVA or partial visible light); the dark re-
pair, which requires no light, replaces damaged DNA nucleotides with
undamaged DNA and causes minimal effects (Bolton and Cotton,
2008). Although UVA may undergo photoreactivation, recent results
showed that UVA radiation mechanism can cause inactivation of micro-
organisms when coupling UVA and UVC (Chevremont et al., 2012a).
Bactericidal effects from UVC and UVB may be similarly based on the
formation of genomic damages, which are reparable by DNA repair
mechanisms; on the other hand, UVA inactivates microorganisms, caus-
ing diverse irreparable damages in cells by promoting the formation of
active species (Friedberg et al., 1995; Oguma et al., 2013). UVA radiation
can destroy the cell membrane and other cellular components by pro-
ducing hydroxyl and oxygen radicals to damage proteins (Chevremont
et al., 2012a). DNA damage can be repaired by the enzyme photolyase
with UVA radiation, but no reported evidence discusses the damage of
bacterial membranes that can be repaired by UVA radiation.
Chevremont et al. (2012a) showed that coupling UVA and UVC can be
more effective by using the germicidal effect of UVC and greater pene-
trating capability of UVA; this coupling increases the efficiency of micro-
bial inactivation owing to the lack of possibility to repair the damage
when bacterial membranes can be destroyed after UVA exposure
(Chevremont et al., 2012a). UV-LEDs with wavelengths at the coupling
range of UVA and UVC exhibit higher polyphenol oxidase inactivation
efficiency than traditional LP mercury lamps. Compared with UVC irra-
diation and thermal treatment, UVC irradiation from the coupling wave-
length by UVA and UVC achieved better color preservation of cloudy
apple juice (Akgün and Ünlütürk, 2017). Furthermore, the light from
 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
UVA radiation, although not absorbed by DNA, can produce hydroxyl
radicals to damage protein bacterial membranes and inactivate micro-
organisms (Chatterley, 2003; Chevremont et al., 2012b). UV dose is
the most crucial factor regardless of whether using UVC, UVB, or UVA,
whose effects remarkably differ at low UV doses. B. subtilis and Salmo-
nella typhi undergo “shoulder” self-repair at low UVC doses (Chen
et al., 2009). Low UVA radiation easily causes photoreactivation.
Thus, we should develop a multivariate approach to specify the most
influential factors of inactivation. Several factors affect inactivation
yields; such factors include bacterial density, pH, UV exposure time,
and the single wavelength or coupling wavelength of chips
(Chevremont et al., 2012b). We will thoroughly analyze and discuss
their mechanism of action.
3. Influence rule of disinfection methods
This article divides UV-LED sterilizing water treatment systems into
two parts: the UV-LED light source system, which is a key part and the
most influential factor affecting the efficiency of the whole system;
water treatment system, which receives the UV-LED light source and
serves as the reaction location where microbes are killed off and
whose setting shows a relationship to disinfection results.
3.1. Influence of UV-LED light source system parameters on inactivation
mechanism
UV emission light source system is the main factor affecting disinfec-
tion. According to the inactivation mechanism, disinfection of microor-
ganisms in UV water treatment system prevents the replication and
transcription of microbial genetic materials by absorbing UV photons
and generating polymers. In UV water disinfection systems, the most
common light source transmitter systems include traditional mercury
lamps and emerging UV-LEDs. However, the large and bulky UV mer-
cury lamp installation may be replaced by compactly structured UV-
LEDs, which are very marketable and show promise owing to their
small and flexible appearance. The UV-LED chip encapsulation features
multiple packaging forms: single chip and multiple-chip array. Fig. 2
shows the UV-LED light source system comprising a basic circuit,
power supply, and four UV-LED chips packaged in the 1, 2, 3, and 4 po-
sitions, respectively. The wavelength of UV-LED chips can be selected as
needed. We can select chips with the same or different wavelengths for
setting the UV-LED chip number or wavelength depending on the situ-
ation analysis.
In this part, we can analyze and subsequently determine the optimal
light source, optimal efficiency, and disinfection effect of UV-LED water
treatment disinfection systems. This section focuses on three aspects
to further explore the mechanism of UV-LED water treatment
Fig. 2. Experimental UV-LED light source system.
1419
disinfection systems: wavelength, UV dose, and inactivation rate
constant (K) (cm2/mJ).
3.1.1. Wavelength of UV-LEDs
Wavelength is a key factor in microbial disinfection mechanism of
UV systems. From the UV source disinfection, the wavelength of
253.7 nm can be assumed as the most effective when using traditional
mercury lamps for disinfection (Bolton and Cotton, 2011). However,
mercury lamps perform disinfection using two ways: LP and MP. MP
is mixed with multiple emission peak wavelength. Determining the
most effective wavelength from MP presents difficulty. Emission peaks
from LP concentrate at around 254 nm wavelength, whereas the opti-
mal germicidal wavelength serves as the center wavelength at
253.7 nm (Bolton and Cotton, 2011). As UV-LEDs can emit light of ad-
justable wavelength and provide insights into the effect of wavelength
on disinfection, the development of UV-LED will enable the more qual-
itative analysis of microbial inactivation.
Regarding DNA absorbance relation curves, the wavelength at
260 nm exhibits the largest absorbance (Bolton and Cotton, 2008).
However, in the actual experiment on microorganism inactivation by
UV-LEDs, different microbes showed different absorption curves, with
each microorganism presenting inconsistent disinfection abilities. The
absorbance values at 260 and 280 nm indicate strong inactivation char-
acteristics. When the inactivation capacities of different microorgan-
isms were compared in terms of UV dose response, the dose response
per log inactivation of each species at the wavelength of ~260 nm was
consistently less than that at 280 nm. For example, Bowker et al.
(2011) observed that the dose responses per log inactivation for MS2
reached 26.07 and 28.57 mJ/cm2 at wavelengths of 255 and 275 nm, re-
spectively. Oguma and Surapong (2018) declared that a 265 nm wave-
length yielded a lower dose response in per log inactivation of E. coli, B.
subtilis spores, Legionella pneumophila, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Qβ
than the 280 nm wavelength. Similarly, Beck et al. (2017) discovered
that a 260 nm wavelength resulted in a lower dose response per log in-
activation for B. subtilis, B. pumilus, and HAdV2 than the 280 nm wave-
length. Among the tested wavelengths, the UV-LED wavelength of
~260 nm achieved the highest bacterial inactivation regardless of the
bacterial species, as proven by the highest UV absorbance of nucleic
acids at ~260 nm (Harm, 1980; Bolton and Cotton, 2008; Oguma and
Surapong, 2018). However, we still cannot affirm that the 260 nm UV-
LEDs result in more desirable disinfection benefits.
At the current level of technology, the 280 nm wavelength is an op-
timum choice to achieve high inactivation efficiency with minimum en-
ergy consumption. Oguma observed that the 280 nm UV-LEDs can
achieve a high inactivation rate constant and feature the lowest energy
consumption to achieve 3 log inactivation in the microbial species
tested at 265, 280, and 300 nm (Oguma and Surapong, 2018). By com-
paring disinfection efficiencies, another group also noted that the
1420 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
280 nm wavelength is more suitable than 255 nm for water purification
systems because the power produced from the external quantum effi-
ciency at 280 nm reached more than 10 times that obtained at
255 nm (Aoyagi et al., 2011). Würtele reported the higher light power
output and inactivation capacities at 282 nm than those at 269 nm. Al-
though the 269 nm UV-LEDs exhibited a better germicidal effectiveness,
the 282 nm UV-LEDs caused a significantly better spore inactivation for
the same time span and input power owing to the higher photon output
(at the same current) of the 282 nm UV-LEDs (Würtele et al., 2011). In
the range of the UV disinfection band, a higher wavelength light power
can result in faster disinfection capacity of bacteria; lower wavelength
peak values are close to DNA absorbance relation curves, but lower-
wavelength UV-LEDs are more effective when considering light power
(Vilhunen et al., 2009). The selection of UV-LED wavelength shows po-
tential for future applications in water disinfection systems equipped
with UV-LEDs (Oguma and Surapong, 2018). Coupling wavelength has
also been widely used in discussion in recent years; however, the ob-
tained results vary, and the total power of coupling wavelength is infe-
rior compared with the use of single-type UV-LEDs for disinfection;
although further investigation is needed, other applications by wave-
length combination yield better disinfection effect and optimize the ad-
vantages of different types of wavelength (Akgün and Ünlütürk, 2017).
