4.8 Review

Rejection of Trace Organic Compounds by Forward Osmosis Membranes: A Literature Review

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 48, 期 7, 页码 3612-3624

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es4038676

关键词

-

资金

  1. DOE/RPSEA Project [10122-39]
  2. National Science Foundation [EEC-1028968, CBET-1240584]
  3. American Water Works Association Desalination Community Student Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To meet surging water demands, water reuse is being sought as an alternative to traditional water resources. However, contamination of water resources by trace organic compounds (TOrCs), including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, disinfection byproducts, and industrial chemicals is of increasing concern. These compounds are not readily removed by conventional water treatment processes and require new treatment technologies to enable potable water reuse. Forward osmosis (FO) has been recognized in recent years as a robust process suitable for the treatment of highly impaired streams and a good barrier to TOrCs. To date, at least 14 studies have been published that investigated the rejection of various TOrCs by FO membranes under a variety of experimental conditions. In this paper, TOrC rejection by FO has been critically reviewed, evaluating the effects of membrane characteristics and orientation, experimental scale and duration, membrane fouling, feed solution chemistry, draw solution composition and concentration, and transmembrane temperature on process performance. Although it is important to continue to investigate the removal of diverse TOrCs by FO, and especially with new FO membranes, it is critically important to adhere to standard testing conditions to enable comparison of results between studies. Likewise, feed concentration of TOrCs during FO testing must be environmentally relevant (most commonly 10-100 ng/L range for most wastewaters) and not excessively high, and in addition to testing TOrC rejection in clean feedwater, the effects of real water matrix and membrane fouling on TOrC rejection must be evaluated.

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