4.7 Article

Enhanced WWTP effluent organic matter removal in hybrid ozonation-coagulation (HOC) process catalyzed by Al-based coagulant

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 327, 期 -, 页码 216-224

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.12.043

关键词

Hybrid ozonation-coagulation (HOC) process; Al-based coagulants; Ozonation; Ozone decomposition; Hydroxyl radical generation

资金

  1. National Key Technology Support Program [2014BAC13B06]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51378414, 51178376]
  3. Program for Innovative Research Team in Shaanxi [2013KCT-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel hybrid ozonation-coagulation (HOC) process was developed for application in wastewater reclamation. In this process, ozonation and coagulation occurred simultaneously within a single unit. Compared with the conventional pre-ozonation-coagulation process, the HOC process exhibited much better performance in removing dissolved organic matters. In particular, the maximal organic matters removal efficiency was obtained at the ozone dosage of 1 mgO(3)/mg DOC at each pH value (pH 5, 7 and 9). In order to interpret the mechanism of the HOC process, ozone decomposition was monitored. The results indicated that ozone decomposed much faster in the HOC process. Moreover, by using the reagent of O-3-resistant hydroxyl radical ((OH)-O-center dot) probe compound, para-chlorobenzoic acid (pCBA), and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) analysis, it was observed that the HOC process generated higher content of (OH)-O-center dot compared with pre-ozonation process. This indicates that the (OH)-O-center dot oxidation reaction as the key step can be catalyzed and enhanced by Al-based coagulants and their hydrolyzed products in this developed process. Thus, based on the catalytic effects of Al-based coagulants on ozonation, the HOC process provides a promising alternative to the conventional technology for wastewater reclamation in terms of higher efficiency. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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