4.2 Article

Changes in different organic matter fractions during conventional treatment and advanced treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 582-586

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60423-8

关键词

organic matter; hydrophobic; hydrophilic; polarity; drinking water treatment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [50708050]
  2. National Water Special Program of China [2008ZX07420-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

XAD-8 resin isolation of organic matter in water was used to divide organic matter into the hydrophobic and hydrophilic fractions. A pilot plant was used to investigate the change in both fractions during conventional and advanced treatment processes. The treatment of hydrophobic organics (HPO), rather than hydrophilic organicas (HPI), should carry greater emphasis due to HPO's higher trihalomethane formation potential (THMFP) and haloacetic acid formation potential (HAAFP). The removal of hydrophobic matter and its transmission into hydrophilic matter reduced ultimate DBP yield during the disinfection process. The results showed that sand filtration, ozonation, and biological activated carbon (BAC) filtration had distinct influences on the removal of both organic fractions. Additionally, the combination of processes changed the organic fraction proportions present during treatment. The use of ozonation and BAC maximized organic matter removal efficiency, especially for the hydrophobic fraction. In sum, the combination of pre-ozonation, conventional treatment, and O-3-BAC removed 48% of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), 60% of HPO, 30% of HPI, 63% of THMFP, and 85% of HAAFP. The use of conventional treatment and O-3-BAC without pre-ozonation had a comparable performance, removing 51% of DOC, 56% of HPO, 45% of HPI, 61% of THMFP, and 72% of HAAFP. The effectiveness of this analysis method indicated that resin isolation and fractionation should be standardized as an applicable test to help assess water treatment process efficiency.

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

4.2
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