4.8 Article

Effectiveness and mechanism of potassium ferrate(VI) preoxidation for algae removal by coagulation

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 871-878

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00282-2

关键词

potassium ferrite; algae; preoxidation; coagulation; enhanced coagulation; oxidation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Jar tests were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of potassium ferrate preoxidation on algae removal by coagulation. Laboratory studies demonstrated that pretreatment with potassium ferrate obviously enhanced the algae removal by coagulation with alum [Al-2(SO4)(3) . 18H(2)O]. Algae removal efficiency increased remarkably when the water was pretreated with ferrate. A very short time of preoxidation was enough to achieve substantial algae removal efficiency, and the effectiveness was further increased at a prolonged pretreatment time. Pretreatment with ferrate resulted in a reduction of alum dosage required to cause an efficient coagulation for algae removal. The obvious impact of cell architecture by potassium ferrate was found through scanning electron microscopy. Upon oxidation with ferrite, the cells were inactivated and some intracellular and extracelluar components were released into the water. which may be helpful to the coagulation by their bridging effect. Efficient removal of algae by potassium ferrite preoxidation is believed to be a consequence of several process mechanisms. Ferrate preoxidation inactivated algae. induced the formation of coagulant aid, which are the cellular components secreted by algal cells. The coagulation was also improved by increasing particle concentration in water, because of the formation of the intermediate forms of precipitant iron species during preoxidation. In addition, it was also observed that ferrite preoxidation caused algae agglomerate formation before the addition of coagulant, the subsequent application of alum resulted in further coagulation. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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