Treatment Technologies
UV Disinfection Equipment Companies
UV reactor manufacturers covering low-pressure, medium-pressure, and UV-LED systems for water disinfection.
This page is a good fit if you need:
- Low-Pressure UV Disinfection Units or Filtration capabilities
- Suppliers with utilities sector experience
- Providers operating in United Kingdom or China
- Providers
- 94
- Verified
- 4
- Countries
- 19
Can't find the right fit? Post a brief and let qualified suppliers come to you.
Post a projectHow to choose a uv disinfection equipment provider
Start with providers that clearly operate in your target geography and project footprint.
Look for industry exposure that matches your water challenge, compliance constraints, and deployment context.
Use technologies, service scope, and proof signals to narrow the list before reaching out to suppliers.
Not sure where to start? Our experts can help.
Filter results
Verified providers
4 claimed companies in this category
Country
Industry
Technology
Find a UV Disinfection Equipment Provider
Showing 1-20 of 94
94 results from 94 matched providers
UV Disinfection Equipment: Lamp Technology, Validation, and Regulatory Standards
UV disinfection equipment for water and wastewater treatment uses ultraviolet light in the 200 to 300 nm germicidal wavelength range (peak germicidal efficacy at 254 nm for low-pressure mercury vapour lamps; 220 to 280 nm for medium-pressure lamps) to inactivate pathogens by damaging their DNA/RNA, preventing replication. UV dose: measured in mJ/cm2 (millijoules per square centimetre); standard doses: 40 mJ/cm2 for 4-log inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (USEPA Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; UK DWI guidance on Cryptosporidium treatment); 40 mJ/cm2 for 3-log inactivation of Giardia; 30 mJ/cm2 for 4-log inactivation of adenovirus (requires higher dose than other viruses due to adenovirus UV resistance); 16 mJ/cm2 for 99 percent inactivation of bacteria (Escherichia coli, Salmonella); wastewater reuse: 20 to 50 mJ/cm2 depending on target organism and reuse application (ISO 16075-2 Class A irrigation requires 25 mJ/cm2 minimum). UV transmittance (UVT): the fraction of UV light at 254 nm transmitted through 1 cm of water; typical values: drinking water after conventional treatment UVT 85 to 95 percent; surface water with high colour UVT 60 to 80 percent; wastewater secondary effluent UVT 50 to 75 percent; wastewater tertiary effluent UVT 70 to 85 percent; UVT directly affects UV dose delivered - lower UVT means higher lamp power needed for the same dose.
Low-pressure (LP) and medium-pressure (MP) UV lamp technology: LP mercury vapour lamps emit monochromatic UV at 254 nm; electrical input 30 to 150 W per lamp; UV output 30 to 40 percent of electrical input (UV efficiency); lamp life 9,000 to 16,000 hours; sleeve temperature 40 degrees C; water temperature effect: output declines below 20 degrees C (cold water quenching) and may require amalgam LP lamps (LP-HO, amalgam type: temperature-stable, output varies less than 10 percent between 5 and 40 degrees C water; lamp life 12,000 to 16,000 hours). MP mercury vapour lamps emit polychromatic UV across 200 to 300 nm; electrical input 1,000 to 25,000 W per lamp; UV efficiency 10 to 20 percent; lamp life 4,000 to 8,000 hours; sleeve temperature 600 to 900 degrees C; fewer lamps required per unit flow rate (100 to 500 m3/h per lamp vs 5 to 50 m3/h per LP lamp); advantage: polychromatic spectrum provides additional UV dose at wavelengths that activate photolysis of chlorine-resistant pathogens (e.g. adenovirus at 220 to 240 nm). UV-LED technology: emerging alternative using semiconductor chips emitting UV at 265 to 275 nm (peak germicidal range); advantages: no mercury, instant on/off, long lifetime (30,000 to 50,000 hours at 50 percent rated current); disadvantages: lower UV intensity than LP lamps at current technology; cost premium vs LP systems; typically used in point-of-use applications and small flow rates (less than 10 L/min); commercial large-scale UV-LED systems for drinking water production beginning to emerge (2023 to 2025 commercial scale systems from Xylem, Trojan, ATEC).
