Table 4.

Virus removal/inactivation range and the merits and limitations of the various disinfection method (adapted from Chen et al., 2021a).

Method	Removal/inactivation log	Merits	Limitations
Membrane filtration	0.5–5.9	Low energy cost, the potential for mobile treatment unit, does not require chemicals	Removal efficiency is unstable, a potential health risk for humans
Ultraviolet irradiation	0.09–5	No DBPs formation, less susceptible to pH and temperature, non-corrosive, ease of installation and operation, short contact time	Relatively high energy consumption, inefficient in turbid water
Chlorination	1- > 5	Simple to handle, cost-effective, residual in distribution	DBPs production, residual toxicity
Monochloramination	0.5–4	Stable residual, less odor, and taste issues	Weak disinfectant, less virucidal, long contact time
Chlorine dioxide	0.25–6	More effective than chlorine at higher pH, lowers DBPs formation	DBPs formation, organoleptic abnormalities
Ozonation	0.6–7.7	Effective disinfectant, short contact time, possible combination with various catalysts	DBPs formation, high operation and maintenance cost, non-stable and poor solubility, effectiveness is affected by water turbidity
Photocatalytic disinfection	1–8	Low cost of operation, possible reuse of catalysts, favorable catalytic performance	Accidental leaching of hazardous metals into treated water
Cavitation	<4	No DBPs formation, possible for incorporation into a continuous flow process	Energy-intensive and high operating cost, still at the developmental stage
Electrochemical disinfection	3.4–5	Easy to control, environment friendly	Possibility of DBPs formation, low selectivity, the high operating cost associated with electricity consumption