Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,050

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment – A critical review

Miklos, David B., Remy, Christian, Jekel, Martin, Linden, Karl G., Drewes, Jörg E., Hübner, Uwe·2018·Water Research

Abstract

This study provides an overview of established processes as well as recent progress in emerging technologies for advanced oxidation processes (AOPs). In addition to a discussion of major reaction mechanisms and formation of by-products, data on energy efficiency were collected in an extensive analysis of studies reported in the peer-reviewed literature enabling a critical comparison of various established and emerging AOPs based on electrical energy per order (EEO) values. Despite strong variations within reviewed EEO values, significant differences could be observed between three groups of AOPs: (1) O3 (often considered as AOP-like process), O3/H2O2, O3/UV, UV/H2O2, UV/persulfate, UV/chlorine, and electron beam represent median EEO values of <1 kWh/m3, while median energy consumption by (2) photo-Fenton, plasma, and electrolytic AOPs were significantly higher (EEO values in the range of 1-100 kWh/m3). (3) UV-based photocatalysis, ultrasound, and microwave-based AOPs are characterized by median values of >100 kWh/m3 and were therefore considered as not (yet) energy efficient AOPs. Specific evaluation of 147 data points for the UV/H2O2 process revealed strong effects of operational conditions on reported EEO values. Besides water type and quality, a major influence was observed for process capacity (lab-vs. pilot-vs. full-scale applications) and, in case of UV-based processes, of the lamp type. However, due to the contribution of other factors, correlation of EEO values with specific water quality parameters such as UV absorbance and dissolved organic carbon were not substantial. Also, correlations between EEO and compound reactivity with OH-radicals were not significant (photolytically active compounds were not considered). Based on these findings, recommendations regarding the use of the EEO concept, including the upscaling of laboratory results, were derived.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.042

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 3,050

Metadata

Authors
Miklos, D. B., Remy, C., Jekel, M., Linden, K. G., Drewes, J. E., & Hübner, U.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
139
Pages
118-131
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2792892989
Cited by
3,050
References
3
FWCI
107.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment – A critical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.042
The paper
Miklos, D. B., Remy, C., Jekel, M., Linden, K. G., Drewes, J. E., & Hübner, U. (2018). Evaluation of advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment – A critical review. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.042

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.