3.1.2. UV dose
UV dose is another key factor in UV-LED water disinfection systems.
UV dose is not only directly produced by UV-LEDs but can also be af-
fected by the settings of parameters and related instruments. UV dose
is equal to the product of UV radiant flux, exposure time, attenuation
factor, and radiating surface; the corresponding formula can be
expressed as follows: UV dose = UV radiant flux ∗ exposure time ∗ at-
tenuation factor / (radiating surface). In the formula, UV radiant flux,
which is also known as radiant power, is defined as the radiant energy
passing through a section in unit time when light radiates outward
and is expressed in watts (W); UV dose is defined as the radiant energy
received per unit area of receiving ionizing radiation (mJ/cm2) and rep-
resents the absorbed dose of the water sample from the UV transmitter
to the water treatment reactor. This system involves complex attenua-
tion factors, including water, reflection, divergence, and sensor factors
(Bolton and Linden, 2003). Therefore, UV dose is not a real value but
an approximation.
If we only control the UV radiation flux, the experimental results will
significantly vary owing to the different radiation times, radiation dis-
tances, and intensities. LP features a high radiation flux rate when
only the control dose is kept constant, but radiation time, radiation dis-
tance, and radiation intensity differ between LP and UV-LEDs (Würtele
et al., 2011). LP emits a parallel light, whereas the UV-LED lamp is a
point light source that emits a diffused light depending on the viewing
angle. Different from LP, radiation intensity is defined as the radiant
flux leaving the point source within a given direction cube in the UV-
LED light source system. Considering the most influential factors, we
control the equal UV radiation dose, where under a specific circum-
stance, the same attenuation factor is considered. Exposure time is
closely associated with flux and dose, that is, a larger radiation flux
will result in short exposure time. Furthermore, several researchers ob-
served that high radiation flux and short exposure time may result in a
higher logarithmic inactivation compared with low flux and long expo-
sure time as prolonged exposure time may cause microbial aggregation,
which leads to decreased inactivation (Song et al., 2016; Zhou et al.,
2017). The higher effectiveness of 275 nm is also proposed to be more
effective for E. coli inactivation in a higher fluence rate and shorter expo-
sure time to reach the same UV dose than the combination of a lower
fluence rate and longer exposure time owing to the higher output
power from the 275 nm UV-LEDs (Bowker et al., 2011; Harm, 1980;
Sommer et al., 1998). Thus, when we control the same UV radiation
dose, a larger radiation flux may result in better disinfection effect. Var-
ious studies have also hypothesized that UV inactivation follows the
Bunsen–Roscoe reciprocity law, which states that the photochemical ef-
fect depends only on the total energy dose, that is, the origin of exposure
time and fluence rate (Murata and Osakabe, 2013). Sommer et al.
(1998) have verified the existence of same log inactivation under the
same product of fluence rate and exposure time when they have
inactivated the bacteriophages MS2, ΦX174, and B40-8 by mercury
UV lamps. They also observed that E. coli inactivation deviated from
the reciprocity law and showed a higher log inactivation in a higher
fluence rate and shorter exposure time than under a lower fluence
rate and prolonged exposure time despite using the same total UV
fluence (UV dose). This phenomenon could indicate that UV disinfection
depends on both photochemical reactions and biological processes
(Harm, 1980). Then, as the deviation from the Bunsen–Roscoe reciproc-
ity law may occur on certain microorganisms, such as E. coli, the biolog-
ical processes induced by UV radiation may vary with different
microorganisms; thus, certain organisms may be more sensitive to the
fluence rate compared with the others (Song et al., 2016). Meanwhile,
a closer radiation distance causes larger radiation flux. However, the
current investigations about radiation distance from UV emission
sources to water surface are lacking. We probably cannot perform an
in-depth research owing to the current technical level, which is still at
the stage of close-range surface irradiation or near-surface water sam-
ple radiation of water-body experimental research. However, with in-
creasing UV-LED external quantum power, radiation distance will
soon become a focus of research, especially in the design of various
products. The depth of water sample is discussed in several articles
and is also the most important factor for UV transmittance. Therefore,
setting of different parameters of water sample depth may yield differ-
ent results in various systems.
First, when comparing the UV doses per log inactivation of different
microorganisms, the same wavelength must be ensured. Table 1 shows
the detailed analysis of each wave band, which can be used as a refer-
ence frame that estimates the UV dose for a specific logarithmic inacti-
vation number. We can compare the inactivation capacities of different
microorganisms from the UV dose response. At a wavelength of 255 nm,
bacteriophages MS2 and Qβ present similar UV doses of 12.81 and
12.5 mJ/cm2 for per log inactivation respectively, indicating the require-
ment for more UV dose to be inactivated compared with E. coli
(3.33 mJ/cm2), T7 (5.13 mJ/cm2), and ΦX174 (1.73 mJ/cm2). The inacti-
vation capacities of E. coli are higher than that of T7 but lower than that
of ΦX174 (Bowker et al., 2011; Aoyagi et al., 2011). Similar results were
achieved by Aoyagi et al. (2011), who showed the strong and weak re-
sistances of MS2 and ΦX174, respectively, and almost the same inacti-
vation capacities of MS2 and Qβ. At a wavelength of 260 nm, the dose
responses per log inactivation of MS2 and HAdV2 reach 15.15 and
30.5 mJ/cm2 respectively; thus, the inactivation capacities of MS2 are
higher than that of HAdV2, as observed by integrated cell culture quan-
titative polymerase chain reaction, but lower than that of E. coli K12
(ATCC 29425), which requires 1.5 mJ/cm2 dose responses per log inac-
tivation (Beck et al., 2017). At a wavelength of 265 nm, the dose re-
sponses per log inactivation of Qβ, B. subtilis, and E. coli IFO 3301 total
39, 28, and 6 mJ/cm2 respectively; thus, the inactivation capacities of
B. subtilis are higher than that of Qβ but lower than that of E. coli IFO
3301 (Oguma and Surapong, 2018). At a wavelength of 266 nm, bacte-
riophages MS2 and Qβ show specific UV doses for per log inactivation at
1.29 mJ/cm2, and their doses are higher than that of ΦX174, which re-
quires a dose response per log inactivation of 0.14 mJ/cm2 (Kim et al.,
2017). At a wavelength of 275 nm, UV doses for per log inactivation
from MS2, T7, and E. coli reach 28.57, 4.26, and 2.37 mJ/cm2, respec-
tively; thus, the inactivation capacities of T7 are below that of MS2
and lower than that of E. coli (Bowker et al., 2011). Furthermore, at
280 nm, the inactivation capacities can be compared as follows:
ΦX174 N E. coli N B. subtilis N MS2 or Qβ N HAdV2 (Aoyagi et al., 2011;
Oguma et al., 2013; Beck et al., 2017; Oguma and Surapong, 2018). In
LP environment, the inactivation capacities are ordered as follows: E.
coli K12 IFO 3301 N T1 N B. subtilis N MS2 N HAdV2 (Rodriguez et al.,
 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427 1421

Table 1
UV dose responses for per log inactivation.

