Table 4.
Comparison of WW treatment effectiveness and energy consumption for various 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RefineryWW effluent | orifice 3 bar | 142 | 6–10 | 37% | 6.8 | 50 | 50 | 0.4 | 4.2 | 78.5 | [10] |
| 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 | [9] |
| 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 | [11] |
| 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 | [37] |
| Wood finishing WW | dimpled rotor 2200 RPM | 38,000 | 6.2 | 49% | 4 | 20 | 195 | 223.4 | 383.3 | 20.6 | [36] |
| Urban WW influent | SD 2290 RPM | 316 | 7.8 | 20% | 800 | 90 | 30 | 33.8 | 8.6 | 136.3 | [27] |
| SD 2700 RPM | 344 | 7.9 | 13% | 800 | 90 | 30 | 23.9 | 14.1 | 314.5 | ||
| Urban WW influent | PD exp. A1 | 648 | 8.2 | 10% | 800 | 58 | 30 | 55.2 | 6.8 | 101.4 | [22] |
| PD exp. A2 | 648 | 8.2 | 18% | 800 | 116 | 60 | 48.0 | 13.5 | 116.7 | ||
| PD exp. B1 | 635 | 7.3 | 21% | 800 | 47 | 30 | 139 | 6.6 | 48.3 | ||
| PD exp. B2 | 635 | 7.3 | 27% | 800 | 93 | 60 | 88.2 | 13.0 | 76.0 | ||
| Present study | E1 | 1432 | 7.6 | 28% | 200 | 5.88 | 15 | 813 | 3.28 | 8.25 | – |
| E2 | 1432 | 8.1 | 31% | 200 | 6.49 | 15 | 815 | 3.62 | 8.22 | ||
| E3 | 1432 | 8.0 | 17% | 200 | 5.88 | 15 | 493 | 3.99 | 13.6 |