4.8 Article

Aged raw landfill leachate:: Membrane fractionation, O3 only and O3/H2O2 oxidation, and molecular size distribution analysis

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 463-474

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.11.038

关键词

landfill leachate; ozone; hydrogen peroxide; gel filtration chromatography; molecular size distribution; metals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large molecular refractory organic compounds (i.e., humic substances) were the major chemical oxygen demand (COD) components of aged raw landfill leachate. To investigate the behaviours of the large molecular refractory organic compounds when they were subjected to oxidation with ozone only (O-3 only) and ozone combined with hydrogen peroxide (O-3/H2O2), the aged raw landfill leachate first was filtered with 0.8 and 0.45 mu m pore size filters in series, then was sequentially fractionated with 10,000 MWCO; 5000 MWCO; and 1000 MWCO membranes, and four samples were formed: 0.45 mu m-10,000Da; 10,000-5000Da; 5000-1000Da; and < 1000Da. Mass distribution profiles of COD, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), colour and metals in the aged raw leachate were developed through mass balance. After membrane fractionation of the aged raw leachate, the metals were fractionated with the humic substances. Each fractionated sample as well as the aged raw leachate was oxidised with O-3 only and O-3/H2O2. The H2O2 enhanced the reduction of COD and colour; while, the BOD5 after O-3 only was always higher than that of O-3/H2O2. The addition of H2O2 improved the peak reduction of large molecules, but the effects of H2O2 on the fractions of 10,000-5000Da and 5000-1000Da were likely insignificant, which is in accordance with the COD results. No correlation was found between the BOD5 increase and the area of new peak formed after oxidation. However, the BOD5 of each sample after oxidation with O-3 only was the logarithmic function of its total peak area.(c) 2005 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

4.8
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