4.1 Article

Evaluating occurrence of contaminants of emerging concerns in MF/RO treatment of primary effluent for water reuse - Pilot study

期刊

JOURNAL OF WATER REUSE AND DESALINATION
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 350-371

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wrd.2019.004

关键词

contaminants of emerging concern; microfiltration; reverse osmosis; wastewater treatment; water reuse

资金

  1. US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) [R16AC00140]
  2. Carollo Engineers Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study experimented with the novel approach of using a microfiltration (MF) and reverse osmosis (RO) treatment train to treat the effluent of a primary settling tank at the Inland Empire Utility Agency in Chino, CA. The pilot used polyvinylidene fluoride hollow-fiber MF modules as pretreatment for an RO skid, which used Hydranautics ESPA2 membranes in a two-stage configuration with a feed capacity of 6 gallon per minute (gpm). In this pilot configuration, researchers monitored the removal of 38 most prevalent contaminants of emerging concerns (CECs) through the MF/RO process. To investigate how operating the RO process at two fixed recovery rates of 55% and 80% would affect the performance of the MF/RO membranes, researchers applied different fluxes (8, 10, 12 and 14 gal/d/ft(2) (gfd)) and evaluated the removal of CECs in 1-stage and 2-stage RO configurations. The occurrence of CECs in the MF influent, MF effluent, RO permeate, and RO concentrate were analyzed and studied. In the first phase (1-stage the RO process), flux of 14 gfd showed a better rejection value of inorganics (95.2%) when compared with those of other fluxes. Meanwhile, in the second phase (2-stage RO process), flux of 12 gfd showed a better rejection of inorganics (93.7%) when compared with those of other fluxes. Although concentrations of CECs slightly decreased in the RO permeate as the flux has increased, statistical analysis showed no significant differences between different fluxes in terms of CEC rejection.

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

4.1
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