Wavelength (nm) Microorganism Log inactivation UV dose (mJ/cm2) Dose responses per log inactivation (mJ/cm2) Reference

255 E. coli 2.7 9 3.33 Bowker et al., 2011

255 MS2 3.2 41 12.81 Aoyagi et al., 2011
255 MS2 2.3 41 26.07 Bowker et al., 2011
255 Qβ 2.4 30 12.50 Aoyagi et al., 2011
255 T7 3.9 20 5.13 Bowker et al., 2011
255 ΦX174 3.7 6.4 1.73 Aoyagi et al., 2011
260 E. coli K12(ATCC 29425) 3 10 3.33 Beck et al., 2017
260 HAdV2 4 122 30.50 Beck et al., 2017
260 MS2 2 30.3 15.15 Beck et al., 2017
265 B. subtilis 4 28 7.00 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
265 E. coli IFO 3301 4 6 1.50 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
265 Qβ 4 39 9.75 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
266 MS2 7 9 1.29 Kim Do-Kyun et al., 2017
266 Qβ 7 9 1.29 Kim Do-Kyun et al., 2017
266 ΦX174 7 1 0.14 Kim Do-Kyun et al., 2017
275 E. coli 3.8 9 2.37 Bowker et al., 2011
275 MS2 2.1 60 28.57 Bowker et al., 2011
275 T7 4.7 20 4.26 Bowker et al., 2011
280 B. subtilis 4 48 12.00 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
280 E. coli 4 13.8 3.45 Oguma Kumiko et al., 2013
280 E. coli K12(ATCC 29425) 3 9 3.00 Beck et al., 2017
280 HAdV2 4 89 22.25 Beck et al., 2017
280 MS2 2 38.5 19.25 Beck et al., 2017
280 Qβ 1 13.3 13.30 Oguma Kumiko et al., 2015
280 Qβ 4 75 18.75 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
280 ΦX174 3.2 8.9 2.78 Aoyagi et al., 2011
LP B. subtilis 4 58 14.50 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
LP E. coli IFO 3301 4 7.5 1.88 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
LP E. coli K12(ATCC 29425) 3 11 3.67 Beck et al., 2017
LP HAdV2 3 63 21.00 Beck et al., 2017
LP HAdV2 4 112 28.00 Beck et al., 2017
LP MS2 4 64.4 16.10 Roberto et al., 2014
LP MS2 2 35 17.50 Beck et al., 2017
LP T1 4 19.3 4.83 Roberto et al., 2014

2014; Beck et al., 2017 and Oguma and Surapong, 2018). In summary,
according to the UV dose response for per log inactivation in the same
wavelength, inactivation capacities can be compared as follows:
ΦX174 N E. coli N T type bacteriophage N B. subtilis N MS2 or Qβ
N HAdV. After discerning the inactivation capacities of different micro-
organisms and the most effective wavelength, experimental model, or
amount of UV dose, scholars also conducted considerable relevant
research.
We also observed the correlation of UV dose and wavelength. A chip
with a short wavelength is difficult to develop and costly but features
low optical efficiency. Owing to their high Al content and significantly
lower quantum efficiency, UV-LEDs with short wavelengths are sub-
stantially more difficult to fabricate than UV-LEDs with longer wave-
lengths; furthermore, UV-LEDs with lower quantum efficiencies
produce lower optical power outputs than those generated by UV-
LEDs with longer wavelengths at the same drive current (Aoyagi et al.,
2011). Hence, encapsulation modules, which consist of short-
wavelength chips, possess a low radiation power (radiant flux). UV
dose is directly related to radiant flux and is thus also related to the
wavelength value. Therefore, the influence of UV dose must be analyzed
in combination with wavelength to analyze the least energy consuming
and more promising wavelengths and the bactericidal effect of UV dose
under different wavelengths. According to relevant studies and discus-
sions, the best wavelengths are those at 260 and 280 nm, which feature
the highest efficiency and lowest energy consumption or electrical
energy.
The electrical energy per order, EEO (kWh/m3), is a parameter based
on electrical energy consumption, which has been used to assess the
performance of different UV disinfection systems (i.e., UV-LEDs and
LPUV). EEO is defined as the amount of electrical energy required to re-
duce the concentration of microbes by an order of magnitude in a
specified volume of water (Oguma and Surapong, 2018), and it can be
calculated by Eq. (2) (Sharpless and Linden, 2005):
A
EEO ¼ ð2Þ
3:6  103  V  K  C  WF
where EEO is the electrical energy per order of magnitude (kWh/m3/
order), A is the irradiant surface area (cm2), V is the volume of sample
(mL), K is the fluence-based inactivation rate constant (cm2/mJ), WF
is the water factor accounting for the UV absorbance and water depth,
and the value of 3.6∗103 is a unit conversion constant for mW and kW,
s and h, and mL and m3; and C is the wall plug efficiency which can be
calculated by Eq. (3) (Oguma and Surapong, 2018):
Poutput FA
C¼ ¼ ð3Þ
Pinput IA  VA
where Poutput refers to the UV-LED optical power (mW), Pinput denotes
the applied electrical power (mW), IA represents the applied current
(mA), VA corresponds to the applied voltage (V), and FA is the radiant
flux (mW) information provided by the manufacturer.
The UV dose (mJ/cm2) required for obtaining n-log reduction, that is,
the electrical energy per specific n-log 10 reduction, EE.n (kWh/m3/n-log
reduction), is defined in Eq. (4) (Beck et al., 2017):
A  Fn
EE:n ¼ ð4Þ
3:6  103  V  C  WF
where Fn is the fluence required for n-log 10 reduction (mJ/cm2).
Beck et al. (2017) calculated the EE.3 value for E. coli inactivation at
280 nm and observed a lower value (1.04 kWh/m3) compared with
that at 260 nm (1.392 kWh/m3); the EE,2 values observed for HAdV2
1422 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427

inactivation at 280 and 260 nm measured 4.401 and 5.143 kWh/m3, re- Table 2
spectively. Oguma and Surapong (2018) observed that the EE,3 values at UV dose required to achieve 4 log inactivation.

280 nm UV-LEDs were lower than those at 265 nm as the difference in Microorganism Wavelength UV dose Reference
wall plug efficiency consumed approximately half as much energy as (nm) (mJ/cm2)
265 nm UV-LEDs for all microorganisms; they also discovered that the B. subtilis 265 28 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
EE.3 values of all tested microorganisms at 300 nm were the highest E. coli K12 IFO3301 265 16.4 Oguma Kumiko et al.,
among the wavelengths, as proven by the highest wall plug efficiency 2013
E. coli K12 IFO3301 265 10.8 Oguma Kumiko et al.,
at 300 nm in the tested UV-LEDs. In brief, the 280 nm UV-LED is an op-
2013
timum choice to achieve high inactivation efficiency in low-energy- E. coli K12 IFO3301 265 6 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
consumption conditions. L. pneumophila 265 4.5 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
The change in experimental models is also connected with UV dose. Qβ 265 39 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
To achieve 4 log inactivation, researchers created a set of experimental B. subtilis 280 48 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
E. coli K12 IFO3301 280 25.5 Oguma Kumiko et al.,
models of batch and flow-through reactors. The batch reactor contained 2013
an array of nine UV-LEDs on the surface of a sample placed in a sterilized E. coli K12 IFO3301 280 13.8 Oguma Kumiko et al.,
Petri dish, whereas the flow-through reactor contained connection 2013
tubes, a sampling port, and the UV-LED cylinder, which was protected E. coli K12 IFO3301 280 9 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
HAdV2 280 89 Beck et al., 2017
by a quartz sleeve and placed in the center. The UV-LEDs with 265 nm
L. pneumophila 280 9 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
wavelength must be adjusted to fluence values of 10.8 and P. aeruginosa 280 8.5 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
16.4 mJ/cm2, but those with 280 nm wavelength must be adjusted to Qβ 280 75 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
fluences of 13.8 and 25.5 mJ/cm2 in the batch and flow-through reac- B. subtilis LP 58 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
tors, respectively (Oguma et al., 2013). Different UV doses are required E. coli K12 IFO3301 LP 7.5 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
HAdV2 LP 112 Beck et al., 2017
for different experimental model settings at the same wavelength. A
L. pneumophila LP 6.5 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
predictive model equation was designed to evaluate the viral inactiva- P. aeruginosa LP 9 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
tion effect; this equation can calculate the specific irradiation UV dose T1 LP 19.3 Roberto et al., 2014
for accomplishing the expected inactivation levels in water treatment PRD1 LP 36 Roberto et al., 2014
PhiX174 LP 8.9 Roberto et al., 2014
facilities (Kim et al., 2017). The experimental model of flow reactor
MS2 LP 64.4 Roberto et al., 2014
yields better predictions; as the flux or UV dose increases, the flow
model for decentralized and mobile water disinfection systems will pro-
duce higher inactivation, improve light output, and reduce costs in the 2018; Beck et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2014). Thus, UV dose can be
form of mobile water disinfection systems in the future (Würtele used as the reference value for disinfection of drinking water.
et al., 2011). Analysis of inactivation rate constant for each microorganism in dif-
Overall, the amount of UV dose that can achieve an optimum disin- ferent wavelengths shows that a higher inactivation rate constant
fection effect must be determined, thus requiring extensive (K) (cm2/mJ) indicates an increased UV sensitivity of microorganisms
investigations. to a specific wavelength. The inactivation rate constant (K) provides a
direction for selecting the appropriate wavelength during disinfection.
