4.7 Article

Biogas sparging to control fouling and enhance resource recovery from anaerobically digested sludge centrate by forward osmosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 625, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2021.119176

关键词

Forward osmosis; Anaerobic co-digestion; Membrane fouling; Biogas sparging; Nutrient recovery

资金

  1. Australia Research Council, Australia through the ARC Research Hub for Energy-efficient Separation [IH170100009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biogas sparging demonstrated in this study effectively mitigated membrane fouling during FO process, improving water flux, organic matter, ammonia, and phosphate enrichment, with the ability to recover water flux through physical flushing. The method maintained organic matter and nutrients in the solution for subsequent recovery, attributing its success to carbonate buffering for pH control and prevention of calcium phosphate precipitation and ammonia volatilization on the membrane surface.
This study demonstrates the proof-of-concept of biogas sparging to control membrane fouling during sludge centrate pre-concentration by forward osmosis (FO). Sludge centrate sparging by biogas reduced membrane fouling (measured by water flux decline) and filtration time by two and eight times, respectively, compared to FO operation without biogas sparging at the same water recovery of 60%. In addition, the water flux was almost fully recovered by physical flushing when biogas sparging was applied. Biogas sparging also resulted in a sig-nificant improvement in the enrichment of organic, ammonia, and phosphate to close to the theoretical value based on mass balance calculation. In other words, organic matter and nutrients were retained in the bulk so-lution for subsequent recovery. Fouling mitigation and nutrient enrichment improvement by biogas sparging could be attributed to carbonate buffering to maintain a near neutral pH for preventing calcium phosphate precipitation on the membrane surface and ammonia volatilisation.

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