{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026121902210314803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016744809109176157, 'mean_word_length': 5.30379746835443, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Water Disinfection Processes Applicable in Low-Income Settings.

Access to safe, sufficient water for health and sanitation is a human right, and the reliable disinfection of water plays a critical role in addressing this need. The environmental impact and sustainability of water disinfection methods will also play a role in overall public health. This study presents an investigation of the environmental life cycle impacts of four ultraviolet disinfection systems utilizing ambient solar radiation directly and indirectly for water disinfection in comparison to chlorination and water delivery for application in low-income settings. Product inspection and existing literature were used to define a life cycle functional unit of 1 m3 of water for each system, which allowed quantification of material use, infrastructure requirements, and life cycle of the original components of each system and those needed to keep them operational for the studied lifespans (1, 5, 10, and 20 years) and scales (30, 100, 500, and 1000 L per day). For all studied cases, chlorine had the lowest impact in all impact categories, but end-user acceptance of chlorine in some settings is low, driving interest in low-impact alternatives. Disinfection based on low-pressure mercury lamps had the next lowest normalized impact in most categories and may represent a viable alternative, particularly for long-term (10+ years), high production (500+ liters per day) scenarios.