4.7 Article

Treatment of organics in reverse osmosis concentrate from a municipal wastewater reclamation plant: Feasibility test of advanced oxidation processes with/without pretreatment

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 166, 期 3, 页码 932-939

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2010.11.078

关键词

RO concentrate; Advanced oxidation; Coagulation; Photocatalysis; Ozonation; Ultrasound

资金

  1. Singapore's National Research Foundation (NRF) [EWI RFP 0802-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four simple advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), i.e. heterogeneous photocatalytic oxidation (PCO). sonolysis (US), ozonation (O-3) and H2O2 oxidation, as well as their combinations were investigated in bench-scale for removing the organics present in the reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate from a municipal wastewater reclamation plant. It was observed that the degradation efficiencies reached a plateau after 1 h of reaction, with varying removals of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) up to 52%. The O-3-based AOPs exhibited relative high efficiencies in treating the organics present in the raw RO concentrate. Ferric chloride (FeCl3) coagulation was preferred over activated carbon adsorption as pretreatment process to improve the subsequent AOP treatments of the RO concentrate. Coupling pretreatment with coagulation, the various AOPs could efficiently remove the organics, resulting in an overall DOC removal of 34-68%, a significant improvement in biodegradability (7-20 times), and a decrease of ecotoxicity. Analyses of molecular weight (MW) distribution of the treated RO concentrate revealed that coagulation could remove large MW organics that were AOP-resistant, while AOP treatments could effectively decompose the complex organics into small molecular organics. The results also demonstrated that a simple integrated method. FeCl3 coagulation + photocatalysis (UVC/TiO2), could finally achieve 95% of the organics removal from the RO concentrate within 6 h. (C) 2010 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