Industry Applications
Comparison under equal water flow rate and required UV dose, for both domestic and imported units, applicable to swimming pool and water treatment projects.
Differences in core hardware cost components
Low‑Pressure High‑Output UV Amalgam lamp, LP‑HO
Lamps Single lamp power ranges from 90‑320 W with low unit price. A large number of lamps are required to meet target UV dose, resulting in longer reactor vessels and more modules.
Ballasts Electronic ballasts for LP‑HO are mature and low‑cost.
Cooling Forced cooling is generally not required; no air‑cooling or water‑cooling assembly.
Control system Optional accessories include automatic wiper cleaning, UV intensity monitor and PLC. Basic configuration is simple.
Vessel assembly Larger reactor chambers consume more stainless steel material, while individual components are inexpensive.
Medium‑Pressure UV
Lamps Single lamp power ranges from 1 kW‑10 kW. Fewer lamps are needed with compact footprint. However, medium‑pressure lamps and dedicated high‑power ballasts carry high unit cost.
Forced cooling Air‑cooling or water‑cooling system is standard configuration, which directly increases capital cost.
Electrical & control system High‑power electrical components are adopted. PLC, on‑line UV monitoring, temperature protection and fault diagnosis are commonly equipped, leading to higher cost of control cabinet.
Reactor vessel Compact chamber size, yet higher requirements for pressure resistance and temperature resistance with upgraded component specifications.
Reference capital cost range (for same water flow capacity)
Domestic equipment
LP‑HO UV taken as price benchmark
Medium‑pressure UV direct equipment capital cost is 1.8‑2.5 times that of LP‑HO solution.
Imported equipment
LP‑HO UV: taken as price benchmark
Medium‑pressure UV: capital investment can reach 2‑3 times of LP‑HO, and the gap widens for high‑power models.
Notes
Both solutions will incur extra cost if automatic cleaning and on‑line UV monitoring are specified. Medium‑pressure units are normally supplied with high‑level control as standard, so marginal extra cost is lower.
Civil & footprint cost LP‑HO units occupy larger floor space due to longer body; medium‑pressure UV saves room space for equipment room, which counts as indirect capital saving.
Summary of capital investment
Direct equipment purchase cost: Medium‑pressure UV bigger than Low‑Pressure High‑Output UV
LP‑HO UV features lower equipment price, but requires more lamps and larger installation space.
Medium‑pressure UV demands higher procurement cost driven by cooling system, high‑power ballasts and advanced control system. Its advantages lie in fewer lamps, compact footprint and broad‑spectrum oxidation capacity for chloramine TOC removal and photoreactivation inhibition.
Selection reminder: Capital investment is only one factor. Full‑life‑cycle evaluation shall combine power consumption, lamp service life and maintenance cost.
Do you need a condensed version for product brochure or technical quotation
