4.7 Article

Long-run operation of a reverse electrodialysis system fed with wastewaters

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 217, 期 -, 页码 871-887

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.110

关键词

Salinity gradient power; Reverse electrodialysis; Ion exchange membranes; Fouling; Wastewater reuse

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon research and innovation program [685579]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of a Reverse ElectroDialysis (RED) system fed by unconventional wastewater solutions for long operational periods is analysed for the first time. The experimental campaign was divided in a series of five independent long-runs which combined real wastewater solutions with artificial solutions for at least 10 days. The time evolution of electrical variables, gross power output and net power output, considering also pumping losses, was monitored: power density values obtained during the long-runs are comparable to those found in literature with artificial feed solutions of similar salinity. The increase in pressure drops and the development of membrane fouling were the main detrimental factors of system performance. Pressure drops increase was related to the physical obstruction of the feed channels defined by the spacers, while membrane fouling was related to the adsorption of foulants over the membrane surfaces. In order to manage channels partial clogging and fouling, different kinds of easily implemented in situ backwashings (i.e. neutral, acid, alkaline) were adopted, without the need for an abrupt interruption of the RED unit operation. The application of periodic ElectroDialysis (ED) pulses is also tested as fouling prevention strategy. The results collected suggest that RED can be used to produce electric power by unworthy wastewaters, but additional studies are still needed to characterize better membrane fouling and further improve system performance with these solutions. (C) 2018 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