4.6 Article

Evaluation of dynamic behavior of coagulation-flocculation using hydrous ferric oxide for removal of radioactive nuclides in wastewater

期刊

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 738-745

出版社

KOREAN NUCLEAR SOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.net.2018.11.016

关键词

Radioactive wastewater; Coagulation; Flocculation; Coprecipitation; HFO; PAM; Fukushima

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Korea government (MSIP) [NRF-2017M2A8A5015147]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M2A8A5015147] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coprecipitation using hydrous ferric oxide (HFO) has been effectively used for the removal of radionuclides from radioactive wastewater. This work studied the dynamic behavior of HFO floc formation during the neutralization of acidic ferric iron in the presence of several radionuclides by using a photometric dispersion analyzer (PDA). Then the coagulation-flocculation system using HFO-anionic poly acrylamide (PAM) composite floc system was evaluated and compared in seawater and distilled water to find the effective condition to remove the target nuclides (Co-60, Mn-54, Sb-125, and Ru-106) present in wastewater generated in the severe accident of nuclear power plant like Fukushima Daiichi case. A ferric iron dosage of 10 ppm for the formation of HFO was suitable in terms of fast formation of HFO flocs without induction time, and maximum total removal yield of radioactivity from the wastewater. The settling time of HFO flocs was reduced by changing them to HFO-PAM composite floc. The optimal dosage of anionic PAM for HFO-anionic PAM floc system was approximately 1e10 ppm. The total removal yield of Mn-54, Co-60, Sb-125, Ru-106 radionuclides by the HFO-anionic PAM coagulationflocculation system was higher in distilled water than in seawater and was more than 99%. (c) 2018 Korean Nuclear Society, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据