UV system validation and regulatory requirements: USEPA/DVGW UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (UVDGM, 2006) requires all UV systems used for drinking water Cryptosporidium credit in the US to be validated by biodosimetry testing at an independent testing facility using the collimated beam method and full-scale system test; DVGW W 294 (German technical standard for drinking water UV; 3-part standard covering performance, testing, and monitoring) is the primary European validation standard; DWI UK: UV treatment for Cryptosporidium credit under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016 requires systems validated to DVGW W 294 or equivalent; validation testing conducted by accredited facilities (KWR Water Research Institute, TZW Karlsruhe, WRc Swindon); key validation parameters: flow rate, UVT, UV dose delivery, lamp aging factor, fouling factor (FF), calculated using Biodosimetry UV Dose Response curves (Cryptosporidium, MS2 phage as surrogate). UK installations: Thames Water Beckton WTW uses MP UV for Cryptosporidium barrier; Anglian Water Grafham WTW uses LP UV (Trojan UV); Severn Trent Water operates LP UV barriers on surface water sources; leading UV equipment suppliers: Trojan Technologies (Xylem), Xylem Wedeco, SUEZ UV-Guard, Hanovia (Fortive), Aquionics, Berson (Xylem), Sterilray, BWT, and ProMinent.
Frequently Asked Questions
What UV dose is required for Cryptosporidium inactivation in drinking water?
Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst inactivation requires a validated UV dose of 10 mJ/cm2 for 3-log (99.9 percent) inactivation, 40 mJ/cm2 for 4-log (99.99 percent) inactivation, and 60 mJ/cm2 for 4.5-log inactivation (based on USEPA Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) and USEPA UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (UVDGM, 2006) action level tables; these are validated reactor dose values, not collimated beam doses). UK DWI requirements: The Drinking Water Inspectorate requires that UV treatment used as a Cryptosporidium treatment barrier must deliver a validated UV dose sufficient for the required log reduction target (typically 4-log for moderate to high risk catchments); systems must be validated to DVGW W 294 or USEPA UVDGM methodology at the site-specific UVT and design flow rate. Design considerations: UV dose is delivered at the minimum UV transmittance (UVT) expected at the site (typically design UVT = 5th percentile UVT from 12 months monitoring data); lamps are derated by aging factor (AF typically 0.5 to 0.7 applied at end-of-lamp-life) and fouling factor (FF typically 0.8 to 0.9 for quartz sleeve soiling); validated dose = calculated (RED) x AF x FF; RED (Reduction Equivalent Dose) determined from biodosimetry testing. Monitoring: online UVT monitoring (4-wire photometer per DVGW W 294) required continuously; online UV intensity sensors per lamp bank monitor UV output; system shuts down or alarmed if UV dose falls below set point; DWI requires continuous UV intensity monitoring data to be retained.
What is the difference between low-pressure and medium-pressure UV lamps?
Low-pressure (LP) UV lamps: monochromatic emission at 254 nm (mercury vapour resonance line); electrical input 30 to 150 W per lamp (LP) or 200 to 500 W per lamp (LP amalgam, high-output); UV output efficiency 30 to 40 percent of electrical input; lamp life 9,000 to 16,000 hours (amalgam: 12,000 to 16,000 hours); sleeve temperature 40 degrees C (cold lamp - suitable for thin quartz sleeve without air cooling); output sensitive to water temperature (standard LP output reduces at less than 20 degrees C - amalgam lamps resolve this; output within 10 percent between 5 and 40 degrees C). Advantages of LP: high UV efficiency (35 to 40 percent); monochromatic output well-characterised; lower energy per lamp (but many more lamps needed per unit flow). Disadvantages: requires many more lamps than MP for equivalent flow; more quartz sleeves to maintain. Medium-pressure (MP) UV lamps: polychromatic UV output 200 to 600 nm; electrical input 1,000 to 25,000 W per lamp; UV efficiency 10 to 20 percent (lower than LP but much higher output per lamp); lamp life 4,000 to 8,000 hours; sleeve temperature 600 to 900 degrees C (requires cooling water jacket). Advantages of MP: far fewer lamps per unit flow; compact design; polychromatic output provides adenovirus inactivation at wavelengths below 240 nm (important for indirect potable reuse) and photolysis of chloramines (useful for chloramine removal in pools and cooling water). Disadvantages: lower UV efficiency (higher electrical cost); shorter lamp life; higher sleeve temperature (more risk of sleeve breakage). Practical selection: LP amalgam preferred for drinking water treatment with high UVT and flow less than 50,000 m3/day; MP preferred for wastewater and high-flow applications; UV-LED emerging for niche applications.
How is a UV system sized for a water treatment works?
