Using Ultrasonic as a Disinfectant for Drinking Water Treatment Quality

Using Ultrasonic as a Disinfectant for Drinking Water Treatment Quality | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Using Ultrasonic as a Disinfectant for Drinking Water Treatment Quality Youstina Demian, Ali Mahmoud, Dr Samir Nasr This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6388250/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Water treatment is a critical process for ensuring public health and maintaining environmental sustainability. This research investigates the application of ultrasonic technology as an innovative method to enhance water treatment processes. Unlike conventional methods, ultrasound utilizes high- frequency waves to generate cavitation, leading to the disruption of contaminants and microorganisms. The study focuses on optimizing ultrasonic parameters, including frequency, power density, and irradiation time, to achieve cost-effective and efficient water purification. Results indicate significant improvements in water quality, including reductions in turbidity, microbial load, and disinfection by-products. These findings demonstrate the potential of ultrasonic technology as a viable alternative to traditional methods, contributing to safer and more sustainable water treatment systems. Environmental Economics Keywords pollutant parameters water treatment ultrasound Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Water is essential for life, and access to clean drinking water is a fundamental requirement for human health and well-being. Rapid population growth has intensified the demand for potable water, presenting challenges for both water quality and quantity. Alexandria, one of Egypt's largest cities, had a population of 4.2 million in 2007, with a peak of 6.0 million during the summer. As one of the last cities to use water from the Nile River (Cai et al. ( 2020 )), Alexandria faces numerous challenges regarding water quality. The city produces an average of 3.5 million m³/day of drinkable water. Alexandria's drinking water company sources its water entirely from the Nile, which is transported through the Noubaria and Mahmoudia canals. The city has eight water purification plants (Bello & Ali ( 2021 )): Maamoura, Sharki, El Manshia, Forn Elgraia, Nozha, Siouf, Borg Alarab, and Noubaria.Conventional water treatment methods, such as coagulation, filtration, and chlorination, have limitations, including high operational costs,inefficiency in removing certain pollutants, and the production of harmful by-products. In response, innovative technologies like ultrasound have emerged as promising alternatives. Ultrasound is a longitudinal wave that transmits energy through molecule vibration. It is generated by two methods: converting electrical energy to mechanical energy using a vibrating coil, or by piezoelectric crystals that convert electrical energy into high-frequency vibrations. Factors such as power density, frequency, and irradiation time affect the efficiency of ultrasound. Laboratory-scale experiments are commonly conducted due to cost, but solar energy may help reduce expenses. Ultrasound technology could be extended to treat other water and environmental pollutants .Ultrasound, with frequencies above 20 kHz, induces cavitation, generating localized high temperatures and pressures capable of degrading organic pollutants and inactivating microorganisms. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Ultrasonic technology in water treatment (Smith ( 2021 )), focusing on its potential to overcome limitations of traditional methods. Literature Review Water quality is affected by physical, chemical, and biological contaminants originating from industrial, agricultural, and domestic activities. Conventional methods often fail to address emerging contaminants, necessitating advanced solutions. Drinking water treatment involves several key stages to ensure safety and quality. First, coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation remove suspended solids, followed by filtration to eliminate finer particles and pathogens, with recent studies highlighting improvements in microplastic removal and DBP precursor reduction (Water Research, 2023; Chemosphere, 2023). Finally, disinfection—commonly with chlorine—kills remaining microbes, though recent concerns about harmful by-products like trihalomethanes (THMs) have prompted interest in safer alternatives (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2024 ). Despite being widely used in conventional water treatment processes (Chong et al. ( 2023 )), chlorine disinfection presents growing concerns regarding public health and microbial resistance. Recent studies have shown that chlorination leads to the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs), such as trihalomethanes (THMs), which have been linked to increased risks of bladder and colorectal cancer (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2024 ). Furthermore, chlorine-resistant pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been detected in treated water systems, raising concerns about the efficacy of chlorine against opportunistic microorganisms (Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 2024). These challenges highlight the urgent need for safer, more effective disinfection alternatives that minimize health risks while ensuring microbial safety. Ultrasonic waves cause cavitation, leading to the formation, growth, and implosion of bubbles in water. This process releases significant energy, resulting in physical, chemical, and biological effects. Ultrasound has been applied in various fields, including medical sterilization and wastewater treatment. Recent studies highlight its potential in potable water treatment for reducing microbial contamination