4.4 Article

Removal of organic and inorganic substances from industry wastewaters using modified aluminosilicate-based polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 1612-1620

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ep.12614

关键词

polyethersulfone membrane modification; aluminosilicate particles; tannery wastewater; distillery wastewater; permeability

资金

  1. KU Research Professor Program of Konkuk University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Membrane separation processes are attracting increasing interest for the treatment of industrial wastewaters owing to its high organic and inorganic content removal efficiency and material stability. Herein, we have presented an approach to modify polyethersulfone (PES) membrane using aluminosilicate particles (ASPs) for high permeability and separation performance against tannery and distillery wastewater. PES:ASPs ultrafiltration membrane was developed by phase inversion technique at different weight ratios of 0:100, 10:90, 20:80, 30:70, and 40:60 of PES:ASPs. The functional groups and hydrophilicity were analyzed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and contact angle, respectively. The modified membranes displayed improved wastewater permeability and higher flux compared to the neat PES membrane. The moderate removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total dissolved solids, chlorides, and sulfates from tannery and distillery wastewaters were attained for all ASPs-based PES membranes. In the case of tannery effluent treatment, high BOD reduction of 92% was observed for 80:20 weight ratio of PES:ASPs membrane and 75% BOD reduction for the pure PES membrane. The sulfides removal was 2.21mg L-1 for 90:10 weight ratio of PES:ASPs membrane when compared with the initial quantity of 42mg L-1 distillery wastewater. The PES:ASPs membrane with 80:20 weight ratios presented the best COD and BOD removal performance. (c) 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 36: 1612-1620, 2017

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

4.4
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