4.8 Article

Bacterial treatment effectiveness of point-of-use ceramic water filters

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 14, 页码 3559-3565

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.04.047

关键词

Ceramic water filter; Disinfection; E. coli; Silver inactivation

资金

  1. Lindbergh Foundation
  2. University of Colorado Engineering Excellence Fund
  3. National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) [0552895]
  4. Div Of Engineering Education and Centers
  5. Directorate For Engineering [0552895] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laboratory experiments were conducted on six point-of-use (POU) ceramic water filters that were manufactured in Nicaragua; two filters were used by families for ca. 4 years and the other filters had limited prior use in our lab. Water spiked with ca. 10(6) CFU/mL of Escherichia coli was dosed to the filters. Initial disinfection efficiencies ranged from 3 - 4.5 log, but the treatment efficiency decreased with subsequent batches of spiked water. Silver concentrations in the effluent water ranged from 0.04 - 1.75 ppb. Subsequent experiments that utilized feed water without a bacterial spike yielded 10(3)-10(5) CFU/mL bacteria in the effluent. Immediately after recoating four of the filters with a colloidal silver solution, the effluent silver concentrations increased to 36 - 45 ppb and bacterial disinfection efficiencies were 3.8-4.5 log. The treatment effectiveness decreased to 0.2 - 2.5 log after loading multiple batches of highly contaminated water. In subsequent loading of clean water, the effluent water contained <20-41 CFU/mL in two of the filters. This indicates that the silver had some benefit to reducing bacterial contamination by the filter. In general these POU filters were found to be effective, but showed loss of effectiveness with time and indicated a release of microbes into subsequent volumes of water passed through the system. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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