4.8 Article

Removal of charged micropollutants from water by ion-exchange polymers - Effects of competing electrolytes

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 16, 页码 5009-5018

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.06.048

关键词

Water treatment; Ionic pollutants; Ion-exchange polymers; Activated carbon; Sorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A wide variety of environmental compounds of concern, e.g. pharmaceuticals or illicit drugs, are acids or bases that may predominantly be present as charged species in drinking water sources. These charged micropollutants may prove difficult to remove by currently used water treatment steps (e.g. UV/H2O2, activated carbon (AC) or membranes). We studied the sorption affinity of some ionic organic compounds to both AC and different charged polymeric materials. Ion-exchange polymers may be effective as additional extraction phases in water treatment, because sorption of all charged compounds to oppositely charged polymers was stronger than to AC, especially for the double-charged cation metformin. Tested below 1% of the polymer ion-exchange capacity, the sorption affinity of charged micropollutants is nonlinear and depends on the composition of the aqueous medium. Whereas oppositely charged electrolytes do not impact sorption of organic ions, equally charged electrolytes do influence sorption indicating ion-exchange (IE) to be the main sorption mechanism. For the tested polymers, a tenfold increased salt concentration lowered the IE-sorption affinity by a factor two. Different electrolytes affect IE with organic ions in a similar way as inorganic ions on IE-resins, and no clear differences in this trend were observed between the sulphonated and the carboxylated cation-exchanger. Sorption of organic cations is five fold less in Ca2+ solutions compared to similar concentrations of Na+, while that of anionic compounds is three fold weaker in SO42- solutions compared to equal concentrations of Cl-. (C) 2012 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