4.2 Article

Comparison of the effects of aluminum and iron(III) salts on ultrafiltration membrane biofouling in drinking water treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 63, 期 -, 页码 96-104

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jes.2017.08.025

关键词

Ultrafiltration membrane; Al-based and Fe-based salts; Coagulation; Behavior of microorganisms; Fouling mechanism

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51290282]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coagulation plays an important role in alleviating membrane fouling, and a noticeable problem is the development of microorganisms after long-time operation, which gradually secrete extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). To date, few studies have paid attention to the behavior of microorganisms in drinking water treatment with ultrafiltration (UF) membranes. Herein, the membrane biofouling was investigated with different aluminum and iron salts. We found that Al-2(SO4)(3)center dot 18H(2)O performed better in reducing membrane fouling due to the slower growth rate of microorganisms. In comparison to Al-2(SO4)(3)center dot 18H(2)O, more EPS were induced with Fe-2(SO4)(3)center dot xH(2)O, both in the membrane tank and the sludge on the cake layer. We also found that bacteria were the major microorganisms, of which the concentration was much higher than those of fungi and archaea. Further analyses showed that Proteobacteria was dominant in bacterial communities, which caused severe membrane fouling by forming a biofilm, especially for Fe-2(SO4)(3)center dot xH(2)O. Additionally, the abundances of Bacteroidetes and Verrucomicrobia were relatively higher in the presence of Al-2(SO4)(3)center dot 18H(2)O, resulting in less severe biofouling by effectively degrading the protein and polysaccharide in EPS. As a result, in terms of microorganism behaviors, Al-based salts should be given preference as coagulants during actual operations. (C) 2017 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.2
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