3.1.3. Inactivation rate constant (K) Table 3 shows the wide variation in the inactivation rate constants of
The inactivation rate constant (K) (cm2/mJ) is equal to the sensitiv- the same species at different wavelengths. HAdV2 is a highly resistant
ity of microorganisms to UV light. First, inactivation of different micro- virus. The UV-LED wavelength of 260 nm yields the highest inactivation
organisms must be perceived at different doses; according to rate constant (K) (0.045 cm2/mJ) among 260, 280, and 260 + 280 nm
international standards, disinfection of drinking water should achieve UV-LEDs or LP; for UV-LEDs with a coupling wavelength of 260
a 4 log inactivation to reach safe levels; thus, the amount of UV dose + 280 nm, the value of inactivation rate constant (K) lies between
that can achieve 4 log inactivation will be determined (USEPA, 2006). 260 nm to 280 nm (Beck et al., 2017). For B. pumilus, the coupling wave-
Table 2 shows the required UV dose to achieve 4 log inactivation for length of 260 + 280 nm and the wavelength at 260 nm similarly yield a
the listed microorganisms in three wavelengths. The next step focuses high inactivation rate constant (K) (0.012 cm2/mJ) (Beck et al., 2017).
on qualitative analysis and comparison of the capacities for microbial in- The 265 nm wavelength yields the highest inactivation rate constant
activation. Table 2 shows that the UV-LED with 265 nm wavelength is (K) (0.174 cm2/mJ) for B. subtilis under 265 and 280 nm and LP
used to achieve adjusted fluence values of 10.8 and 16.4 mJ/cm2 for (Oguma and Surapong, 2018). The inactivation rate constant (K) of P.
over 4 log inactivation of E. coli K12 IFO 3301, but the UV-LED emission aeruginosa and Qβ in UV-LEDs emitting at 265 nm reach 0.774 and
wavelength at 280 nm is needed for the adjusted doses of 13.8 and 0.098 cm2/mJ, respectively, which are higher than that at longer wave-
25.5 mJ/cm2 in the batch and flow-through reactors, respectively lengths (Oguma and Surapong, 2018; Oguma et al., 2016). The highest
(Oguma et al., 2013). However, a large difference was noted in the UV inactivation rate constant (K) of MS2 equals 0.066 cm2/mJ in UV-LEDs
doses for E. coli K12 IFO 3301 (Oguma and Surapong, 2018); the re- emitting at 260 nm, whereas that of the coupling wavelength (260
quired inactivation UV dose, featuring a certain advantage, is 6 mJ/cm2 + 280 nm) totals 0.61 cm2/mJ (Beck et al., 2017; Oguma et al., 2016;
at 265 nm and 9 mJ/cm2 in 280 nm compared with the values of Rattanakul et al., 2014). For the most common bacteria, different E.
10.8 mJ/cm2 at 265 nm and 13.8 mJ/cm2 at 280 nm in previous batch coli strains show differences regarding the inactivation rate constant
types; the results depended on the different designs of UV-LED light (K) (cm2/mJ). Table 3 shows that the highest inactivation rate constant
source systems or water reactor systems (Oguma et al., 2013). In this ar- (K) of E. coli CGMCC 1.3373 reaches 0.41 cm2/mJ at 265 nm wavelength,
ticle, we can determine the amount of UV dose that can achieve 4 log in- whereas the second highest inactivation rate constant (K) is
activation in different microorganisms: for B. subtilis, 28 mJ/cm2 at 0.36 cm2/mJ at the coupling wavelength of 265 + 280 nm (50%) (Li
265 nm, 48 mJ/cm2 at 280 nm, and 58 mJ/cm2 under LP; Qβ, et al., 2017); however, in another study, E. coli K12 IFO 3301 yielded a
39 mJ/cm2 at 265 nm and 75 mJ/cm2 at 280 nm; L. pneumophila, high inactivation rate constant (K) of 0.805 cm2/mJ at the wavelength
4.5 mJ/cm2 at 265 nm, 9 mJ/cm2 at 280 nm, and 6.5 mJ/cm2 under LP of 265 nm and 0.811 cm2/mJ under LP lamps (Oguma and Surapong,
(Oguma and Surapong, 2018). We can also determine the UV dose for 2018). These results are primarily attributed to the different internal
maximum inactivation of HAdV2. Table 2 shows the order of the ability structures of E. coli CGMCC 1.3373 and E. coli K12 IFO 3301. The UV
of microorganisms to be inactivated by UV light: L. pneumophila N E. coli dose and logarithmic inactivation in the inactivation fitting curve can
N B. subtilis N Qβ N HAdV2 (Oguma et al., 2013; Oguma and Surapong, be also analyzed as follows: a long “shoulder” indicates aggregation of
 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427 1423

Table 3 irradiation time of 300 s, they obtained a 2.7 logarithmic inactivation

Inactivation rate constant (K) (cm2/mJ) of different microorganisms. at the UV dose of 17.5 mJ/cm2 for the 269 nm UV-LEDs and a 3.7 loga-
Microorganism Wavelength K Reference rithmic inactivation at the UV dose of 34.5 mJ/cm2 for the 282 nm UV-
(nm) (cm2/mJ) LEDs; therefore, the 282 nm UV-LEDs performed significantly better
HAdV2 DNA 260 0.045 Beck et al., 2017 than the 269 nm UV-LEDs under the same time span and input power
HAdV2 DNA 260 + 280 0.049 Beck et al., 2017 owing to the higher photon efficiency of the 282 nm UV-LEDs. Aoyagi
HAdV2 DNA 280 0.032 Beck et al., 2017 previously showed that UV-LEDs with wavelengths of ~280 nm were
HAdV5 285 0.023 Oguma Kumiko et al. 2016
considerably easier to fabricate than those with wavelengths of
HAdV5 LP 0.020 Rattanakul et al., 2014
B. pumilus 260 0.012 Beck et al., 2017 ~255 nm given the lower Al content and much higher quantum effi-
B. pumilus 260 + 280 0.012 Beck et al., 2017 ciency of 280 nm UV-LEDs; thus, the 280 nm UV-LEDs yield a higher op-
B. pumilus 280 0.008 Beck et al., 2017 tical power output than the 255 nm UV-LEDs at the same drive current;
B. pumilus LP 0.010 Beck et al., 2017 the 280 nm UV-LEDs were also more effective in the actual inactivation
B. subtilis 265 0.174 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
B. subtilis 280 0.104 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
experiment owing to their higher optical power output; therefore, the
B. subtilis LP 0.099 Oguma Kumiko, 2018 use of 282 nm UV-LEDs is preferable for the overall performance of
E.coli K12(ATCC 260 0.290 Beck et al., 2017 the UV purification module (Aoyagi et al., 2011; Würtele et al., 2011).
29425) The UV-induced damage of 280 nm UV-LEDs may inhibit reactiva-
E.coli K12(ATCC 280 0.310 Beck et al., 2017
tion, thus impairing protein activities, whereas less repaired damage is
29425)
E.coli K12(ATCC LP 0.270 Beck et al., 2017 detected by endonuclease sensitive site assay. The 260 nm wavelength
29425) chip with an increased output power will result in increased inactiva-
E.coli K12 IFO3301 265 0.805 Oguma Kumiko, 2018 tion efficiency. As a result, the 280 nm wavelength remains more effec-
E.coli K12 IFO3301 280 0.561 Oguma Kumiko, 2018 tive and relatively cheap, but by the progress in the UV-LED chip R&D
E.coli K12 IFO3301 LP 0.811 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
technology, the ~260 nm wavelength chips may feature a more compet-
E.coli CGMCC 1.3373 265 0.410 Guo-Qiang Li et al., 2017
E.coli CGMCC 1.3373 260 + 280 0.360 Guo-Qiang Li et al., 2017 itive wavelength range of light in the future.
(50%)
E.coli CGMCC 1.3373 260 + 280 0.320 Guo-Qiang Li et al., 2017 3.2. Influence of UV-LED light source on water treatment system settings
(75%)
E.coli CGMCC 1.3373 280 0.300 Guo-Qiang Li et al., 2017
E.coli CGMCC 1.3373 LP 0.350 Guo-Qiang Li et al., 2017 UV-LED light source is applied in water to sterilize microorganisms.
