4.7 Article

Comparing dissolved air flotation and conventional sedimentation to remove cyanobacterial cells of Microcystis aeruginosa Part 1:: The key operating conditions

期刊

SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 84-94

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2006.03.017

关键词

coagulation/flocculation; dissolved air flotation; sedimentation; Microcystis aeruginosa; microcystin-LR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is generally considered more effective than sedimentation (S) in the treatment of algal-rich water. However, the type and dose of coagulant, as well as the coagulation (C), flocculation (F) and DAF operating conditions are key parameters for removing intact cyanobacterial cells. This study compares C/F/DAF and C/F/S performances for removing, without causing damage, cultured cells of Microcystis aeruginosa, a surrogate for overall removal efficiency of cyanobacteria. Two coagulants (alum and an aluminium pre-polymerised coagulant of high basicity (WAC)) and the most relevant operating conditions (velocity gradients for coagulation and flocculation, flocculation retention time and DAF pressurised recycle ratio) were investigated for two scenarios of influent cell concentration, expressed as chlorophyll a (10-35 mu g/L and higher than 50 mu g/L). Results showed that C/F/DAF is the best process to remove single cells of M. aeruginosa, yielding very high chlorophyll a removal (93-98%), with no toxin release to water (8-15%), using a low recycle ratio (8%) and lower coagulant doses (3 mgAl(2)O(3)/L versus 5 mgAl(2)O(3)/L of WAC), slower coagulation (380 s(-1) versus 743 s(-1)), stronger but shorter flocculation (8 min at 70 s(-1) versus 15 min at 24 s(-1)) than C/F/S. WAC performed better than alum, for both processes. For either coagulants cell removal efficiency increased with the influent concentration, although higher doses were necessary to reach the same residuals. (c) 2006 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