Advanced Oxidation Process Companies
AOP suppliers, UV/H₂O₂, ozone, Fenton, and catalytic oxidation for refractory organics, PFAS, and trace contaminants.
28 specialist providers · 104 related · 22 countries
Qualified suppliers come to you.
Filter results
Country
Industry
Technology
Not sure where to start?
Showing 1-20 of 132
Specialists in advanced oxidation process
Providers whose services or self-declared specialties match this category.
Gi Aqua , Water as a Service
VerifiedSaudi Arabia · 51-200 employees
GI WAAS delivers cutting-edge water and wastewater solutions using advanced nanotechnology and zero total discharge solution sets industry standards. Our mission is to provide smart, sustainable, and decentralized treatment systems. We are committed to circular economy principles and reducing environmental impact. Our holistic approach provides comprehensive, tailor-made solutions that are designed to meet the specific needs of each client
Buyer's guide
The buyer's guide to advanced oxidation process
Advanced Oxidation Process Design for Trace Contaminant Destruction
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) generate hydroxyl radicals (·OH) with oxidation potential of 2.8 V — second only to fluorine — to mineralize pharmaceuticals, pesticides, 1,4-dioxane, NDMA, and other recalcitrant micropollutants. The dominant configurations are UV/H₂O₂ (peroxide 5–25 mg/L, UV dose 500–1,500 mJ/cm²), ozone/H₂O₂ (peroxide-to-ozone mass ratio 0.3–0.5), UV/chlorine, and catalytic ozonation. Each is selected on a contaminant-specific basis using bench-scale hydroxyl-radical exposure (Rct) testing on actual feedwater.
Electrical energy per order (EE/O) is the universal AOP design metric: kWh required to reduce a target contaminant by one log (90%) per cubic meter. Typical EE/O values are 0.5–2 kWh/m³ for UV/H₂O₂ on 1,4-dioxane, 0.1–0.5 kWh/m³ for ozone/H₂O₂ on pharmaceuticals. Scavenging from bicarbonate alkalinity above 100 mg/L CaCO₃, dissolved organic matter, and chloride raises EE/O substantially. Feedwater pretreatment via softening, biological filtration, or low-pressure RO is often the first design lever before AOP sizing.
Regulatory drivers include the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive recast 2024 requiring micropollutant removal at large WWTPs by 2045, California Title 22 indirect potable reuse, and Singapore NEWater standards. AOPs are typically the polishing barrier between MF/UF + RO and the final blending point. Specify residual oxidant quench (sulfite or GAC) to protect downstream distribution and avoid bromate formation when treating high-bromide waters above 50 µg/L. Aguato lists AOP providers with proven pilot-to-full-scale references.
Frequently asked questions
Which AOP is best for removing 1,4-dioxane from groundwater?
UV/H₂O₂ is the established choice for 1,4-dioxane because the contaminant absorbs UV poorly but reacts readily with hydroxyl radicals. Typical design uses 3–10 mg/L H₂O₂ dose, 800–1,500 mJ/cm² UV dose with low-pressure UV lamps, achieving 1–2 log removal at EE/O of 0.5–2 kWh/m³. Bicarbonate alkalinity is the dominant scavenger; pre-softening or low-pressure RO ahead of UV/H₂O₂ reduces operating cost dramatically.
What is EE/O and why does it matter for AOP design?
Electrical energy per order (EE/O), in kWh/m³, is the energy required to achieve one log (90%) reduction of a target contaminant. It is the universal AOP cost metric — lower EE/O means lower OPEX. For 1,4-dioxane, EE/O ranges from 0.3 kWh/m³ (low scavenging, optimal peroxide) to >3 kWh/m³ (high alkalinity, high TOC). Always demand pilot-derived, contaminant-specific EE/O before procurement.
When should I choose ozone/H₂O₂ over UV/H₂O₂?
Ozone/H₂O₂ (peroxone) is preferred for high-flow potable reuse where capital cost favors ozone contactors over UV reactors, for waters with high UV-blocking (color, iron), or for combined taste-and-odor and micropollutant duty. UV/H₂O₂ is preferred for groundwater with low UV-blocking, for NDMA destruction (UV directly photolyzes NDMA), and where bromate formation must be avoided in high-bromide source water.
Do AOPs produce harmful disinfection byproducts?
Yes - bromate (regulated at 10 micrograms/L under UK WS(WQ)R 2016 and EU DWD 2020) forms when ozonating waters with bromide above 50 micrograms/L. NDMA can form in UV/chlorine systems treating amine-containing waters. Aldehydes and assimilable organic carbon increase post-AOP, requiring biofiltration polishing. Pilot testing must quantify byproduct formation before full-scale design lock.