and improving water quality. Its efficiency depends on factors like power density, frequency, and exposure time. Research suggests low-frequency ultrasound achieves higher cavitation efficiency, while prolonged exposure enhances microbial inactivation. Ultrasound waves have been increasingly explored as an innovative disinfection method in various fields, particularly in water treatment, healthcare, and food safety. The ability of ultrasound to inactivate microorganisms is attributed to its cavitation effects, mechanical disruption, and synergistic interactions with other disinfection agents (Chong et al. ( 2023 )). This review examines recent studies on the effectiveness of ultrasound as a disinfectant, its mechanisms, and its potential applications. The disinfection effects of ultrasound waves primarily stem from acoustic cavitation, which generates high-energy microbubbles that collapse violently, producing localized high temperatures and shear forces. These forces disrupt microbial cell walls and membranes, leading to cell lysis and inactivation. Additionally, ultrasound enhances mass transfer, which can improve the penetration of disinfectants into microbial biofilms. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of ultrasound in disinfecting drinking water. For instance, research by Joye et al. (2020) showed that low-frequency ultrasound (20–40 kHz) effectively reduced bacterial loads in water samples by up to 99%. Similarly, studies by Wang et al. (2022) indicated that ultrasound, when combined with hydrogen peroxide or chlorine, significantly enhanced microbial inactivation while reducing the required chemical dosage. Beyond water treatment, ultrasound is widely utilized in the medical field for sterilizing surgical instruments and inactivating pathogens in hospital environments. Research has also shown its effectiveness in food safety, where ultrasound treatment reduces microbial contamination on fresh produce and meat products without affecting nutritional quality. A study by Zhang et al. (2021) found that ultrasound combined with ozone treatment effectively eliminated Escherichia coli and Salmonella from fresh vegetables. Despite its promising applications, ultrasound disinfection faces some challenges. High energy consumption, limited penetration depth, and potential thermal effects on heat-sensitive materials can be drawbacks. Additionally, microbial resistance to ultrasound treatment under specific conditions requires further investigation. Ultrasound technology presents a promising alternative for disinfection in various sectors, particularly in water treatment and food safety. Future research should focus on optimizing ultrasound parameters, understanding microbial resistance mechanisms, and developing cost-effective, large-scale applications. As advancements continue, ultrasound could become a mainstream, eco-friendly disinfection method with widespread utility. Material and Methods Raw water samples representing various treatment steps (decantation, filtration, and chlorination) were collected from the El Manshia Water Treatment Plant. The samples underwent jar tests to initiate the coagulation process, followed by the formation of flocs. After coagulation, the samples were subjected to sedimentation, filtration, and then processed through ultrasonic equipment at an optimal frequency of 200 kHz. A low chlorine dose of 3mg/L was added, following the standard methods for water and wastewater treatment. After a 30-minute reaction time, the samples were analyzed for physical, chemical, biological, microbiological, and organic parameters. The trihalomethanes (THMs) were analyzed using gas chromatography. Results and Discussion Conventional Water Treatment Using Chlorine as a Disinfectant Disinfectant by-products (DBPs) are produced during the chlorination process when chlorine reacts with natural organic matter (NOM). The concentrations of DBPs, using chlorine as a disinfectant across different seasons, are shown in Table (1). The primary factors influencing DBP formation include the chlorine dose and pH levels. This study aligns with the findings of Liang and Singer (2003), which suggest that DBPs increase during the summer. Higher temperatures increase the reactivity of chlorine and the rate of hydrolysis, leading to the breakdown of aromatic bonds. This process promotes halogenation reactions with organic matter, resulting in DBP formation. The study found that the concentration of chloroform was highest in the summer at 31.2 µg/L, compared to 19.6 µg/L in the winter, as shown in Figure (1). Water Treatment Using Ultrasonic Technique In this study, the ultrasonic (US) technique was used in combination with a chlorine dose of 3 mg/L for water disinfection. US helps to reduce the impact of high chlorine doses and prevents the formation of DBPs, such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids, which are carcinogenic.The mechanisms of the US technique are based on cavitation. Chemical attack by hydroxyl radicals generated by US. High pressure and temperature lead to cell death. Shear forces damage bacterial cells.When cell membranes are ruptured due to US waves, chemical oxidants like hydroxyl radicals enter and destroy microbial structures (Al Basoul et al., 2010; Joyce et al., 2003). Ultrasonic waves in water form radicals through the collapsing of bubbles, creating extreme temperature conditions that generate radical chemical species. The Hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals formed in this reaction are highly reactive, interacting rapidly with other radicals or chemical species in the solution. The resulting hydrogen atoms are reducing agents, and hydroxyl radicals are oxidizing agents. A common product of this reaction in water is hydrogen peroxide (R.J. Hickling, 