MS2 260 0.066 Beck et al., 2017 The settings of water treatment system significantly influence the mi-
MS2 260 + 280 0.061 Beck et al., 2017 crobial disinfection effect. This kind of reaction environment will di-
MS2 280 0.052 Beck et al., 2017 rectly influence the “quality” and “quantity” of receiving UV-LED light
MS2 285 0.029 Oguma Kumiko et al.,
source, thereby affecting the microbial inactivation effect. To maximize
2016
MS2 LP 0.056 Beck et al., 2017 the effect of UV-LED light source systems, changes should be made in
MS2 LP 0.041 Rattanakul et al., 2014 the water treatment system. This section mainly focuses on the follow-
P. aeruginosa 265 0.774 Oguma Kumiko, 2018 ing aspects: the working mode of water sample, water treatment reac-
P. aeruginosa 280 0.511 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
tors, and the influence of auxiliary equipment on inactivation.
P. aeruginosa LP 0.448 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
Qβ 265 0.098 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
Qβ 280 0.056 Oguma Kumiko, 2018 3.2.1. Working mode of water sample
Qβ 285 0.037 Oguma Kumiko et al., The design of the reactor is a key factor according to experimental
2016 analysis; it directly affects the result of the water treatment system
Qβ LP 0.085 Oguma Kumiko, 2018
and is directly related to the working mode of experimental models.
To date, a simple reactor is most commonly used to perform a series
of experiments on variation parameters, and it occasionally achieves
microorganisms and damage regeneration. “Tailing” mainly occurs in the aim of studies by changing the structure and parameter from a UV
resistant species, including those with adaptive resistance. Different transmitter. Most scholars also use novel methods of working modes,
strains under each wavelength exhibit different inactivation rate con- such as batch type and flow-through reactors, to change the state of mi-
stant (K), but E. coli is the most sensitive; on the other hand, bacterio- crobes and further discuss their properties. New discoveries are
phage Qβ and B. subtilis spores are more resistant compared with achieved using these experimental models.
other bacteria (Oguma and Surapong, 2018). These microorganisms be- Several scholars compared the sensitivities of bacteriophages MS2,
longing to different species possess varying internal structures, Qβ, and ΦX 174 by the experimental models of batch type and flow-
resulting in different experimental results. through reactors. In the batch type reactor, the UV-LEDs with 266 nm
Based on the overall analysis, the sensitivity at ~260 nm is generally wavelength were used for irradiation. Then, over 7 log reductions of
better than that at ~280 nm. However, in the current conditions, the UV- 9 mJ/cm2 for MS2 and Qβ and 1 mJ/cm2 for ΦX 174 were observed dur-
LED chips emitting at 260 nm incur considerably high production costs ing exposure. Scholars also observed the similar inactivation rate con-
due to the considerable difficulties in R&D, whereas the optical intensity stants of MS2 and Qβ, whereas ΦX 174 was the most sensitive to
and external quantum output lack strength. On the other hand, the UV- 279 nm UV-LEDs, LP, or the other experiments by a flow-through reac-
LED with 280 nm wavelength is more effective in actual inactivation ex- tor (Kim et al., 2017). These experimental results are consistent with
periments as the 280 nm wavelength yields more external output and those of other studies on ssDNA virus ΦX 174 or ssRNA viruses MS2
emits light with high efficiency. For example, Lawal et al. (2018) ob- and Qβ; the UV sensitivities of viruses have been evaluated by the inac-
served that the external quantum efficiency of an UV-LED reached tivation rate constant (K) (cm2/mJ), and statistically higher UV sensitiv-
0.01%–4.5% and 0.1%–20.5% at ~255 and ~280 nm, respectively. That is, ity and inactivation rate constant were observed in ΦX 174 than in other
the external quantum efficiency of 280 nm UV-LEDs was almost 5–10 viruses; these results coincide with the findings of other research that
times that of 255 nm UV-LEDs, and although the disinfection efficiency studied the three viruses by UV (Hijnen et al., 2006; Aoyagi et al.,
at 255 mm was twice that at 280 nm, the total disinfection efficiency of 2011). The 269 nm wavelength is close to the maximum absorption
the UV-LEDs operating at 280 nm was nearly five times larger (Aoyagi peak of B. subtilis spores and may present better germicidal effective-
et al., 2011; Lawal et al., 2018). When Würtele et al. (2011) studied B. ness than 282 nm UV-LEDs. However, a different condition was ob-
subtilis spore inactivation by UV-LED at the same input power and served when 269 and 282 nm UV-LEDs utilized the same input power
1424 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
and exposure time. These conditions resulted in different fluence values.
Static and flow-through tests are experimental methods designed for
analysis. The flow-through test first indicates a linear correlation rela-
tionship between inactivation and fluence and demonstrates a well-
designed flow-through reactor; owing to their higher photon output,
the 282 nm UV-LEDs caused a significantly better inactivation of B.
subtilis spore than the 269 nm UV-LEDs at the same time range and
input power (Chen et al., 2009); however, in flow-through tests, the in-
activation rate constant (K) of B. subtilis spores was more than halved
compared with that in static tests, whereas the inactivation of B. subtilis
was also reduced (Würtele et al., 2011). These results are attributed to
the tailing phenomenon in the flow-type reactor, as shown in the
fluence–response curves, resulting in lower inactivation efficiency
than that in the batch reactor, which yielded a lower fluence-based in-
activation rate constant of 29% in 265 nm and 32% in 280 nm wave-
length (Oguma et al., 2013); tailing may originate from the
aggregation of microorganisms and can cause spore aggregation,
which was observed by scanning electron microscopy of the aggregate
size in relation to the 3 ml polycarbonate filter pores (Mamane and
Linden, 2005; Mattle and Kohn, 2012); the flow-type reactor requires
a longer operation time than the batch reactor, providing higher possi-
bility for microbial aggregation. In a flow-type reactor, UV-LEDs with
different coupling peak emissions are less effective than those used
alone and reduce the output power for each UV-LED (Oguma et al.,
2013). UV-LEDs showed higher-time-based inactivation efficiency
with peak emission at 280 nm owing to the highest output power
achieved at this wavelength compared with that at 265 or 310 nm;
meanwhile, UV-LEDs achieved the highest fluence-based efficiency at
265 nm because of the highest UV absorbance of DNA at this wave-
length (Jagger, 1967). Most UV reactors are used by flow-through reac-
tors but not static reactors, as fluence is linearly associated with
inactivation in flow-through reactors. Flow-through reactors can also
accelerate water cycle treatment; hence, UV-LEDs are applied in water
disinfection systems under flow-through reactors to minimize tailing
and improve efficiency (Würtele et al., 2011; Oguma et al., 2013).
The above conditions can be changed in experimental modes of dif-
ferent reactors, and other aspects, including improvements of materials
in the reactors, can be discussed. For instance, quartz glass reactors can
be used as light guides that use total emission to further improve disin-
fection (Andrej et al., 2015).
3.2.2. Water treatment reactors
Water treatment reactors generally include two forms: static and
flow-through reactors. Different reactor designs exert varying effects
on inactivation efficiency, as mentioned in the previous section. In this
section, we will discuss the reactor designs that significantly affect inac-
tivation efficiency and have been reported in literature. A reactor is gen-
erally related to the UV transmitter and application environment.
In general, static reactors use a deep or shallow petri dish with an ei-
ther long or short radius. A stirrer is also necessary and is set up at the
bottom or suspended midair in the reactor. The stirrer can accelerate
the uniformity of water, allowing the UV transmitter to fully disinfect
water samples. Several researchers used a petri dish equipped with a
suspended agitator and was placed on the top of the UV LED array for
static tests (Würtele et al., 2011). Others created a ring-shaped UVC-
LED apparatus attached to the outer rim of a fused silica quartz dish
for disinfection (Oguma et al., 2016). However, possibly focusing more
on the UV transmitter than the static reactor, most researchers followed
the experimental requirements and designed a simple and suitably
sized static reactor with a magnetic stirrer at the bottom and a UV trans-
mitter equipped with a multiple-chip array on the top (Oguma et al.,
2013; Chevremont et al., 2012b; Akgün and Ünlütürk, 2017; Li et al.,
2017). The static reactor features a better aim at microorganisms, as
water exhibits small vibration and no large flow. Thus, the static reactor
is suitable for the inactivation of microorganisms with strong UV resis-
tance. Notably, the microorganisms with weak anti-UV ability are also
inactivated by static reactors, achieving an excellent inactivation effect.
The radiation distance from UV transmitter to static reactor should be
kept a close range and carefully consider the microbial receiving radiant
flux. This procedure increases the number of UV-LED to achieve a better
disinfection effect, such as that shown Fig. 3, where the reactor can use
an array of nine UV-LED chips or more for light emission to improve the
inactivation efficiency.
