4.6 Article

Calcium Carbonate Scale Inhibition with Ultrasonication and a Commercial Antiscalant

Journal

WATER
Volume 13, Issue 23, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13233428

Keywords

calcium inhibition; scale formation; reaction kinetics; porous membranes; ultrasound

Funding

  1. King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology through Science and Technology Unit at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals [10-WAT1399-04]
  2. National Science Technology and Innovation Plan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ultrasonication-assisted calcium carbonate scale inhibition was found to have a 94% inhibition rate, while the use of 5 mg/L ATMP achieved a 90% inhibition rate. The morphology of the crystals was minimally affected by ultrasonic irradiation.
In this study, ultrasonication-assisted calcium carbonate scale inhibition was investigated compared with a commercial antiscalant ATMP (amino tris(methyl phosphonic acid)). The effects of varying ultrasound amplitude, pH, and inhibition duration were evaluated. The inhibition of calcium carbonate scale formation was measured based on the concentration of calcium in the solution after subjecting to different conditions. Scale deposits were also characterized using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction spectroscopy. Inhibition of scale formation was supported at a pH of 7 for an ultrasound amplitude of 150 W. A 94% calcium carbonate inhibition was recorded when the experiment was carried out with ultrasonication. The use of 5 mg/L ATMP achieved a 90% calcium carbonate inhibition of ATMP. The result of the characterization revealed that the morphology of the crystals was unaffected by ultrasonic irradiation. Sample treatment was performed with two different membranes to evaluate the calcium carbonate deposition, and data reveals that, at identical conditions, ultrasonication provides less deposition when compared to the control experiments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available