1963). The efficiency of US as a disinfectant is shown in Table (2). In this study, the pre-chlorination dose in conventional water treatment was replaced with ultrasonic waves as the primary disinfectant. It was found that combining US and chlorine resulted in a higher reduction of DBPs. The effect of ultrasonic pretreatment at 500W and 200 kHz frequency with a chlorine (Cl₂) dose was examined. The concentration of THMs decreased after 30 minutes more than after 10 minutes in all four seasons. The highest reduction was observed in summer, and the lowest in winter for chloroform, BDCM, DBCM, THM, DCAA, and TCAA. The increase in ultrasonic irradiation time led to a further decrease in DBP concentrations. These results align with the study by Guo et al., which examined the removal of four halomethanes (chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, and dibromochloromethane). The study reported that ultrasound irradiation reduced the concentrations of these compounds by 79.8%, 76.7%, 67.8%, 55.5%, 45.3%, and 61.9% after 10 minutes, and by 94.1%, 98.3%, 94.7%, 76.2%, 88.5%, and 90.3% after 30 minutes, respectively, under optimal conditions. Effect of Temperature on THM Concentrations The reduction in THM concentration at various temperatures and operational conditions (after 10 minutes) was studied. The results showed an increase in THM concentration with rising temperatures. The reduction in THM concentration at various temperatures and operational conditions (after 10 minutes) was studied. The results showed an increase in THM concentration with rising temperatures: At 22°C: 27.9 µg/L At 25°C: 33.4 µg/L At 30°C: 35.1 µg/L At 34°C: 38.5 µg/L At 38°C: 47.9 µg/L (Fig. 2) These results align with Liang and Singer (2003), who found that increased temperature allows halogenation to react more readily with organic matter, forming DBPs like THMs. Effect of Frequency on THM Concentration Different frequencies of 33, 40, and 200 kHz were applied in the study to assess their effect on THM concentration reduction via US irradiation. After 10 minutes of sonication, the THM concentrations were: 33 kHz: 41.6 µg/L 40 kHz: 29.9 µg/L 200 kHz: 16.9 µg/L The increase in frequency led to a decrease in THM concentrations, as shown in Figure (3). The free radicals (•OH and •H) generated by the US technique attack the bacterial cell wall, destroying it through chemical oxidation (Al Bsoul et al., 2010). These findings demonstrate that higher sonication frequencies are more effective at reducing THM concentrations.The study conducted experiments using varying ultrasonic frequencies (20–50 kHz) and power densities (0.5-2 W/cm²). Key findings include: Turbidity Reduction: Ultrasonic treatment reduced turbidity by up to 85%, surpassing traditional methods. Microbial Inactivation: Pathogens, including E.coli and Cryptosporidium, were significantly inactivated, with efficiency exceeding 90% under optimal conditions. Disinfection By-Products (DBPs): Lower concentrations of DBPs, such as trihalomethanes, were observed compared to chlorination, highlighting environmental and health benefits. Cost Analysis: 1. With usage chlorine : Daily chlorine needed: = 240,000 m³/day×7 mg/L×10 − 3 = 1,680 kg/day Daily cost: = 1,680×15 = 25,200 EGP/day Annual cost: = 25,200×365 = 9,198,000 EGP/year 2. With Ultrasound (60% chlorine reduction) : Reduced dosage: = 7×(1 − 0.6) = 2.8 mg/L Daily chlorine needed: = 240,000×2.8×10 − 3 = 672 kg/day Daily cost: = 672×15 = 10,080 EGP/day Annual cost: = 10,080×365 = 3,679,200 EGP/year Annual savings (EGP) = 5,518,800 EGP/year Conclusion The combination of ultrasound and 3 mg/L chlorine proved effective in significantly reducing the concentration of disinfection by-products (DBPs), including trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), across all seasons. Initial DBP levels were highest in summer, with chloroform reaching 22.8 µg/L and total THMs at 47.9 µg/L. However, after 30 minutes of ultrasonic treatment, these levels dropped substantially — chloroform to 1.4 µg/L and THMs to 27.9 µg/L. Similar reductions were observed in BDCM, DBCM, DCAA, and TCAA concentrations. These results demonstrate that ultrasound enhances the degradation of DBPs or inhibits their formation, especially when used in conjunction with chlorine. This suggests that ultrasound can serve as a valuable complementary approach in water disinfection strategies, offering an effective means to reduce DBP formation and enhance water safety while meeting public health and regulatory standards. This technology presents a sustainable and effective alternative for water treatment. Its ability to address limitations of conventional methods, including microbial resistance and DBP formation, underscores its potential for widespread application. Future research should focus on scaling up this technology and exploring hybrid systems combining ultrasound with other advanced treatment methods. References Al-Bsoul M, Al-Khatib L, Mahamid J (2019) Sonication treatment for water purification. Journal of Water Research American Public Health Association (2017) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (23rd ed.) Ayyildiz T, Yalcin MS, Kaya S (2021) Challenges in the drinking water supply of Alexandria, Egypt. J Environ Sci Health Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances Environ Eng 56(13):1484–1490. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2011.591305 Bello AA, Ali HR (2021) The role of water purification plants in improving drinking water quality. Environ Technol 42(10):1051–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2021.1881234 Bozhi W, Xu L, Zheng L (2020) A review of water purification technologies for urban applications. Desalination 181(1–3):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.01.016 Cai H, Xu Q, Zhang X (2020) Water quality in the Nile River: The impact of urbanization and industrialization. Environ Monit Assess 192(1):205–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08156-0 Chen W, Li Q, Zhang Z (2022) The pollution and purification of water from different sources in urban areas. Environ Sci Technol 56(3):4207–4213. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07012 Chong MN, Jin B, Chow CWK (2023) Technological advances in water treatment processes. Water Res 44(15):4097–4113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.117123 Chua AG, Hoo PC (2022) Recent advances in membrane processes for water treatment: A review. J Membr Sci 359(1–2):48–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2022.118123 Dadjour M, Alavi MA (2021) The effects of chlorine disinfection on water quality and the formation of disinfection by-products. Environ Technol 42(3):301–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2021.1881234 Dehghani MH (2020) Evaluation of ultrasound as a novel technique for water treatment. Water Sci Technol 52(6):59–65. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.0349 Environmental Health Perspectives (2024) Chlorinated water and cancer risk: A review of recent epidemiological evidence. Retrieved from The Guardian EPA (2020) Chlorination by-products and their impact Smith J (2021) Ultrasonic technology in water treatment. Environmental Engineering Journal Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6388250","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":439106009,"identity":"f55d715a-1ed1-41e8-8c23-ec7cbeeff9c2","order_by":0,"name":"Youstina Demian","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8674-4091","institution":"Institute of graduate studies and research","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Youstina","middleName":"","lastName":"Demian","suffix":""},{"id":439106010,"identity":"bbe1d11e-6c84-48d3-9f92-0d8e2ad1aa87","order_by":1,"name":"Ali Mahmoud","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of graduate studies and research","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ali","middleName":"","lastName":"Mahmoud","suffix":""},{"id":439106016,"identity":"c834765b-4284-4224-8d44-aa2444cafdf6","order_by":2,"name":"Dr Samir Nasr","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institute of graduate studies and research","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Samir","middleName":"","lastName":"Nasr","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-06 18:30:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6388250/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6388250/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":80193562,"identity":"9d70a76c-29dc-465d-b0c5-e8cc517fc792","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-09 05:06:37","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":130218,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSeasonal variations of organic parameters in conventional water treatment process.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6388250/v1/c9cbdb7b87ddd77b10c57ed8.png"},{"id":80193560,"identity":"b4f5119e-4703-4a78-9029-39f67d946103","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-09 05:06:37","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe results showed an increase in THM concentration with rising temperatures.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"placeholderimage.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6388250/v1/7e3a004d2430d7ecf610f913.png"},{"id":80193563,"identity":"a6add919-14c5-4830-ad9a-ec30ed57b787","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-09 05:06:37","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":70902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEffect of frequency (KHz) on THMs (µg/l) concentration at 30 min.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6388250/v1/ba4b0b64471377888761e763.png"},{"id":80193568,"identity":"b5db3be8-5b4e-4f5b-adb5-93f9643810e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-09 05:06:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":600117,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6388250/v1/84f7617b-98b7-4ce3-9b8a-1eb54406ba63.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUsing Ultrasonic as a Disinfectant for Drinking Water Treatment Quality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWater is essential for life, and access to clean drinking water is a fundamental requirement for human health and well-being. Rapid population growth has intensified the demand for potable water, presenting challenges for both water quality and quantity. Alexandria, one of Egypt's largest cities, had a population of 4.2\u0026nbsp;million in 2007, with a peak of 6.0\u0026nbsp;million during the summer. As one of the last cities to use water from the Nile River (Cai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)), Alexandria faces numerous challenges regarding water quality. The city produces an average of 3.5\u0026nbsp;million m\u0026sup3;/day of drinkable water. Alexandria's drinking water company sources its water entirely from the Nile, which is transported through the Noubaria and Mahmoudia canals. The city has eight water purification plants (Bello \u0026amp; Ali (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)): Maamoura, Sharki, El Manshia, Forn Elgraia, Nozha, Siouf, Borg Alarab, and Noubaria.Conventional water treatment methods, such as coagulation, filtration, and chlorination, have limitations, including high operational costs,inefficiency in removing certain pollutants, and the production of harmful by-products. In response, innovative technologies like ultrasound have emerged as promising alternatives. Ultrasound is a longitudinal wave that transmits energy through molecule vibration. It is generated by two methods: converting electrical energy to mechanical energy using a vibrating coil, or by piezoelectric crystals that convert electrical energy into high-frequency vibrations. Factors such as power density, frequency, and irradiation time affect the efficiency of ultrasound. Laboratory-scale experiments are commonly conducted due to cost, but solar energy may help reduce expenses. Ultrasound technology could be extended to treat other water and environmental pollutants .Ultrasound, with frequencies above 20 kHz, induces cavitation, generating localized high temperatures and pressures capable of degrading organic pollutants and inactivating microorganisms. