4.7 Article

Submerged low-cost pyrophyllite ceramic membrane filtration combined with GAC as fluidized particles for industrial wastewater treatment

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 206, 期 -, 页码 784-792

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.045

关键词

Pyrophyllite-based ceramic membrane; Fluidized granular activated carbon; Membrane fouling; Industrial wastewater; Energy demands; Intermittent GAC fluidization

资金

  1. Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) [2017000140008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Submerged ceramic membrane reactor treating industrial wastewater was combined with granular activated carbon (GAC) particles to control membrane fouling and organic removal efficiency. The GAC particles were suspended along the membrane surface under bulk recirculation only through the reactor without any gas sparging. Membrane support coated with Al2O3 layer (CPM) and uncoated one (UPM) was compared at constant flux mode of filtration. The membrane support consisted of 80% of pyrophyllite and 20% of alumina. Under up-flow velocity of 0.031 m s(-1) through bulk recirculation only without GAC particles, the fouling rates were observed as 0.011 and 0.013 bar h(-1) for the CPM and UPM, respectively. With suspension of GAC particles, fouling mitigation was enhanced considerably and this effect was more pronounced with CPM than UPM under the same upflow velocity (90 vs. 57%). In addition, the GAC suspension increased critical flux by 46% higher with CPM than that observed without the carbon particles. The organic removal efficiency of the UPM was lower than that of CPM while the fouling rate was much greater probably due to pore blocking caused by organic dye compounds. For the both membranes, suspension of GAC particles along the membrane surface increased organic removal efficiency higher than 90%. The organic removal efficiency was enhanced by increasing permeate flux, but it became lower as upflow velocity was higher. (C) 2018 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

4.7
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