By contrast, flow-through reactors are more complex and include di-
verse models, which also depend on the application environment.
Würtele et al. (2011) designed a reactor system in which the test
water flows from the feed reservoir through the flow-through reactor
and accumulates in the catchment tank. Other researchers designed a
hollow chamber, through which the water sample can pass freely,
surrounded with multiple chips, pumps, or reservoirs added to acceler-
ate the water cycle (Aoyagi et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2017). This reactor
design for water flow features dependency on pressure and a hardly
controllable temperature; the irradiation may also be insufficient of
deep UV light when certain amount of water passes through the cham-
ber. Thus, sufficient irradiation must be guaranteed. If the dosages nec-
essary for 3 to 5 log reduction were calculated, the flow and circulating
disinfection system can be used to accomplish higher reduction of
Human Enteric Viruses, and the proper UVC-LED treatment level for
sustaining potable water safety can be determined from the data. An-
other research team fabricated a water reactor made of two quartz
sleeves according to the principle of the connected device, and the UV
transmitter comprised three arrays that were bundled to build an equi-
lateral triangular prism, which was placed in a quartz sleeve and
inserted in the center of a cylinder (Oguma et al., 2013). This
connector-type reactor design is more convenient to clean than other
flow designs given the flexible detachability. Several researchers de-
signed a disinfection system and placed the UV-LED lamp next to the
quartz tube to be used in combination with the ultrasound module;
this design may be suitable for small-household water-disinfection
equipment (Andrej et al., 2015). In summary, flow-through reactor
should maintain a sufficient irradiation in the chamber where water
would flow (Fig. 4). This design is also a good way to set additional
UV-LEDs chips array around the chamber or extend the chamber length,
allowing the water to receive sufficient UV light.
At present, although different reactor designs could significantly af-
fect inactivation efficiency, the disinfection effect of different water re-
actors is difficult to define accurately given the presence of numerous
environmental factors. The disinfection effects of different reactors
may be defined using experimental models, such as static and flow-
through reactors (the latter performs better, as mentioned). In other
words, more benefits and multiform design reactors can still be
Fig. 3. Optimized static reactor design (Oguma et al., 2016).
 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
explored and improved. On the other hand, the application of static and
flow-through reactors becomes more practical in life. For example,
static reactors can be made with small UV-LED embedded device for
air surface or shallow liquid disinfection, especially for the disinfection
of small medical instruments, such as stethoscope membranes and sur-
gical tools, or personal belongings and household articles, such as con-
tact lenses, toothbrush, tableware, baby bottles, and toys; flow
reactors can be used for flow water disinfection in water dispensers,
water purifiers, and washing machines.
3.2.3. Auxiliary system
After ensuring the setup for the UV transmitter and reactor, we can
still add an external auxiliary equipment to further improve the disin-
fection efficiency. The final problem is to solve the radiation problem
of microorganisms in water or enhance the convenience of the overall
system. First, we should focus on key factors, such as water turbidity
or dissolved organic matter (DOM), which affect water quality and
weaken UV radiation.
When the water sample is turbid and contains particles, the reflec-
tion of particles in the water sample will reduce the UV radiation or pos-
sibly cause the accumulation of microorganisms (Blume and Neis,
2004). Thus, water treatment designs must maximize the UV dose to
ensure that pathogens are adequately exposed to UV radiation and to ef-
fectively reduce pathogenic bacteria to a level safe for human consump-
tion (Nelson et al., 2012). The low turbidity will also shelter
microorganisms and can change the UV transmittance of water and re-
duce UV radiation on target microorganisms. Consequently, by adding
water pretreatment designs to improve radiation from UV transmitters
or exposing more water sample to radiation, we can combine several
LEDs to irradiate a small volume of water, which is agitated during the
entire treatment time (Nelson et al., 2012). Early in 2009, Gibson
discussed the effect of suspension particles on urban waste water and
demonstrated that low-frequency ultrasound can break down bacterial
flora (Gibson et al., 2009). The main principle applied on the ultrasound
unit is that low-power consumption in the UV-LED disinfection system
suits implementation and can achieve acoustic cavitation, thereby cre-
ating a purification effect and achieving synergistic effects with UVC ra-
diation within the disinfection system (Jin et al., 2013). This ultrasound
pretreatment can achieve the effect of mechanical shear force and con-
sequently change the particle size distribution as reported in previous
studies (Zhou et al., 2017). For instance, several research were con-
ducted on the use of ultrasound-enhanced UV disinfection technology
with combined theoretical and experimental bases. The generation of
transient cavitation was demonstrated by disintegrating aluminum
foil and adding multiple ultrasonic probes around a mercury lamp to
improve the efficiency of UV disinfection (Andrej et al., 2014; Bazyar
et al., 2013). Given its powerful effect, ultrasound pretreatment treat-
ment is also a feasible method to improve UV disinfection efficiency.
Fig. 4. Optimized flow-through reactor design (Aoyagi et al., 2011).
1425
One group proposed a new purification system combining UV-LED
with solar cells; these nested auxiliary modules are innovative and use-
ful in solving the power supply of UV-LED disinfection systems (Aoyagi
et al., 2011). The mature and widely used auxiliary equipment adds an
ultrasound treatment unit to improve the bactericidal effect.
DOM is ubiquitous in natural waters, and 90% of DOM includes
humic substances that can be divided into hydrophobic (humic acids)
and hydrophilic (fulvic acids) components (Barber et al., 2001;
Thurman, 1985; Thurman and Malcolm, 1981); these substances can
absorb UV (Liu et al., 2018). Humic acid was also discovered to display
affinity for various surfaces, and its addition to water samples can coat
bacteria to absorb UV and reduce the sensitivity of cells to UV light
(Cantwell et al., 2008; Vilhunen et al., 2009). Thus, reducing the influ-
ence of DOM is another major challenge in water treatment systems.
Coagulation–ultrafiltration processes, such as those involving alumi-
num sulfate, ferric chloride, and polyaluminum chloride, can effectively
remove DOM (Chow et al., 2009; Hu et al., 2018; Bu et al., 2018; Yang
et al., 2007).
A multiple filtration system or coagulation–ultrafiltration system
should be embedded in the front-end systems using turbid water or
water containing DOM as sample. Other auxiliary equipment that fur-
ther improves UV disinfection efficiency and still awaits discovery and
exploration.
4. Conclusion
UV-LED water disinfection systems cover a wide range of topics.
These systems include not only the microelectronics packaging technol-
ogy of UV-LED chips or module design but also the inactivation of path-
ogens in water-environment engineering analysis. This subject requires
technical personnel with mastery of comprehensive knowledge to per-
form analysis from various perspectives. This article is based on the
comprehensive analysis and investigation of various wavelengths of
disinfection and energy consumption of UV-LEDs and problems en-
countered in the water treatment process. Several constructive conclu-
sions are drawn for reference purposes.
With regard to the investigation of the inactivation efficiency and
energy consumption of UV-LEDs for pathogens at various wavelengths,
selecting a wavelength and setting a system that matches high-
efficiency UV-LED water disinfection equipment will benefit future
studies. Future UV-LED water treatment designs should add a pretreat-
ment process in high-turbidity water to reduce interference in the early
stage (Nelson et al., 2012). UV dose is a key parameter in evaluating the
effects of disinfection; it benefits from the integrated calculation of radi-
ant flux, exposure time, and attenuation factors, among which attenua-
tion factors, including water factor, reflection factor, divergence factor,
and sensor factor, are particularly complex (Bolton and Linden, 2003);
the improvement of water treatment systems will be accompanied by
1426 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
the improvement of attenuation factors. Thus, we must investigate var-
ious parameters and determine the rules to improve the disinfection ef-
ficiency of the entire water treatment system. This investigation shows
that the disinfection efficiency of the entire water treatment system de-
pends on two important parts: the controlling factors and the settings.
The controlling factors include wavelength, optical efficiency, radiation
flux, exposure time, radiation distance, and radiation dose, which are
mainly derived from the UV-LED emission light source. On the other
hand, the settings include the material selection and working model de-
sign of the reactor device, pretreatment of water samples, and external
auxiliary system, which mainly originate from the water sample reac-
tion system receiving UV light.
The specific conclusions and suggestions are as follows:
1) Analysis of UV dose responses for per log inactivation under the
same wavelength shows the inactivation capacities for several path-
ogens: ΦX174 N E. coli N T type bacteriophage N B. subtilis N MS2 or
Qβ N HAdV.