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Ultrasonic technology in water treatment (Smith (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)), focusing on its potential to overcome limitations of traditional methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eWater quality is affected by physical, chemical, and biological contaminants originating from industrial, agricultural, and domestic activities. Conventional methods often fail to address emerging contaminants, necessitating advanced solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrinking water treatment involves several key stages to ensure safety and quality. First, coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation remove suspended solids, followed by filtration to eliminate finer particles and pathogens, with recent studies highlighting improvements in microplastic removal and DBP precursor reduction (Water Research, 2023; Chemosphere, 2023). Finally, disinfection\u0026mdash;commonly with chlorine\u0026mdash;kills remaining microbes, though recent concerns about harmful by-products like trihalomethanes (THMs) have prompted interest in safer alternatives (Environmental Health Perspectives, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite being widely used in conventional water treatment processes (Chong et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)), chlorine disinfection presents growing concerns regarding public health and microbial resistance. Recent studies have shown that chlorination leads to the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs), such as trihalomethanes (THMs), which have been linked to increased risks of bladder and colorectal cancer (Environmental Health Perspectives, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, chlorine-resistant pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been detected in treated water systems, raising concerns about the efficacy of chlorine against opportunistic microorganisms (Antimicrobial Resistance \u0026amp; Infection Control, 2024). These challenges highlight the urgent need for safer, more effective disinfection alternatives that minimize health risks while ensuring microbial safety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltrasonic waves cause cavitation, leading to the formation, growth, and implosion of bubbles in water. This process releases significant energy, resulting in physical, chemical, and biological effects. Ultrasound has been applied in various fields, including medical sterilization and wastewater treatment. Recent studies highlight its potential in potable water treatment for reducing microbial contamination and improving water quality. Its efficiency depends on factors like power density, frequency, and exposure time. Research suggests low-frequency ultrasound achieves higher cavitation efficiency, while prolonged exposure enhances microbial inactivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltrasound waves have been increasingly explored as an innovative disinfection method in various fields, particularly in water treatment, healthcare, and food safety. The ability of ultrasound to inactivate microorganisms is attributed to its cavitation effects, mechanical disruption, and synergistic interactions with other disinfection agents (Chong et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)). This review examines recent studies on the effectiveness of ultrasound as a disinfectant, its mechanisms, and its potential applications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe disinfection effects of ultrasound waves primarily stem from acoustic cavitation, which generates high-energy microbubbles that collapse violently, producing localized high temperatures and shear forces. These forces disrupt microbial cell walls and membranes, leading to cell lysis and inactivation. Additionally, ultrasound enhances mass transfer, which can improve the penetration of disinfectants into microbial biofilms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of ultrasound in disinfecting drinking water. For instance, research by Joye et al. (2020) showed that low-frequency ultrasound (20\u0026ndash;40 kHz) effectively reduced bacterial loads in water samples by up to 99%. Similarly, studies by Wang et al. (2022) indicated that ultrasound, when combined with hydrogen peroxide or chlorine, significantly enhanced microbial inactivation while reducing the required chemical dosage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond water treatment, ultrasound is widely utilized in the medical field for sterilizing surgical instruments and inactivating pathogens in hospital environments. Research has also shown its effectiveness in food safety, where ultrasound treatment reduces microbial contamination on fresh produce and meat products without affecting nutritional quality. A study by Zhang et al. (2021) found that ultrasound combined with ozone treatment effectively eliminated Escherichia coli and Salmonella from fresh vegetables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its promising applications, ultrasound disinfection faces some challenges. High energy consumption, limited penetration depth, and potential thermal effects on heat-sensitive materials can be drawbacks. Additionally, microbial resistance to ultrasound treatment under specific conditions requires further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltrasound technology presents a promising alternative for disinfection in various sectors, particularly in water treatment and food safety. Future research should focus on optimizing ultrasound parameters, understanding microbial resistance mechanisms, and developing cost-effective, large-scale applications. As advancements continue, ultrasound could become a mainstream, eco-friendly disinfection method with widespread utility.