Case study · Indirect potable reuse scheme, groundwater replenishment, Thames Valley, UK
- Challenge
- A water company evaluating indirect potable reuse of highly treated effluent for aquifer replenishment needed to demonstrate removal of pharmaceutical micropollutants (carbamazepine, diclofenac, metformin) to below 100 ng/L and 1,4-dioxane to below 10 micrograms/L before allowing recharge to the chalk aquifer. Conventional secondary treatment alone achieved less than 20% removal of these compounds.
- Approach
- A pilot AOP train comprising ozone/H2O2 (O3:H2O2 ratio 0.4 by mass, ozone dose 8 mg/L) followed by biologically active carbon filtration was designed and tested at pilot scale over 12 months using actual site effluent. The BAC stage after ozonation removed assimilable organic carbon generated by partial oxidation and provided an additional polishing barrier for residual micropollutants.
- Outcome
- Pilot testing achieved greater than 99% removal of carbamazepine, diclofenac, and metformin to below 10 ng/L, and 1,4-dioxane reduction from 45 to below 2 micrograms/L. Bromate formation was controlled below 5 micrograms/L by pH depression to 6.8 ahead of ozonation, well within the 10 micrograms/L limit. Results supported the DWI risk assessment submission for the reuse scheme.
Questions to ask shortlisted providers
5
- 01
What hydroxyl radical exposure (Rct) have you measured for our specific feedwater matrix, and how does scavenging from bicarbonate alkalinity and dissolved organic matter affect your EE/O calculations?
Rct is feedwater-specific; using a generic value from a different water matrix will underestimate or overestimate the UV/H2O2 or ozone dose required for your target contaminant removal.
- 02
Have you pilot-tested the proposed AOP on our actual feedwater, and can you provide EE/O data for our target compounds across the seasonal range of water quality we experience?
EE/O must be measured on actual feedwater at representative seasonal conditions; laboratory data using spiked clean water dramatically underestimates real-world energy consumption.
- 03
What byproducts do you predict at the proposed oxidant dose on our feedwater, and have you measured bromate, NDMA, and aldehyde formation in pilot tests?
AOP byproduct formation is feedwater-specific and dose-dependent; without pilot-measured byproduct data, full-scale design cannot confirm regulatory compliance.
- 04
What quench or polishing step follows the AOP stage, and how does it handle residual oxidant, assimilable organic carbon, and any treatment byproducts?
Residual H2O2 or ozone damages downstream membranes if not quenched; AOC increase post-AOP requires BAC polishing to prevent regrowth in distribution.
- 05
What operational flexibility does the system have to increase or decrease oxidant dose in response to variable inlet water quality, and what is the minimum and maximum dose range?
Source water quality varies seasonally and with upstream discharges; the AOP system must be able to respond to these variations while remaining within byproduct formation limits.
What drives cost in this category
4
- Target contaminant and required log removal
- EE/O varies by more than an order of magnitude between easy-to-oxidise compounds and recalcitrant ones like 1,4-dioxane; the number of log removals required directly determines energy cost per cubic metre.
- Feedwater UV transmittance and scavenging
- Low UVT (below 80% at 254 nm) requires proportionally more UV energy to deliver the same effective UV dose at the target volume; high alkalinity scavenges hydroxyl radicals, requiring higher H2O2 dose and longer contact time.
- Ozone versus UV infrastructure
- Ozone generation requires on-site oxygen supply and ozone contactors (concrete or stainless steel vessels); UV systems require UV reactors and H2O2 dosing; capital cost profiles differ significantly, with ozone systems typically costing more at scales above 2,000 m3/day.
- Downstream BAC polishing requirements
- If biologically active carbon polishing is required to manage AOC and residual oxidant post-AOP, the contactor vessels, media, and backwash infrastructure add 20 to 40% to the capital cost of the AOP stage alone.
Key regulations and standards
4
- Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016
- Sets the bromate parametric value of 10 micrograms/L that constrains ozone dose in UK drinking water treatment, and provides the framework for emerging micropollutant guideline values.
- DWI Regulation 31
- AOP processes using ozone, hydrogen peroxide, or UV above defined outputs require DWI prior approval before installation on a public water supply, including toxicological review of any new chemicals used.
- BS EN 14897
- Standard for UV treatment devices for drinking water, specifying performance testing, validation dose requirements, and installation guidance.
- UKWIR Guidelines on Wastewater Reuse for Potable Purposes
- Provides the UK framework for demonstrating sufficient pathogen and contaminant reduction for indirect potable reuse schemes, relevant to AOP systems treating advanced effluent for groundwater replenishment.