2) The wavelengths at 260 or 280 nm show strong inactivation charac-
teristics, but 280 nm wavelength with a lower cost for a high light
power may be a better choice.
3) In the case of radiation dose equivalent, high radiant flux and short
exposure time may achieve more efficiency than low flux and
prolonged exposure time. Higher radiation flux for disinfection
may achieve higher efficiency, which is a direction required in-
depth exploration.
4) A closer radiation distance will achieve a larger radiation flux, but dis-
infection remains on a close-range surface or near-surface water sam-
ple radiation given the extremely small external output power of UV-
LED chips; this property must be urgently improved in the future.
5) The purity and uniformity of water sample can be significantly im-
proved by increasing the UV transmission and reaction degree of mi-
croorganisms in water samples, setting up water treatment systems
in circulation mode, or adding related auxiliary settings, such as ul-
trasound pretreatment, which can prevent the agglomeration of
pathogenic bacteria, or coagulation–ultrafiltration process, which
can effectively remove DOM.
6) Improving the quality of reaction equipment can increase service
life. We can also select a reactor material that benefits the disinfec-
tion process.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 61865004), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi
Province (No. 2018GXNSFAA138033, No. 2017GXNSFDA198006 and No.
2016GXNSFBA380109), the Research and Innovation Project of GUET
Graduate Education (No. 2018YJCX09 and No. 2018YJCX11), the
Innovation-Driven Development Project of Guangxi Province (No.
2018AA18029), and the Program of Guilin Science Research and Technol-
ogy Development (No. 2016010501-3 and No. 20170113-11).
References
Adam, V., Dreiskemper, R., Kessler, M., 2010. Comparison of UV power measurement of
low pressure UV-lamps by a worldwide round robin test. IUVA News 12, 2009.
Akgün, M.P., Ünlütürk, S., 2017. Effects of ultraviolet light emitting diodes (LEDs) on mi-
crobial and enzyme inactivation of apple juice. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 260, 65–74.
Allied Analytics LLP, 2014. Global UV disinfection equipment market - size, share, global
trends, company profiles, analysis, segmentation and forecast. Res. Mark. 2013–2020.
Andrej, G., Felix, S., Katharina, H., Martin, H., Rainer, B., 2014. Frequency-controlled power
ultrasound unit for battery-powered UVC-LED based disinfection system. IJARCSEE
12 (3), 476–781.
Andrej, G., Felix, S., Katharina, H., Michael, S., Martin, H., 2015. Improved drinking water
disinfection with UVC-LEDs for Escherichia Coli and Bacillus subtilis utilizing quartz
tubes as light guide. Water 7 (9), 4605–4621.
Aoyagi, Y., Takeuchi, M., Yoshida, K., Kurouchi, M., Yasui, N., Kamiko, N., Araki, T., Nanishi,
Y., 2011. Inactivation of bacterial viruses in water using deep ultraviolet semiconduc-
tor light-emitting diode. J. Environ. Eng. 137 (12), 1215–1218.
Arik, M., Becker, C.A., Weaver, S.E., et al., 2004. Thermal management of LEDs: package to
system. Third International Conference on Solid State Lighting, pp. 64–75.
Barber, L.B., Leenheer, J.A., Noyes, T.I., Stiles, E.A., 2001. Nature and transformation of dis-
solved organic matter in treatment wetlands. Environ.Sci. Technol. 35 (24),
4805–4816.
Bazyar, L.A.A., Kloas, W., Jung, R., Ariav, R.A., Knopf, K., 2013. Low frequency ultrasound
and UV-C for elimination of pathogens in recirculating aquaculture systems. Ultrason.
Sonochem. 20, 1211–1216.
Beck, S.E., Ryu, H., Boczek, L.A., Cashdollar, J.L., Jeanis, K.M., Rosenblum, J.S., Lawal, O.R.,
Linden, K.G., 2017. Evaluating UV-C LED disinfection performance and investigating
potential dual-wavelength synergy. Water Res. 109, 207–216.
Blume, T., Neis, U., 2004. Improved wastewater disinfection by ultrasonic pre-treatment.
Ultrason. Sonochem. 11 (5), 333–336.
Bolton, J.R., Cotton, C.A., 2008. The Ultraviolet Disinfection Handbook. Amer Water Works
Assoc, Denver, CO, USA.
Bolton, J.R., Cotton, C.A., 2011. The Ultraviolet Disinfection Handbook. Amer Water Works
Assoc, Denver, CO, USA.
Bolton, J.R., Linden, K.G., 2003. Standardization of methods for fluence (UV dose) determi-
nation in bench-scale UV experiments. J. Environ. Eng. 129 (3), 209–215.
Bowker, C., Sain, A., Shatalov, M., Ducoste, J., 2011. Microbial UV fluence-response assess-
ment using a novel UV-LED collimated beam system. Water Res. 45 (5), 2011–2019.
Brownell, S.A., Chakrabarti, A.R., Kaser, F.M., Connelly, L.G., Peletz, R.L., Reygadas, F., Lang,
M.J., Kammen, D.M., Nelson, K.L., 2008. Assessment of a low-cost, point-of-use, ultra-
violet water disinfection technology. J. Water Health 6 (1), 53–65.
Bu, F., Gao, B.Y., Yue, Q.Y., Shen, X., Wang, W.Y., 2018. Characterization of dissolved or-
ganic matter and membrane fouling in coagulation-ultrafiltration process treating
micro-polluted surface water. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 01509, 1–7.
Cabaj, A., Sommer, R., Pribil, W., Haider, T., 2002. The spectral UV sensitivity of microor-
ganisms used in biodosimetry. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2 (3), 175–181.
Cantwell, R.E., Hofmann, R., Templeton, M.R., 2008. Interactions between humic matter
and bacteria when disinfecting water with UV light. J. Appl. Microbiol. 105, 25–35.
Chatterley, C., 2003. UV-LED Irradiation Technology for Point-of-use Water Disinfection in
Developing Communities. Thesis. University of Colorado at Boulder.
Chen, R.Z., Craik, S.A., Bolton, J.R., 2009. Comparison of the action spectra and relative DNA
absorbance spectra of microorganisms: information important for the determination
of germicidal fluence (UV dose) in an ultraviolet disinfection of water. Water Res. 43
(20), 5087–5096.
Chevremont, A.C., Farnet, A.M., Coulomb, B., Boudenne, J.L., 2012a. Effect of coupled UV-A
and UV-C LEDs on both microbiological and chemical pollution of urban wastewaters.
Sci. Total Environ. 426 (2), 304–310.
Chevremont, A.C., Farnet, A.M., Sergent, M., Coulomb, B., Boudenne, J.L., 2012b. Multivar-
iate optimization of fecal bioindicator inactivation by coupling UV-A and UV-C LEDs.
Desalination 285, 219–225.
Chow, C.W.K., Leeuwen, J.A., Fabris, R., Drikas, M., 2009. Optimised coagulation using alu-
minium sulfate for the removal of dissolved organic carbon. Desalination 245,
120–134.
Friedberg, E.C., Walker, G.C., Siede, W., Wood, R.D., Schultz, R.A., Ellenberger, T., 1995. DNA
Repair and Mutagenesis. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
Gibson, J.H., Hon, H., Farnood, R., Droppo, I.G., Seto, P., 2009. Effects of ultrasound on
suspended particles in municipal wastewater. Water Res. 43 (8), 2251–2259.
Harm, W., 1980. Biological Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation. Cambridge University Press,
New York, pp. 127–130.
Hijnen, W.A.M., Beerendonk, E.F., Medema, G.J., 2006. Inactivation credit of UV radiation
for viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: a review. Water Res. 40 (1),
3–22.
Hu, D.L., Li, M.Z., Wang, Y.Y., et al., 2018. Study on characteristics of resolved organic mat-
ter in circulating water by enhanced coagulation. China Electr. Pow. 51 (5), 111–117.
Jagger, J., 1967. Introduction to Research in Ultraviolet Phogobiology. Q. Rev. Biol.
Prentice-Hall, Inc, New Jersy.
Jin, X., Li, Z., Xie, L., Zhao, Y., Wang, T., 2013. Synergistic effect of ultrasonic pre-treatment
combined with UV irradiation for secondary effluent disinfection. Ultrason.
Sonochem. 20 (6), 1384–1389.
Kheyrandish, A., Mohseni, M., Taghipour, F., 2017a. Development of a method for the
characterization and operation of UV-LED for water treatment. Water Res. 122,
570–579.
