3.8 Proceedings Paper

Moringa oleifera extract as green coagulant for POME Treatment: Preliminary studies and sludge evaluation

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY-PROCEEDINGS
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 1940-1947

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.241

关键词

Coagulation; Moringa oleifera; Palm oil mill effluent; Salt extraction; Sludge volume index

资金

  1. UTM Encouragement Research from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia [17 J77]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that Moringa oleifera extracted from salt can be used as an alternative coagulant for treating palm oil mill effluent, showing promising results in terms of purification efficiency.
There is an increasing concern over the production of huge volume of toxic sludge from the usage of inorganic conventional coagulant (alum) specifically for the treatment of palm oil mill effluent (POME). As such, there have been many research on greener coagulant in order to tackle the issue. In this study, Moringa oleifera extracted from salt (MOS) was utilised to evaluate its promising function as a coagulant. Turbidity, colour, chemical oxygen demand (COD) percentage reduction and sludge volume index (SVI) as a function of Moringa oleifera (M. oleifera) dosage, volume of MOS, types of salt and salt concentration were measured. POME treated with MOS had turbidity, colour, COD removal and SVI up to 51%, 50%, 65% and 148 mL/g, respectively under the following optimum conditions: 3 wt% MOS, 60 mL/L of MOS, and MOS extracted with 0.5 M calcium chloride (CaCl2) salt. Notably, 78% of SVI was reduced in comparison to M. oleifera seed (without extraction) and 94% lesser when compared to alum. The current research demonstrated that MOS can be applied as an alternative to conventional coagulant for POME treatment. (c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Regional Congress on Membrane Technology 2020 (RCOM 2020) and Regional Conference Environmental Engineering (RCEnvE 2020).

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

3.8
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