Tompkins D.T., Lawnicki B.J., Zeltner W.A., Anderson M.A.
Bibliographic info:
Ashrae 2005 Annual meeting -Technical and symposium papers-, Denver, June 2005, pp 11

Several approaches to estimate the cost of installing and operating a photocatalytic oxidation (PCO) device for application in various treatment concerns are presented. First, a simplified approach for estimating the cost of a PCO device using laboratory data is presented in some detail. Second, the
cost of ownership of a PCO device for treating outgases from soils contaminated with liquid solvents is compared with other treatment technologies, including granular activated carbon (GAC) and groundwater extraction with liquid phase UV/ peroxidation. Third, a study based on a consortium of semiconductor companies demonstrated that the cost of ownership of PCO for point-of-use (POU) applications is not likely to cost less on a per CFM basis than existing end-of-pipe (EOP) technologies. However, the study findings indicated that in a number of specific cases, PCO may provide a cost-effective alternative to EOP technologies. Last, a report was published comparing the first and operating costs of PCO vs. GAC. The study reported that (1) due to the high first and operating costs of a PCO device compared with the GAC approach, PCO is not likely to replace GAC as a technology for treating a steadystate inlet feed of VOCs; and (2) PCO can improve in this
comparison (to GAC) if improved catalysts capable of high reaction rates and quantum yields are developed and if lower cost, low-pressure mercury-vapor lamps can be employed as a substitute for the medium-pressure lamps