4.7 Article

Comparison of fouling behaviors between activated sludge suspension in MBR and EPS model solutions: A new combined model

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 621, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2020.119020

关键词

Activated sludge suspension; Extracellular polymeric substance; Constant flux; Cross-flow; Model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22078003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A three-mechanism model was established in this study to describe the fouling behavior of activated sludge suspension in constant flux cross-flow filtration, showing good agreement with experimental data for various substances. The model predicted the fouling behavior accurately for different substances and showed that the variations in cake resistance and membrane area ratio were dependent on filtration flux and MLSS concentration.
How to precisely describe the fouling behavior of activated sludge suspension in constant flux cross-flow filtration is a challenge. In this paper, a three-mechanism (standard pore blocking, complete pore blocking and cake filtration) model was established based on the classic blocking law to describe the fouling behavior of activated sludge suspension in the constant flux cross-flow filtration. The results showed that the predictions of the proposed model showed good agreements with experimental data not only for activated sludge suspension (R-2 >= 0.994), but also for bovine serum albumin protein (BSA) (R-2 >= 0.966), humic acid (HA) (R-2 >= 0.940), sodium alginate (SA) (R-2 >= 0.801) and kaolin (R-2 >= 0.961). Meanwhile, for activated sludge suspension, the variation rate of the cake resistance increased with the filtration flux, and the steady available membrane area ratio (A(steady)/A(0)) was independent on the filtration flux while it decreased with the increase of MLSS concentration. In addition, the available membrane area ratio (A(t)/A(0)) decreased slower for activated sludge suspension than that for single model solution (BSA, HA and SA) in the fouling process.

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