4.7 Article

Seawater desalination by gas hydrate process and removal characteristics of dissolved ions (Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, B3+, Cl-, SO42-)

期刊

DESALINATION
卷 353, 期 -, 页码 84-90

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.09.007

关键词

Desalination; Clathrate process; Gas hydrates; Seawater; Ion rejection

资金

  1. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea
  2. Ministry of Education's Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 1 in Singapore [R-279-000-386-112]
  3. Korea Institute of Marine Science & Technology Promotion (KIMST) [201101412] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  4. National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST), Republic of Korea [ER140008] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to evaluate hydrate-based desalination (HBD), experiments with seawater samples were carried out at various conditions (i.e. hydraulic pressure, washing step, and hydrate-forming gas). Before and after the hydrate process, cations (Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, and B3+) and anions (Cl- and SO42-) were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) and ion chromatography (IC). In a single stage of CO2 hydrate process without any pretreatment, 71%-94% of each cation was removed in the following order: K+ > Na+ approximate to Mg2+ approximate to Ca2+ > B3+ and 73%-83% of each anion was removed. When the brines on the surface of hydrate pellets were removed, the ion removal efficiency increased above 4%. It was also found that the desalting efficiency depended on the hydrate-forming gas (CO2 > CH4) and the hydraulic pressure (6-10 MPa) to produce hydrate pellets. In this study, the removal efficiency of cations and anions in a real seawater sample using HBD processes were reported for the first time. (C) 2014 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