A
Basic Comparison of Ozone Technologies
An article for
Water Technology Magazine, October 1994
Submitted by Ted Rich, Director of Sales & Marketing, ClearWater
Tech, Inc.
The word is out, and
the word is ozone. A wealth of information exists on this very powerful
oxidizer - what it can do, what it can’t, how to properly size a system,
how it works, etc. Some information is general, some so complex that even
the most versed water professional is left scratching his head.
This article endeavors
to step back and provide a fundamental understanding of the variety of
ozone technologies on the market today. Knowing how ozone is created and
in what amounts and concentrations will assist the water professional in
applying more complex information to determine which technology will
provide the desired results most economically.
It has become common
knowledge that ozone is generated in one of two generally accepted ways -
by passing an oxygen-containing gas through either a high energy
electrical field or through a source of ultraviolet radiation. The first
method is known as corona discharge, the other ultraviolet.
Ultraviolet
(UV) ozone generation
Two types of ultraviolet lamps have been marketed for use in water
treatment: a mostly 254 nanometer (nm) lamp and one providing mostly 185
nm UV light. Light is measured on a scale called an electromagnetic
spectrum and its increments are referred to as nanometers. Figure 1
represents an electromagnetic scale; note the location of higher-frequency
ultraviolet light relative to visible light (the range of light
perceptible by the human eye).

Figure
1
Wavelengths in nm
The important
distinction to make in this section is that ozone is not generated by 254
nm systems. In fact, ozone is actually destroyed by ultraviolet light at
that frequency. 254 nm systems, referred to as ultraviolet sterilizers or
germicidal sterilizers, inactivate organisms by affecting their ability to
reproduce. Water is passed by the 254 nm lamp between a quartz glass
sleeve and an outer chamber, usually made of stainless steel. It is the
frequency of the light itself that impacts the organism, not ozone. Proper
equipment sizing is essential for this method to be effective in treating
water; the output of the lamp must match the flow rate of the water being
treated. Intensity meters, hour meters, and quartz sleeve cleaners are
other features to look for in an ultraviolet sterilizer to maintain
maximum ultraviolet radiation. In fact, local health officials may require
that one or more of these features is provided on the equipment. Regular
maintenance and lamp changes are mandatory to maintain the illumination
required to inactivate contaminants.
Ultraviolet ozone
generators, on the other hand, utilize a mostly 185 nm lamp to produce
ozone. It is the ozone that impacts the water contaminants, not the
ultraviolet light. Air (usually ambient) is passed over an ultraviolet
lamp, which splits oxygen (O2) molecules in the gas. The
resulting oxygen atoms (O1), seeking stability, attach to other
oxygen molecules, forming ozone (O3). The output gas is
injected into the water, where the ozone in the gas inactivates
contaminants by actually rupturing the organisms’ cell wall. Look for an
ultraviolet ozone generator with a reaction chamber made from a material
that provides maximum reflectivity and is engineered to isolate wiring,
electrical connections, etc. from the effects of ultraviolet light, heat
and ozone.
Corona
Discharge (CD) ozone generation
The technologies involved in corona discharge ozone generation are varied,
but all operate fundamentally by passing dried, oxygen-containing gas
through a high energy electrical field. The electrical current causes the
“split” in the oxygen molecules as described in the section on
ultraviolet ozone generation. Past this common feature the variations are
many, but the generally accepted technologies can be divided into three
types - low frequency (50 to 100 Hz), medium frequency (100 to 1,000 Hz),
and high frequency (1,000 + Hz). Since 85% to 95% of the electrical energy
supplied to a corona discharge ozone generator produces heat, some method
for heat removal is required. Also, proper cooling significantly affects
the energy efficiency of the ozone generator, so most corona discharge
systems utilize one or more of the following cooling methods: Air, water
with oil or freon, or water. Regardless of the CD technology you may
select, be sure some type of cooling system is included.
At the heart of a
corona discharge ozone system is the dielectric. The electrical charge is
diffused over this dielectric surface, creating an electrical field, or
“corona”. Many different materials in a variety of configurations are
used for the dielectric, including everything from silicone rubber (one
design actually used radiator hose!) to scientific-grade glass.
