During the past five years, the IPMV has investigated the feasibility of a large number of innovative technologies and, if promising, scaled these up to pilot study level. This report presents and compares the results of 15 such pilots. The evaluation demonstrates that the ozonation and PACAS reference technologies continue to be attractive from a cost perspective, but that new technologies offer advantages with regard to CO2 footprint, removal efficiency and/or nutrient removal.

The IPMV is part of the Chain Approach to reduce pharmaceutical residues in water, a national effort initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (Min. I&W). The IPMV ran for five years, from 2019 through 2023. Its goal was to pave the way for promising new technologies, improvements to existing technologies and/or innovative combinations of existing technologies. As such, it aimed to give water authorities access to a wider range of removal technologies, from which they could make their own selections, weighing the needs and constraints faced by their wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Nonetheless, while there are measures WWTPs can take to contribute to a range of water quality objectives, source control continues to be the preferred approach.

The IPMV’s investigation of innovative removal technologies, or combinations of technologies, focused primarily on answering four questions:

• What annual average removal efficiencies can be achieved for selected indicator substances, and how do these correlate to the indicator substances stated in the revised EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (entered into force on 1 Januari 2025)?
• To what extent do the innovative technologies reduce ecotoxicological risks from discharging wastewater into surface water, compared to the reduction by the three reference technologies (PACAS, GAC and ozonation)?
• What are the costs in proportion to the costs of the reference technologies?
• How does the sustainability of the innovative technologies compare to that of the reference technologies?

The programme concludes that the investigated innovative technologies do offer advantages compared to the reference technologies, in terms of removal efficiencies as well as costs and sustainability. One example is the development of biological activated carbon filtration (BACF), which significantly extends the service life of granular activated carbon while enabling biological degradation of micropollutants. Another example is the development of new adsorbents, such as cyclodextrins and high-silica zeolites, as alternatives to activated carbon. For several of the innovative technologies, outstanding research questions still need to be answered in follow-up pilot studies or further full-scale research.

Above all, it is important to note that the choice of a particular technology, or combination of technologies, will always be site-specific. Choices will depend on the characteristics of a given WWTP, the micropollutant concentrations and the presence of bromide in the influent, as well as limitations some WWTPs face in access to power supply (grid connection). Available budget and sustainability objectives will also play a role. Tailored assessments must therefore be made for each WWTP to determine the optimum solution.

More information about IPMV? Go to www.stowa.nl/ipmv

Dit is de Engelse vertaling van het Nederlandse IPMV-evaluatierapport 2024-28. > Download dit rapport