4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparative performance of flat sheet and spiral wound modules in the nanofiltration of reactive dye solution

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 2994-3004

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-012-0810-7

关键词

Nanofiltration; Reactive dyes; Flux; Flat sheet; Spiral wound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Besides the opportunities for reuse, stringent regulations and growing public awareness demand an enhanced quality of effluent from dye industries. Treatment of an aqueous solution of dye (reactive red 198) was carried out in a nanofiltration unit using both flat sheet and spiral wound modules to obtain a comparative performance evaluation in terms of permeate flux and quality. Hydrophilized polyamide membrane with molecular weight cutoff of 150 was used for the experiments. Effects of trans-membrane pressure (TMP), feed concentration and addition of salt on permeate flux were investigated. Percent reduction of color, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total dissolved solid (TDS), and conductivity were determined to assess performance of the membrane. The maximum flux decline was 16.1% of its initial value at 490 kPa TMP with 50 ppm feed concentration in spiral wound module, whereas the same in flat sheet under same conditions was 7.2%. The effect of TMP showed a quasi-linear increase in flux with increasing pressure. Increased permeate concentration led to the reduction in observed retention of dye in the membrane. The average reduction in color, COD, and TDS were 96.88%, 97.38%, and 89.24%, respectively. The decline in permeate flux was more in case of spiral wound module compared to flat sheet. However, spiral wound module performed better in terms of color removal, COD reduction, and TDS removal. Substantial removal of color was achieved in the nanofiltration experiments with a marked reduction in COD and TDS. The process allowed the production of permeate stream with great reutilization possibilities.

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