4.7 Article

A comparison of the roles of Ca2+ and Mg2+ on membrane fouling with humic acid: Are there any differences or similarities?

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
卷 545, 期 -, 页码 81-87

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2017.09.063

关键词

Ultrafiltration membrane fouling; Humic acid; Ca2+; Mg2+; Comparative study

资金

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2015M580820, 2016T90895]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51608429]
  3. Educational Commission of Shaanxi Province of China [16JS062]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province [2016JQ5067]
  5. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To further unravel the differences and similarities of the effect mechanisms of Mg2+ and Ca2+ on ultrafiltration membrane fouling with humic acid (HA), under a wide range of Mg2+ and Ca2+ contents, the adhesion forces of HA with both HA and membrane, HA cake layer structure, and fouling experiments were compared systematically. The results indicate that at lower Ca2+ or Mg2+ concentrations, membrane fouling is enhanced by the presence of Ca2+ or Mg2+, in agreement with the Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-Overbeek theory. However, membrane fouling in the presence of Ca2+ was more serious than with Mg2+, mainly because the interaction of HA with the membrane and other HA molecules was much stronger in the Ca2+ environment. The stronger interaction promoted the accumulation of HA on the membrane surface and resulted in a denser fouling layer, which caused a more serious membrane fouling. In contrast, at much higher Ca2+ or Mg2+ concentrations, membrane fouling was mitigated significantly, but the mitigation mechanisms for both ions were different. For Ca2+, the aggregation of HA molecules was responsible for the decrease in membrane fouling, whereas for Mg2+, hydration repulsion forces prevented membrane fouling. Moreover, the aggregated HA in a Ca2+ environment seemed to mitigate membrane fouling to a greater extent, compared to the hydration forces with Mg2+ present.

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