## 5 Treatment Costs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **Contaminant** & **Associated Costs** & & **Observations** & **Reference** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Ozonation} & \multirow{4}{*}{MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.26 \(\upxi\)/m\({}^{3}\)} & \(\upxi\) & 10 mg/L mixture of MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP in ultrapure water & \multirow{4}{*}{[125]} \\  & & & and BuP in ultrapure water & & \\  & & & & Associated treatment costs in 120 min & \\  & & & & Value is 2.04 kWh/m\({}^{3}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{O\({}_{3}\) + UVA} & \multirow{4}{*}{MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP} & \multirow{4}{*}{1.91 \(\upxi\)/m\({}^{3}\)} & \(\upxi\) & 10 mg/L mixture of MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP in ultrapure water & \multirow{4}{*}{[125]} \\  & & & & and BuP in ultrapure water & \\  & & & & Associated treatment costs in 90 min & \\  & & & & Value is 15 kWh/m\({}^{3}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{O\({}_{3}\) + TiO\({}_{2}\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP} & \multirow{4}{*}{0.11 \(\upxi\)/m\({}^{3}\)} & \(\upxi\) & 10 mg/L mixture of MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP in ultrapure water & \multirow{4}{*}{[125]} \\  & & & & and BuP in ultrapure water & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & Associated treatment costs in 120 min & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & Value is 0.84 kWh/m\({}^{3}\) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{O\({}_{3}\) + TiO\({}_{2}\) + UVA} & \multirow{4}{*}{MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP} & \multirow{4}{*}{1.20 \(\upxi\)/m\({}^{3}\)} & \(\upxi\) & 10 mg/L mixture of MP, EP, PP, BeP, and BuP in ultrapure water & \multirow{4}{*}{[125]} \\  & & & & Associated treatment costs in 60 min & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & Value is 9.4 kWh/m\({}^{3}\) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Cont. related to single MP removal, and if more parabens (in mixture) are considered, the price will normally increase. Table 11 shows some associated costs of different advanced oxidation processes in the abatement of parabens mixtures as a pollutant. Considering the presented studies regarding the treatment costs, a solid comparison and analysis can only be completed if several parameters are considered. In this case, this is difficult to do, since these parameters are different from study and study and due to the fact that not the same parameters are considered by all the studies. However, the state of the art was analyzed based on several studies from literature, and this should motivate more investigation in this subject. Moreover, from doing an ad hoc analysis, it seems that the technologies using different oxidizing agents are more expensive than others using catalysts or radiation, which can be expected since the use of reagents should enhance the operational costs because these agents cannot be recovered. The use of sonolysis and some photocatalytic degradation treatments seems to be also expensive, but other reported works using ozonation, catalytic ozonation, and photocatalytic ozonation with TiO\({}_{2}\) show low values associated. In general, it seems that the use of catalysts reduces the operational costs, but the use of UV radiation and the catalyst increases the related costs as well. Therefore, a balance between the operational costs, toxicity abatement, and pollutants removal performance should be considered to choose the technology for wastewater treatment. Furthermore, the values reported by [PERSON] et al. [3] exhibit values from a study at a pilot scale regarding a real treatment plant, and it already considers some important project variables, parameters, and costs that must be taken in economic analysis. Compared to the studies at the laboratory scale, higher values were reached, and these values should be closer to real values at the industrial scale. To understand the real values related to these technologies, extensive in-depth studies at a real scale for the same effluent and the same operational conditions should be done using the different AOP technologies.