4.7 Article

Ultrafiltration (UF) membrane fouling caused by cyanobateria: Fouling effects of cells and extracellular organics matter (EOM)

期刊

DESALINATION
卷 293, 期 -, 页码 30-37

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.02.020

关键词

Ultrafiltration (UF); Membrane fouling; Algae; Cyanobacteria; Extracellular organic matter (EOM)

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50808051, 51138008]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment [2011TS08]
  3. Funds for Creative Research Groups of China [51121062]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ultrafiltration (UF) membrane fouling caused by cyanobacterial cells and extracellular organic matter (EOM) was investigated in this study. Flux decline and reversibility of fouling caused by cyanobacterial cells (including live cells and cell fragments). EOM and their combination were compared. UF fractionation and XAD resin adsorption were employed to characterize the molecular weight (MW) distribution and hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of EOM, respectively. Attenuated total reflection-Fourier infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy and scanning electron microscope (SEM) were utilized to characterize the membranes fouled by cyanobacterial cells and EOM. Results showed that cells and cell fragments caused not only reversible but also irreversible fouling of UF membrane. Besides, the membrane fouling caused by the cells and cell fragments was characterized by secondary sharp flux decline which was related Lathe compression of cake layer. Cyanobacterial EOM also caused serious flux decline due Lathe deposit of macromolecular organics such as proteins and polysaccharides on membrane. Moreover, EOM could lead to serious irreversible membrane fouling probably due to adhesion of proteins which were characterized by hydrophobicity. Additionally, UF membrane fouling was exacerbated when cells and EOM were filtered together, but no synergetic fouling occurred in this study. (c) 2012 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