4.7 Article

A comparison study of sand filtration and ultrafiltration in drinking water treatment: Removal of organic foulants and disinfection by-product formation

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 691, 期 -, 页码 322-331

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.071

关键词

Sand filtration; Ultrafiltration; Organic removal; Algae pollution; Disinfection by-products

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC0408001]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51778170]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment [2017DX06]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A detailed comparison of sand filtration (SF) and ultrafiltration (UF) was conducted in this study with the aim to provide systematic support for alternative UF and SF technologies. The results of natural organic matter (NOM) removal indicated that SF conferred a slightly higher removal rate for UV-absorbing compounds, humic-like substances and protein-like substances than UF, with removal efficiencies of 21.9%, 19.8% and 26.1%, respectively. In addition, SF and UF exhibited different removal performances for organic fractions: UF better removed high molecular-weight (MW) organics, while SF exhibited higher removal of medium-MW organics. Furthermore, chlorine and chlorine dioxide were used as disinfectants to compare the different influences of SF and UF on disinfection by-product (DBP) formation. Unexpectedly, SF exhibited a better capacity for reducing the formation of chlorite than the UF process, with concentrations of 0.57 mg/L and 0.69 mg/L, respectively. Importantly, for the emergency scenario, e.g. seasonal algae pollution, the UF process achieved significantly higher removal of algae cells (98.7%) than SF due to size exclusion, indicating substantial resistance to algae load shocks. Therefore, these findings are beneficial for making practical decisions to adopt SF or UF technology in drinking water treatment plants. (c) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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