4.7 Article

Determining the effectiveness of conventional and alternative coagulants through effective characterization schemes

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 57, Issue 9, Pages 1115-1122

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.08.012

Keywords

alum; PAC1; coagulation; hydrophobicity; NOM size exclusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Polymeric forms of metal coagulants in water treatment have become increasingly used due to their wider availability and reduction in cost. These specialized coagulant forms and products are claimed by manufacturers to be superior to conventional coagulants in particulate and/or organic removal with inherent advantages of lower alkalinity consumption and lesser sludge production. However, due to their proprietary nature, little is known about their chemical composition. To determine and understand the effectiveness of these alternative coagulants, a comprehensive study was undertaken to characterize metal coagulants, and to comparatively evaluate them on a well-characterized source water. The objective of this study was to provide a scheme for utilities that could be employed as a screening process and a method of selecting an appropriate coagulant based on raw water characteristics and insight into the coagulatability of the source water. Characterizations of coagulants included: (i) active metal content, (ii) anion content, (iii) acidity, (iv) alkalinity consumption, (v) charge reversal by colloidal titration, and (vi) molecular weight determination. A total of five poly-aluminum chlorides (PACl), along with a conventional coagulant (aluminum sulfate or alum) were evaluated. Results show that through the characterization scheme, an effective coagulant (conventional versus alternative) and coagulant type (among various PACl) can be chosen before undertaking time-consuming bench or pilot-scale evaluation. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available