4.8 Article

Stainless steel membranes for harvesting cyanobacteria: Performance, fouling and cleaning

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 319, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124143

关键词

Stainless steel membrane; Algae harvesting; Membrane fouling; Membrane cleaning; Pyrolysis

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program Project Comprehensive Prevention and Control Technology and Product Development of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loss in the Primary Rice Production Region [2016YFD0800500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated stainless steel membranes with different pore sizes for harvesting cyanobacteria. Results showed that the 2 μm membrane was preferable for practical applications due to its ability to process more filtrate volume before clogging. The pyrolysis cleaning method was found to be effective in removing foulants quickly while converting them into desirable products, but both cleaning methods could lead to pore enlargement.
Stainless steel membranes with 0.45, 1 and 2 mu m pore sizes were applied to harvest cyanobacteria. Their critical fluxes were determined and continuous filtration tests were conducted. Two novel transition-combined models for constant flux filtration were developed and applied to describe observed variations in fouling. A pyrolysis cleaning method was proposed and tested. The results showed that the 2 mu m membrane was preferable for practical applications as it could process more than twice the filtrate volume before clogging than the other two membranes, with an 8% reduction in rejection rate. The transition-cake-intermediate model predicted fouling better than the combined models, and the fouling mainly resulted from cake formation. Pyrolysis cleaning removed the foulants more effectively and quicker while converting the foulants into desirable products, making it a promising cleaning method for heat-resisting membranes fouled by algae. But both cleaning methods could lead to the enlargement of pore sizes and porosity.

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

4.8
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