4.5 Article

The Limitations in Current Studies of Organic Fouling and Future Prospects

期刊

MEMBRANES
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/membranes11120922

关键词

membrane fouling; polysaccharide foulant; surrogate of foulants; fouling mechanism models

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51808019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the fouling control issues of microfiltration and ultrafiltration in wastewater treatment, pointing out that sodium alginate is not suitable as a foulant surrogate. It suggests more suitable surrogate foulants and mathematical models for studying fouling mechanisms, and considers support vector machine as a potentially more powerful simulation tool.
Microfiltration and ultrafiltration for water/wastewater treatment have gained global attention due to their high separation efficiency, while membrane fouling still remains one of their bottlenecks. In such a situation, many researchers attempt to obtain a deep understanding of fouling mechanisms and to develop effective fouling controls. Therefore, this article intends to trigger discussions on the appropriate choice of foulant surrogates and the application of mathematic models to analyze fouling mechanisms in these filtration processes. It has been found that the commonly used foulant surrogate (sodium alginate) cannot ideally represent the organic foulants in practical feed water to explore the fouling mechanisms. More surrogate foulants or extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) extracted from practical source water may be more suitable for use in the studies of membrane fouling problems. On the other hand, the support vector machine (SVM) which focuses on the general trends of filtration data may work as a more powerful simulation tool than traditional empirical models to predict complex filtration behaviors. Careful selection of foulant surrogate substances and the application of accurate mathematical modeling for fouling mechanisms would provide deep insights into the fouling problems.

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

4.5
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