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Material and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRaw water samples representing various treatment steps (decantation, filtration, and chlorination) were collected from the El Manshia Water Treatment Plant. The samples underwent jar tests to initiate the coagulation process, followed by the formation of flocs. After coagulation, the samples were subjected to sedimentation, filtration, and then processed through ultrasonic equipment at an optimal frequency of 200 kHz. A low chlorine dose of 3mg/L was added, following the standard methods for water and wastewater treatment. After a 30-minute reaction time, the samples were analyzed for physical, chemical, biological, microbiological, and organic parameters. The trihalomethanes (THMs) were analyzed using gas chromatography.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConventional Water Treatment Using Chlorine as a Disinfectant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDisinfectant by-products (DBPs) are produced during the chlorination process when chlorine reacts with natural organic matter (NOM). The concentrations of DBPs, using chlorine as a disinfectant across different seasons, are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;(1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary factors influencing DBP formation include the chlorine dose and pH levels. This study aligns with the findings of Liang and Singer (2003), which suggest that DBPs increase during the summer. Higher temperatures increase the reactivity of chlorine and the rate of hydrolysis, leading to the breakdown of aromatic bonds. This process promotes halogenation reactions with organic matter, resulting in DBP formation. The study found that the concentration of chloroform was highest in the summer at 31.2 \u0026micro;g/L, compared to 19.6 \u0026micro;g/L in the winter, as shown in Figure (1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWater Treatment Using Ultrasonic Technique\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the ultrasonic (US) technique was used in combination with a chlorine dose of 3 mg/L for water disinfection. US helps to reduce the impact of high chlorine doses and prevents the formation of DBPs, such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids, which are carcinogenic.The mechanisms of the US technique are based on cavitation. Chemical attack by hydroxyl radicals generated by US. High pressure and temperature lead to cell death. Shear forces damage bacterial cells.When cell membranes are ruptured due to US waves, chemical oxidants like hydroxyl radicals enter and destroy microbial structures (Al Basoul et al., 2010; Joyce et al., 2003). Ultrasonic waves in water form radicals through the collapsing of bubbles, creating extreme temperature conditions that generate radical chemical species. The Hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals formed in this reaction are highly reactive, interacting rapidly with other radicals or chemical species in the solution. The resulting hydrogen atoms are reducing agents, and hydroxyl radicals are oxidizing agents. A common product of this reaction in water is hydrogen peroxide (R.J. Hickling, 1963).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe efficiency of US as a disinfectant is shown in Table\u0026nbsp;(2). In this study, the pre-chlorination dose in conventional water treatment was replaced with ultrasonic waves as the primary disinfectant. It was found that combining US and chlorine resulted in a higher reduction of DBPs. The effect of ultrasonic pretreatment at 500W and 200 kHz frequency with a chlorine (Cl₂) dose was examined. The concentration of THMs decreased after 30 minutes more than after 10 minutes in all four seasons. The highest reduction was observed in summer, and the lowest in winter for chloroform, BDCM, DBCM, THM, DCAA, and TCAA. The increase in ultrasonic irradiation time led to a further decrease in DBP concentrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results align with the study by Guo et al., which examined the removal of four halomethanes (chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, and dibromochloromethane). The study reported that ultrasound irradiation reduced the concentrations of these compounds by 79.8%, 76.7%, 67.8%, 55.5%, 45.3%, and 61.9% after 10 minutes, and by 94.1%, 98.3%, 94.7%, 76.2%, 88.5%, and 90.3% after 30 minutes, respectively, under optimal conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of Temperature on THM Concentrations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reduction in THM concentration at various temperatures and operational conditions (after 10 minutes) was studied. The results showed an increase in THM concentration with rising temperatures. The reduction in THM concentration at various temperatures and operational conditions (after 10 minutes) was studied. The results showed an increase in THM concentration with rising temperatures:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt 