Table 4.

Comparison of WW treatment effectiveness and energy consumption for different hydrodynamic cavitation setups.

Sample type	HC type	CODi (mg/L)	pH	CR	V (L)	t (min)	Np	CM (gCOD/ h)	ECV (kWh/m3)	EEM (kWh/kgCOD)	Ref
refinery WW effluent	orifice 3 bar	142	6–10	37%	6.8	50	50	0.4	4.2	78.5	[18]
	venturi 5 bar	64	6–10	52%	13.3	50	50	0.5	5.5	166.4
Kitchen WW effluent	orifice 4 bar	694	3.0	27%	10	120	75	0.9	10.7	57.1	[16]
		694	7.0	9%	10	120	75	0.3	10.7	181.4
real industrial effluent	venturi 4 bar	2496	4.0	6%	4	120	141	0.1	11.7	73.5	[20]
		1248	4.0	8%	4	120	141	0.3	11.7	119.1
laundry WW	venturi 4 bar	678	9.0	25%	5	90	84	0.6	30.0	179.1	[17]
communal WW influent	SD 2290 RPM	316	7.8	20%	800	90	30	33.8	8.6	136.3	[34]
	SD 2700 RPM	344	7.9	13%	800	90	30	23.9	14.1	314.5
Communal WW influent	PD exp. A1	648	8.2	10%	800	58	30	55.2	6.8	101.4	–
	PD exp. A2	648	8.2	18%	800	116	60	48.0	13.5	116.7
(current study)	PD exp. B1	635	7.3	21%	800	47	30	138.8	6.6	48.3
	PD exp. B2	635	7.3	27%	800	93	60	88.2	13.0	76.0

COD_i^{…. initial COD.}