UV system sizing for a drinking water treatment works: (1) Design flow: maximum flow rate that the UV system must treat; typically taken as peak hourly demand (PHD) for treatment works without downstream clear water storage; or average daily demand (ADD) if treatment works supplies a service reservoir; allowance for redundancy: N+1 configuration (N UV reactors provide design dose at design flow; 1 reactor spare allows maintenance without dose compromise). (2) Design UVT: site-specific UVT profile from 12 months of raw water UV transmittance monitoring (at 254 nm in 1 cm path length); design UVT taken as 5th or 10th percentile of measured data to account for worst-case turbid or coloured water events; for upland surface water sources typical design UVT 70 to 85 percent; lowland river sources with seasonal algal and organic load: design UVT 75 to 90 percent. (3) Target UV dose: DVGW W 294 or USEPA UVDGM provides action level dose for target log reduction credit; typical UK drinking water: 40 mJ/cm2 for 4-log Cryptosporidium reduction; (4) Validated reactor dose: UV supplier provides CFD-modelled reactor dose at each combination of flow rate and UVT; biodosimetry testing at accredited facility validates model predictions; dose delivery verified at end-of-lamp-life (including aging factor 0.5 to 0.7) and with fouled sleeves (fouling factor 0.8 to 0.9); (5) Electrical power: LP system for 50,000 m3/day at UVT 80 percent, 40 mJ/cm2: approximately 2 to 5 kWh per 1,000 m3 (0.002 to 0.005 kWh/m3); MP system: 3 to 8 kWh per 1,000 m3; UV contributes 5 to 20 percent of total treatment works energy demand.
What maintenance do UV disinfection systems require?
UV disinfection system maintenance requirements: (1) Quartz sleeve cleaning: scale and fouling deposits on quartz sleeves reduce UV transmittance through the sleeve (quartz transmittance at 254 nm typically greater than 90 percent new; fouled sleeves may fall to 70 to 80 percent, reducing UV dose by 10 to 30 percent); automated cleaning by sleeve wiper (mechanical wiper moves along sleeve surface; wiper triggered automatically every 30 to 60 minutes or by UV intensity drop); chemical cleaning (citric acid or proprietary scale remover injected into wiper cavity; or manual sleeve removal and immersion cleaning); cleaning frequency depends on water hardness and iron content; hard water sites (greater than 250 mg/L CaCO3) may require more frequent chemical cleaning. (2) Lamp replacement: LP lamp life 9,000 to 16,000 hours (approximately 1 to 2 years continuous operation); MP lamp life 4,000 to 8,000 hours (6 to 12 months); planned replacement before end of rated life (or when UV intensity sensor indicates output decline requiring dose setpoint increase); lamp replacement performed under maintenance outage with UV reactor bypassed and isolated; calibration of UV intensity sensors against reference radiometer after lamp change. (3) UV sensor calibration: online UV intensity sensors calibrated against NIST-traceable calibration reference (calibrated radiometer) every 3 to 6 months; DVGW W 294 requires sensor calibration programme; sensor drift (typically less than 5 percent per 3,000 hours) creates UV dose underestimate if not corrected; (4) Quartz sleeve inspection: inspect for breakage, cracking, or mechanical damage; pressure test after reassembly; (5) Ballast and electrical: LP lamp ballast inspection for overheating or failure; MP lamp power supply (high-frequency electronic ballast) requires specialist maintenance; routine thermographic inspection of electrical components annually; total annual maintenance cost: LP system approximately GBP 1,000 to 3,000 per reactor per year (lamps, cleaning, sensors); MP system GBP 3,000 to 8,000 per reactor per year.
A water company in the North West needed to add a validated Cryptosporidium UV barrier at a 40,000 m3/day upland surface water works following an operational Cryptosporidium risk assessment upgrade. The site had seasonal UV transmittance as low as 68 percent during autumn storm events and had a limited electrical supply headroom of 120 kW.
Trojan UV Technologies (Xylem) TrojanUV Swift SC6 low-pressure amalgam reactors were selected: two duty reactors plus one standby (N+1 configuration), each validated to DVGW W 294 at design UVT of 68 percent and 22,000 m3/day. Online 4-wire photometers (matched-pair UVT monitors) were installed upstream and downstream of each reactor. Validation biodosimetry was conducted at KWR Water Research Institute using MS2 phage surrogate. A Regulation 31 notification was submitted to DWI 6 weeks before commissioning.
Both duty reactors were validated at 40 mJ/cm2 at UVT 68 percent with ageing and fouling factors applied. DWI acknowledged the Reg 31 notification and accepted the UV barrier as providing 4-log Cryptosporidium credit. Total electrical load for the three reactors was 88 kW, within the site headroom. Annual maintenance cost is GBP 18,000 in lamp replacements, sensor calibration, and sleeve cleaning chemicals.