Critical to CD ozone
systems is proper air preparation. The gas feeding the ozone generator
must be very dry (minimum -60 degrees F), because the presence of moisture
affects ozone production and leads to the formation of nitric acid. Nitric
acid is very corrosive to critical internal parts of a CD ozone generator,
which can cause premature failure and will increase the frequency of
required maintenance. If a corona discharge ozone system is selected, make
sure air preparation equipment is part of the package. Figure 2 clearly
shows the dramatic influence of feed gas dew point on ozone output.

Figure
2
Effects of dewpoint on ozone production (Dimitriou, 1990).
Most large municipal
ozone systems utilize the more traditional “iron lung” technology,
incorporating low or medium frequency, water cooled generators. The feed
gas is usually on-site generated oxygen. Examples of such installations
include the Los Angeles Aqueduct Filtration Plant which has a 12,000
lbs./day ozone generating capability, and the Elm Fork water plant which
can produce 16,665 lbs./day of ozone for the City of Dallas, Texas potable
water supply. Virtually all metropolitan cities are now using ozone
technology or have planned for its use in new or retrofit facilities.
Of the ozone
technologies mentioned above, none has a clear advantage. However, to help
narrow the field for a particular application, consider the amount of
ozone required. You may find that low and medium frequency ozone systems
will have prohibitively high initial costs for applications requiring less
than ten lbs./day. However, they have a proven history of durability and
reliability. High frequency ozone generators seem to have the best
combination of cost efficiency and reliability for applications requiring
less than ten lbs./day of ozone output.
Other more peripheral
technologies have emerged on the ozone scene, including ultra-high
frequency corona discharge and cold plasma designs (also known as cold
cathode). The cold plasma method is actually an adaptation from the neon
sign industry. The electrical power supply is often a standard neon lamp
transformer or an ignition transformer from a oil burner. Cold plasma
ozone generators utilize a glass lamp filled with a combination of inert
gases that act as an electrode, while the glass acts as a dielectric.
They
normally operate at common frequency - 60 Hz compared to the 1,000 + Hz
frequencies found in high frequency corona discharge generators. Since
contact between the electrode and the dielectric is made less often in
cold cathode systems, the amount of ozone generated by the same amount of
electricity and over the same amount of time can be considerably less.
Also, because low, medium and high frequency ozone generators have no
lamps, they can be more durable and require less maintenance.
The Pros and
Cons
Which technology is better? UV or CD? Low frequency, medium frequency, or
high frequency? Naturally, a simple, clearly defined answer would be nice,
but it is not that simple. With that in mind, it may be best to summarize
some key factors to consider when selecting the best technology for a
particular application.
First, it is important
to understand what conditions you are endeavoring to treat. It has been
said many times before, but a complete water analysis is very helpful in
determining ozone needs. Depending on what is being treated, the
concentration of ozone in the output gas is every bit as important as the
amount (usually shown in grams/hour) of ozone produced by the generator.
Ultraviolet ozone generators generally produce concentrations of between
0.1% and 0.001% by weight, while corona discharge systems can produce
between 1% and 6.0% by weight. Concentration significantly impacts the
effectiveness of ozone because it must first be dissolved before it can
react with water borne contaminants, and the higher the ozone
concentration, the more soluble ozone is in water. Finally, if
disinfection is the goal, higher ozone concentrations are required;
consider the available corona discharge technologies instead of
ultraviolet ozone generators.
While the most
important points may be “how much ozone” and “in what
concentration,” there are cost considerations as well. If it has been
determined that low outputs and low concentrations can do the job (for
example, treating small amounts of iron or certain odor problems),
ultraviolet ozone generators can be cost effective. Since ambient air is
used as the feed gas, ultraviolet systems do not require air preparation
equipment. However, ozone output fluctuates according to changes in
humidity and because UV lamps gradually lose their intensity over time.
If greater ozone
outputs and concentrations are required for an application, a corona
discharge technology should be chosen. The use of a high, medium or low
frequency system will depend on matching equipment costs with ozone output
requirements. Cold cathode ozone generators utilize somewhat fragile lamps
and employ relatively simple technology, but can carry lower price tags
because manufacturing costs are comparatively low.
Summary
The ozone generation technologies available today are many. Taking on a
wide variety of shapes and sizes, all are different in their outputs,
electrical efficiencies, and overall costs. Selecting the proper system for
each application becomes a matter of evaluating ozone output and
concentration requirements, then looking at quality (use of
ozone-resistant materials, warranty, etc.), durability, and experience in
the type of application for which ozone is being considered.