4.3 Article

The use of membrane filtration for removal of aluminum from drinking water sources

期刊

DESALINATION AND WATER TREATMENT
卷 243, 期 -, 页码 75-82

出版社

DESALINATION PUBL
DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2021.27868

关键词

Drinking water; Aluminum; Nanofiltration; Ultrafiltration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research discusses the removal of aluminum from drinking water through nanofiltration and ultrafiltration combined with coagulation. The results suggest that these methods effectively remove aluminum, ensuring that the permeate meets drinking water quality standards.
Drinking water sources contain a range of natural or anthropogenic substances, which even in relatively small concentrations need to be removed in order to complete sharpening drinking water standards. Among them, aluminum is one of the elements, which can migrate to drinking water sources by means of elution from natural rocks, as a result of discharge of wastewater containing it or as a result of aluminum-based coagulation treatment processes. In Polish regulation, the permissible amount of aluminum in drinking water is established at 0.2 mg Al/L. On the other hand, in Poland, there appear natural water sources of excellent water quality, which, however, are characterized by elevated aluminum content. In this paper, the research on the removal of aluminum by nanofiltration and ultrafiltration combined with coagulation is discussed. The obtained results suggest that either nanofiltration or ultrafiltration combined with coagulation may be used for effective removal of contaminant from drinking water, regardless of its initial concentration (up to 5 mg Al/L for nanofiltration feed, and up to 18 mg Al/L for ultrafiltration feed), the permeate parameters correspond to drinking water quality standards. The selection between suggested processes depends on the final economic effect related to membrane fouling and cleaning procedures and frequency, the investigation of which has not been the subject of the presented research.

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

4.3
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