Questions to Ask Shortlisted Providers
- 1
Is the UV reactor validated to DVGW W 294 (or USEPA UVDGM) at our specific site UVT and design flow rate and can you provide the biodosimetry test report?
DWI will not accept a UV Cryptosporidium barrier unless validation has been performed at the site design conditions; a reactor validated at a different UVT or flow rate requires re-validation before DWI will grant the log-reduction credit.
- 2
What UV transmittance monitoring arrangement are you proposing and how often is the UVT sensor calibrated against a reference photometer?
DVGW W 294 requires continuous UVT monitoring at each reactor; an uncalibrated or single-sensor arrangement creates a UV dose uncertainty that DWI inspectors will query and that could lead to the barrier being declared unvalidated during an incident.
- 3
What is the ageing factor and fouling factor you have used in your dose calculation and how conservatively have they been set?
An ageing factor of 0.7 and fouling factor of 0.9 are typical for low-pressure amalgam systems; if the supplier has used more optimistic factors, the delivered dose at end-of-lamp-life with fouled sleeves may fall below 40 mJ/cm2 at your design UVT.
- 4
What is your protocol for a UV system failure event and how will you notify DWI if the treatment barrier is compromised?
DWI requires that the water company has a documented incident response plan for UV system failure; the DWI's Chief Inspector must be notified of any uncontrolled Cryptosporidium risk event; the supplier's maintenance response time and spare lamp availability are critical elements of this plan.
- 5
How does the UV system interact with downstream chlorination and could UV photolysis of chloramine create taste or odour issues in the distribution system?
Medium-pressure UV at high dose can photolyse chloramines and create short-chain aldehydes that cause taste complaints; for systems where combined chlorine is used, LP amalgam UV at 40 mJ/cm2 is preferable to avoid this by-product formation.
What Drives Cost in This Category
An N+1 configuration (one standby reactor) doubles capital cost compared to N with no redundancy; for a works serving greater than 25,000 population where DWI requires continuous Cryptosporidium barrier operation, N+1 is non-negotiable and should be assumed in all budgets.
DVGW W 294 validation at an accredited test facility (KWR, TZW, WRc) costs GBP 20,000 to 60,000 per reactor type; if the site UVT or flow rate falls outside the supplier's existing validated envelope, a new site-specific validation is required before DWI will accept the barrier.
Low-pressure amalgam lamp life is 12,000 to 16,000 hours; at continuous operation, lamps need replacing annually; a 6-reactor system with GBP 400 to 600 per lamp and 8 lamps per reactor generates GBP 19,000 to 29,000 in annual lamp cost alone, plus GBP 3,000 to 8,000 in quartz sleeve inspection and cleaning chemicals.
If UV is used in combination with hydrogen peroxide (UV/AOP) rather than UV-only, a full Regulation 31 application is required including toxicological assessment of by-products; this can add GBP 30,000 to 80,000 in consultant fees and 6 to 18 months to the project programme.
Key Regulations & Standards
UV disinfection used as a Cryptosporidium treatment barrier in England requires DWI approval under Regulation 31; the approval requires biodosimetry validation data, UVT monitoring protocol, and a process description; DWI publishes Reg 31 notifications on its website and may impose operational conditions including minimum UVT setpoints and sensor calibration frequency.
DVGW W 294 (Parts 1, 2, and 3) is the primary European UV system validation standard accepted by DWI; it requires collimated beam testing, full-scale biodosimetry at accredited facility, definition of ageing factor and fouling factor, and a continuous monitoring protocol including matched-pair 4-wire UVT photometers at each reactor inlet.
The Cryptosporidium Regulations 1999 require water companies abstracting from surface water or GWUDI sources above a risk threshold to provide a treatment barrier achieving at least 3 to 4-log oocyst inactivation; UV validated to DVGW W 294 at 40 mJ/cm2 provides the 4-log credit required for high-risk surface water sources under DWI guidance.
Online UV intensity sensors and UVT photometers must be calibrated at defined intervals against UKAS-traceable reference instruments; calibration certificates must be retained; DVGW W 294 specifies the minimum calibration frequency and the acceptable measurement uncertainty for UV dose calculations submitted to DWI.
Explore Related Categories
Browse the full provider directory
Comparing uv disinfection equipment companies is one slice of a larger shortlisting decision. Explore the complete directory of industrial water treatment companies, then filter by region, sector, and technology before you request scoped proposals.
Open the directory