4.6 Article

Steel slag filters to upgrade phosphorus removal in small wastewater treatment plants: Removal mechanisms and performance

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 68, 期 -, 页码 214-222

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.065

关键词

Phosphorus removal; Constructed wetland; Steel slag; Reactive filter; Precipitation

资金

  1. European Union's Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) research programme [RFSP-CT-2009-00028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electric arc furnace steel slag (EAF-slag) and basic oxygen furnace steel slag (BOF-slag) were used as filter substrate in horizontal subsurface flow laboratory-scale filters designed to remove phosphorus (P) from a synthetic solution (similar to 10 mg P/L). The main objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of various parameters, including slag type, slag size, and slag composition, on P removal performance. Also, a series of chemical and mineralogical analyses was performed to determine the mechanisms of P removal achieved by steel slag in the filters. Over a period of 52 weeks of filter operation, small-size EAF-slag (5-16 mm) and small-size BOF-slag (6-12 mm) removed 98% and >99% of the inlet total phosphorus (TP), whereas big-size EAF-slag (20-40 mm) and big-size BOF-slag (20-50 mm) removed 88% and 95% of the influent TP, respectively. The main mechanism of P removal was related to CaO dissolution from slag followed by Ca phosphate precipitation and accumulation of the precipitates into the filters. P removal performance improved with increasing the CaO-slag content and with decreasing slag size, most probably because the specific surface available for CaO dissolution was increased. Also, the experimental results suggested that small-size slag was more efficient than big-size slag for the self-filtration of P precipitates. Chemical and mineralogical analyses indicated that, after precipitation, Ca phosphates may crystallise into the most stable form of hydroxyapatite. (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

4.6
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