Kheyrandish, A., Mohseni, M., Taghipour, F., 2017b. UV-LED radiation modeling and its ap-
plications in dose determination for water treatment. J. Photoch. Photobiol. A. 10,
1–29.
Kim, D.K., Kim, S.J., Kang, D.H., 2017. Inactivation modeling of human enteric virus surro-
gates, MS2, Qβ, and ΦX174, in water using UVC-LEDs, a novel disinfecting system.
Food Res. Int. 91, 115–123.
Lawal, O., Dussert, B., Howarth, C., Platzer, K., Sasges, M., Muller, J., et al., 2008. Proposed
method for measurement of the output of monochromatic (254 nm) low pressure
UV lamps. IUVA News 10, 14–17.
Lawal, O., Cosman, J., Pagan, J., AquiSense Technologies, L.L.C., 2018. UV-C LED devices and
systems: current and future state. IUVA News 20 (1), 22–28.
Li, G.Q., Wang, W.L., Huo, Z.Y., Lu, Y., Hu, H.Y., 2017. Comparison of UV-LED and low pres-
sure UV for water disinfection: photoreactivation and dark repair of Escherichia coli.
Water Res. 126, 134–143.
Liu, C., Wang, H.L., Li, P.H., Peng, H.L., Qing, S.X., Xiang, Y.T., 2018. Biochar's impact on dis-
solved organic matter (DOM) export from a cropland soil during natural rainfalls. Sci.
Total Environ. 650, 1988–1995.
Lu, C.C., Wang, C.P., Liu, C.Y., et al., 2016. The efficiency and reliability improvement by uti-
lizing quartz airtight packaging of UVC LEDs. IEEE T. Electron Dev. 3143–3146.
Luo, X.B., Hu, R., Liu, S., Wang, K., 2016. Heat and fluid flow in high-power LED packaging
and applications. Prog. Energ. Combus. 56, 1–32.
 X. Li et al. / Science of the Total Environment 659 (2019) 1415–1427
Mamane, G.H., Linden, K.G., 2005. Relationship between physiochemical properties, ag-
gregation and U.V. inactivation of isolated indigenous spores in water. J. Appl.
Microbiol. 98, 351–363.
Mattle, M.J., Kohn, T., 2012. Inactivation and tailing during UV254 disinfection of viruses:
contributions of viral aggregation, light shielding within viral aggregates, and recom-
bination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 10022–10030.
Messina, G., Burgassi, S., Messina, D., et al., 2015. A new UV-LED device for automatic dis-
infection of stethoscope membranes. Am. J. Infect. Control 43, 61–66.
Messina, G., Fattorini, M., Nante, N., Daniele, R., et al., 2016. Time effectiveness of ultravi-
olet C light (UVC) emitted by light emitting diodes (LEDs) in reducing stethoscope
contamination. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8, 1–8.
Messina, G., Spataro, G., Rosadini, D., Burgassi, S., Mariani, L., Tani, M., Cevenini, G., 2018. A
novel approach to stethoscope hygiene: a coat-pocket innovation. Infect. Dis. Health
23, 211–216.
Muller, J., 2011. Seeing the light: the benefits of UV water treatment. Water Online.
Murata, Y., Osakabe, M., 2013. The Bunsen-Roscoe reciprocity law in ultraviolet-B-
induced mortality of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae. J. Insect Phys-
iol. 59 (3), 241–247.
Nelson, K.Y., McMartin, D.W., Yost, C.K., Runtz, K.J., Ono, T., 2012. Point-of-use water dis-
infection using UV light-emitting diodes to reduce bacterial contamination. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. R. 20, 5441–5448.
Oguma, K., Surapong, R., 2018. Inactivation kinetics and efficiencies of UV-LEDs against
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Legionella pneumophila, and surrogate microorganisms.
Water Res. 130, 31–37.
Oguma, K., Katayama, H., Ohgaki, S., 2002. Photoreactivation of E. coli after low or
medium-pressure UV disinfection determined by an endonuclease sensitive site
assay. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68 (12), 6029–6035.
Oguma, K., Kita, R., Sakai, H., Murakami, M., Takizawa, S., 2013. Application of UV light
emitting diodes to batch and flow-through water disinfection systems. Desalination
328, 24–30.
Oguma, K., Surapong, R., Bolton, J.R., 2016. Application of UV light-emitting diodes to ad-
enovirus in water. J. Environ. Eng. 142 (3), 04015082.
Rattanakul, S., Oguma, K., Sakai, H., Takizawa, S., 2014. Inactivation of viruses by combina-
tion processes of UVand chlorine. J. Water Environ. Technol. 12 (6), 511–523.
Rodriguez, R.A., Bounty, S., Beck, S., Chan, C., McGuire, C., Linden, K.G., 2014. Photoreacti-
vation of bacteriophages after UV disinfection: role of genome structure and impacts
of UV source. Water Res. 55, 143–149.
Sasges, M., Robinson, J., 2005. Accurate measurement of UV lamp output. IUVA News 7,
21–25.
Sharpless, C.M., Linden, K.G., 2005. Interpreting collimated beam ultraviolet photolysis
rate data in terms of electrical efficiency of treatment. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 4, S19–S26.
1427
Shur, M.S., Gaska, R., 2010. Deep-ultraviolet light-emitting diodes. IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 57, 12–25.
Simons, R., Gabbai, U.E., Moram, M.A., 2014. Optical fluence modelling for ultraviolet light
emitting diode-based water treatment systems. Water Res. 66, 338–349.
Sinha, R.P., Häder, D.P., 2002. UV-induced DNA damage and repair: a review. Photochem.
Photobiol. 1 (4), 225–236.
Sommer, R., Haider, T., Cabaj, A., Pribil, W., Lhotsky, M., 1998. Time dose reciprocity in UV
disinfection of water. Water Sci. Technol. 38 (12), 145–150.
Song, K., Mohseni, M., Taghipour, F., 2016. Application of ultraviolet light-emitting diodes
(UV-LEDs) for water disinfection: a review. Water Res. 94, 341–349.
Thurman, E.M., 1985. Organic Geochemistry of Natural Waters. Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Boston, MA.
Thurman, E.M., Malcolm, R.L., 1981. Preparative isolation of aquatic humic substances. En-
viron. Sci. Technol. 15, 463–466.
USEPA, 2006. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual for the Final Long Term 2 En-
hanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington DC EPA 815-R-06-007.
Vilhunen, S., Särkkä, H., Sillanpää, M., 2009. Ultraviolet light-emitting diodes in water dis-
infection. Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 16 (4), 439–442.
Wang, S., Zhu, H.P., Chai, Z.N., Gu, C.L., 2009. Safety assessment of the international
drinking-water. Chin. Food Res. Dev. 30 (11), 182–185.
Wang, J.X., Yan, J.C., Guo, Y.N., Li, J.M., 2015. Recent progress of research on III-nitride deep
ultraviolet light-emitting diode. Sci. Chin. 45 (6) 067303-1-067303-20.
Würtele, M.A., Kolbe, T., Lipszc, M., Klberg, A., Weyers, M., Kneissl, M., Jekel, M., 2011. Ap-
plication of GaN-based ultraviolet-C light emitting diodes e UV LEDs e for water dis-
infection. Water Res. 45, 1481–1489.
Yan, J.C., Sun, L.L., Wang, J.X., 2017. Development status and prospect of ultraviolet light
emitting diode. Chin. Illum. Eng. J. 28 (1), 1–4.
Yang, H.H., Wei, Q.S., Wang, D.S., et al., 2007. The removal of dissolved organic matter in
different water by coagulation. Acta Sci. Circumst. 27 (12), 1951–1956.
Yang, P., Wang, S.M., Cheng, H., et al., 2016a. Light efficiency enhancement of deep ultra-
violet light-emitting diodes packaged by nanostructured silica glass. J. Disp. Technol.
1106–1111.
Yang, P., Wang, S.M., Cheng, H., et al., 2016b. Whole inorganic hermetic packaging tech-
nology using localized induction heating for deep ultraviolet light-emitting diodes.
IEEE Trans. Compon. 1456–1461.
Zhou, X.Q., Li, Z.F., Lan, J.R., et al., 2017. Kinetics of inactivation and photoreactivation of
Escherichia coli using ultrasound-enhanced UV-C light-emitting diodes disinfection.
Ultrason. Sonochem. 35, 471–477.