## 3 Results
### Energetic Considerations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Removal \%** & **Compound (C\({}_{\sigma}\)-ug/L)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Discharge** \\ **Power (W)** \\ \end{tabular} & **HRT (min)** & **Comments** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{90–94} & Carbamazepine (20) & 12 & 60 & TOC removal 19.4\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & Pentoxiflline (100) & 1.2 & 60 & = \\ \cline{2-5}  & Ibuprofen (60) & 3 & 80 & TOC removal 34\% (after 180 min HRT) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{80–90} & Sulfadiazine (10) & 100 & 15 & TOC removal 25\% (after 30 min HRT) \\ \cline{2-5}  & Tetracycline (50) & 36 & 15 & TOC removal 53.4\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & Ibuprofen (110) & 250 & 30 & TOC removal 32\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{60–70} & Tetracycline (50) & 36 & 24 & TOC removal 23.5\% \\ \cline{2-5}  & \(\beta\)-Oestradiol (3) & 120 & 30 & = \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._Strong EEO value variations can be observed between various groups of \"conventional\" AOPs: O\({}_{3}\), O\({}_{3}\)/H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\), O\({}_{3}\)/UV, UV/H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\), UV/persulfate, UV/chlorine record median EEO values of \(<\)1, while photo-Fenton and electrolytic AOPs have considerably higher EEOs (in the range of 1-100). UV-based photocatalysis, ultrasound, and microwave AOPs show median values \(>\)100. Besides matrix type, a major influence factor in EEO determination is process capacity (i.e., laboratory, pilot and full-scale applications) and specific equipment used. For example, in case of processes involving UVs, actual lamp type proved to have a significant influence on EEO determination [40]. In water radiolysis processes, absorbed (radiation) energy is usually given in kGy and this can be easily used for any radiation source (gamma and EB). In practical water treatment applications, however, instead of gamma sources, electron accelerators are normally used due to their superior practical characteristics. In modern electron accelerators for water and wastewater treatment, 75% of electric energy is converted to accelerated electrons' energy, therefore, the EEO calculated based on input energy, can be corrected by dividing it by 0.75 [40]. Comparison of EEO values for imidalcoprid degradation using TiO\({}_{2}\) photocatalysis (TiO\({}_{2}\) 1 g/L), radiolysis and UV/VUV photolysis showed high values for UV (EEO = 60), lower for both UV/VUV (combination of UV at 254 nm and VUV at 185 nm) and TiO\({}_{2}\)/UV (15) and extremely low for radiolysis (0.25) [41]. Considering the fact that EB requires only direct energy consumption (no \"stored energy\" components) and its technology has intrinsic high conversion efficiency (input electric to output radiation energy), EB could be considered one of the most efficient AOPs currently available, with energy demand smaller by approximately two order of magnitude as those of other methods. Process yield efficiency in radical generation, based on energy output, was estimated at 1.0 M/kWh for EB, while the yield is 1.4 M/kWh for UV/H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\) and 0.087 for UV/TiO\({}_{2}\)[42]. In addition to the higher radical yield, EB as mentioned earlier, produces a wider variety of radicals, both oxidating and reducing, some of which with greater reactivity. For NTP processes applications, reported EEO values ranged from \(<\)0.3 for carbamazepine and similar easily degraded compounds in surface water (about 50% less than for UV-peroxide processes),  
Figure 5: Observed EEO values for different AOPs in monocomponent (**a**) and multicomponent (**b**) solutions. Legend: CM = carbamazepine, MO = methyl orange, NB = nitrobenzene (from [36]). Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs). to 14 for recalcitrant compounds (e.g., meprobamate) in wastewater [35]. Other researchers reported EEO values for degradation of different pharmaceuticals in the range 27-430 [43]. Table 6 shows EEO values for different experiments in PPCPs and EDCs degradation with different NTP technologies, photolysis, UV/H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\), and photocatalysis on similar water matrices [35].