4.7 Article

The shadow of dichloroacetonitrile (DCAN), a typical nitrogenous disinfection by-product (N-DBP), in the waterworks and its backwash water reuse

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 569-578

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.04.118

关键词

Drinking water treatment; Nitrogenous disinfection by-product; Dichloroacetonitrile; Backwash water; Reuse

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51378173]
  2. National Key P&D Program of China [2016YFC0400803]
  3. SuZhou Science-technology Support Plan Projects [SS201530]
  4. Qing Lan Project
  5. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dichloroacetonitrile (DCAN) is one of nitrogenous disinfection by-products (N-DBPs) with strong cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. In this study, the formation potential (FP) of DCAN was investigated in the samples of six important water sources located in the Yangtze River Delta. The highest formation concentration of DCAN was 9.05 mu g/L in the water sample taken from Taihu Lake with the lowest SUVA value. After the NOM fractionation, the conversion rate of hydrophilic fraction to DCAN was found the highest. Subsequently, a waterworks using Taihu Lake as water source was chosen to research the FP variations of DCAN in the treatment process and backwash water. The results showed that, compared to the conventional treatment process, O/biological activated carbon (BAC) process increased the removal efficiency of DCAN from 21.89% to 50.58% by removing aromatic protein and soluble biological by-products as main precursors of DCAN. The DCAN FP in the effluent of BAC filters using old granular activated carbon was higher than that in the influent and the DCAN FP of its backwash water was lower than that in raw water. In the backwash water of sand filters, the DCAN FP higher than raw water required the recycle ratio less than 5% to avoid the accumulation of DCAN. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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