检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:刘玲[1] 李星[1] 杨艳玲[1] 王伟强[1] 李波[1] 杨帆[1] 谢斯[1]
机构地区:[1]北京工业大学水质科学与水环境恢复工程北京市重点实验室,北京100124
出 处:《中国给水排水》2013年第13期53-56,共4页China Water & Wastewater
基 金:国家水体污染控制与治理科技重大专项(2012ZX07404-003);北京市自然科学基金资助项目(8092005)
摘 要:以实验室模拟含嗅微污染水为研究对象,对比考察常规处理/浸没式超滤膜组合工艺(CUF)和常规处理-粉末炭/浸没式超滤膜组合工艺(CPUF)启动阶段的除污效能及膜污染状况。结果表明:两种组合工艺的除浊率均稳定在98%以上;CPUF工艺开始稳定去除NH+4-N的时间较CUF工艺缩短了7 d,且对UV254的去除率增加了16.3%,出水土臭素平均浓度为3.44 ng/L,远低于CUF工艺出水的18.99 ng/L。CPUF工艺能有效延缓膜污染,连续运行28 d后跨膜压差仅增长了1.49 kPa,较CUF工艺低1.78 kPa。The pollutants removal performance and membrane fouling of conventional treatment/ immersed uhrafiltration membrane process (CUF) and conventional treatment/powered activated carbon/ immersed uhrafihration process (CPUF) in start-up phase for treatment of simulated micro-olluted water containing taste and odor were investigated. The results indicated that the turbidity removal efficiencies by the two combined processes were above 98%. Compared to CUF process, the time to reach stable ammonia nitrogen removal by CPUF process was shortened by 7 d, and UV254 removal rate was improved by 16.3%. Moreover, the average geosmin (GSM) concentration in the effluent of CPUF process was only 3.44 ng/L, far less than that of CUF process ( 18.99 ng/L). CPUF process could effectively alleviate membrane fouling, and the trans-membrane pressure increased only by 1.49 kPa in 28 d, which was 1.78 kPa lower than that of CUF process.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.166