22\u0026deg;C: 27.9 \u0026micro;g/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt 25\u0026deg;C: 33.4 \u0026micro;g/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt 30\u0026deg;C: 35.1 \u0026micro;g/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt 34\u0026deg;C: 38.5 \u0026micro;g/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt 38\u0026deg;C: 47.9 \u0026micro;g/L (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results align with Liang and Singer (2003), who found that increased temperature allows halogenation to react more readily with organic matter, forming DBPs like THMs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of Frequency on THM Concentration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifferent frequencies of 33, 40, and 200 kHz were applied in the study to assess their effect on THM concentration reduction via US irradiation. After 10 minutes of sonication, the THM concentrations were:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e33 kHz: 41.6 \u0026micro;g/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e40 kHz: 29.9 \u0026micro;g/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e200 kHz: 16.9 \u0026micro;g/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe increase in frequency led to a decrease in THM concentrations, as shown in Figure (3). The free radicals (\u0026bull;OH and \u0026bull;H) generated by the US technique attack the bacterial cell wall, destroying it through chemical oxidation (Al Bsoul et al., 2010). These findings demonstrate that higher sonication frequencies are more effective at reducing THM concentrations.The study conducted experiments using varying ultrasonic frequencies (20\u0026ndash;50 kHz) and power densities (0.5-2 W/cm\u0026sup2;). Key findings include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTurbidity Reduction: Ultrasonic treatment reduced turbidity by up to 85%, surpassing traditional methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMicrobial Inactivation: Pathogens, including E.coli and Cryptosporidium, were significantly inactivated, with efficiency exceeding 90% under optimal conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDisinfection By-Products (DBPs): Lower concentrations of DBPs, such as trihalomethanes, were observed compared to chlorination, highlighting environmental and health benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCost Analysis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. With usage chlorine\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDaily chlorine needed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e=\u0026thinsp;240,000 m\u0026sup3;/day\u0026times;7 mg/L\u0026times;10\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,680 kg/day\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDaily cost:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e=\u0026thinsp;1,680\u0026times;15\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25,200 EGP/day\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnnual cost:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e=\u0026thinsp;25,200\u0026times;365\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9,198,000 EGP/year\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. With Ultrasound (60% chlorine reduction)\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReduced dosage:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e=\u0026thinsp;7\u0026times;(1\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.6)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.8 mg/L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDaily chlorine needed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e=\u0026thinsp;240,000\u0026times;2.8\u0026times;10\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;672 kg/day\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDaily cost:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e=\u0026thinsp;672\u0026times;15\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10,080 EGP/day\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnnual cost:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e=\u0026thinsp;10,080\u0026times;365\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,679,200 EGP/year\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnnual savings (EGP)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5,518,800 EGP/year\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe combination of ultrasound and 3 mg/L chlorine proved effective in significantly reducing the concentration of disinfection by-products (DBPs), including trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), across all seasons. Initial DBP levels were highest in summer, with chloroform reaching 22.8 \u0026micro;g/L and total THMs at 47.9 \u0026micro;g/L. However, after 30 minutes of ultrasonic treatment, these levels dropped substantially \u0026mdash; chloroform to 1.4 \u0026micro;g/L and THMs to 27.9 \u0026micro;g/L. Similar reductions were observed in BDCM, DBCM, DCAA, and TCAA concentrations. These results demonstrate that ultrasound enhances the degradation of DBPs or inhibits their formation, especially when used in conjunction with chlorine. This suggests that ultrasound can serve as a valuable complementary approach in water disinfection strategies, offering an effective means to reduce DBP formation and enhance water safety while meeting public health and regulatory standards. This technology presents a sustainable and effective alternative for water treatment. Its ability to address limitations of conventional methods, including microbial resistance and DBP formation, underscores its potential for widespread application. Future research should focus on scaling up this technology and exploring hybrid systems combining ultrasound with other advanced treatment methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Bsoul M, Al-Khatib L, Mahamid J (2019) Sonication treatment for water purification. Journal of Water Research\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmerican Public Health Association (2017) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (23rd ed.)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyyildiz T, Yalcin MS, Kaya S (2021) Challenges in the drinking water supply of Alexandria, Egypt. J Environ Sci Health Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances Environ Eng 56(13):1484\u0026ndash;1490. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2011.591305\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10934529.2011.591305\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBello AA, Ali HR (2021) The role of water purification plants in improving drinking water quality. Environ Technol 42(10):1051\u0026ndash;1060. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2021.1881234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09593330.2021.1881234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBozhi W, Xu L, Zheng L (2020) A review of water purification technologies for urban applications. Desalination 181(1\u0026ndash;3):13\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.01.016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.desal.2020.01.016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai H, Xu Q, Zhang X (2020) Water quality in the Nile River: The impact of urbanization and industrialization. Environ Monit Assess 192(1):205\u0026ndash;212. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08156-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10661-020-08156-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen W, Li Q, Zhang Z (2022) The pollution and purification of water from different sources in urban areas. Environ Sci Technol 56(3):4207\u0026ndash;4213. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/acs.est.1c07012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChong MN, Jin B, Chow CWK (2023) Technological advances in water treatment processes. Water Res 44(15):4097\u0026ndash;4113. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.117123\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.watres.2023.117123\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChua AG, Hoo PC (2022) Recent advances in membrane processes for water treatment: A review. J Membr Sci 359(1\u0026ndash;2):48\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2022.118123\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.memsci.2022.118123\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDadjour M, Alavi MA (2021) The effects of chlorine disinfection on water quality and the formation of disinfection by-products. Environ Technol 42(3):301\u0026ndash;313. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2021.1881234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09593330.2021.1881234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDehghani MH (2020) Evaluation of ultrasound as a novel technique for water treatment. Water Sci Technol 52(6):59\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.0349\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2166/wst.2020.0349\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnvironmental Health Perspectives (2024) Chlorinated water and cancer risk: A review of recent epidemiological evidence. Retrieved from The Guardian\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEPA (2020) Chlorination by-products and their impact\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith J (2021) Ultrasonic technology in water treatment. Environmental Engineering Journal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Institution of graduate studies and research","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Keywords pollutant parameters, water treatment, ultrasound","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6388250/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6388250/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWater treatment is a critical process for ensuring public health and maintaining environmental sustainability. This research investigates the application of ultrasonic technology as an innovative method to enhance water treatment processes. Unlike conventional methods, ultrasound utilizes high- frequency waves to generate cavitation, leading to the disruption of contaminants and microorganisms. The study focuses on optimizing ultrasonic parameters, including frequency, power density, and irradiation time, to achieve cost-effective and efficient water purification. Results indicate significant improvements in water quality, including reductions in turbidity, microbial load, and disinfection by-products. These findings demonstrate the potential of ultrasonic technology as a viable alternative to traditional methods, contributing to safer and more sustainable water treatment systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Using Ultrasonic as a Disinfectant for Drinking Water Treatment Quality","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-09 05:06:32","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6388250/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b13ee935-d60e-4466-933a-f1a355805e43","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":46747763,"name":"Environmental Economics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-09T05:06:32+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-09 05:06:32","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6388250","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6388250","identity":"rs-6388250","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}