2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149181
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can pre-ozonation be combined with gravity-driven membrane filtration to treat shale gas wastewater?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In conventional MF/UF membrane processes with effective fouling control strategies, an increased driving pressure generally leads to an almost linear increase in the permeate flux. However, as demonstrated in multiple studies [ 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ], changing the TMP did not substantially change the flux in the ULPM filtration system. This indicates that when pressure increased during membrane filtration, the overall resistance of the fouled membrane increased.…”
Section: Membrane Foulingmentioning
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In conventional MF/UF membrane processes with effective fouling control strategies, an increased driving pressure generally leads to an almost linear increase in the permeate flux. However, as demonstrated in multiple studies [ 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ], changing the TMP did not substantially change the flux in the ULPM filtration system. This indicates that when pressure increased during membrane filtration, the overall resistance of the fouled membrane increased.…”
Section: Membrane Foulingmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Du et al’s [ 65 ] and A. Ding et al’s [ 57 ] reports, where the UF membrane with a smaller pore size achieved a higher stable flux. However, it should be emphasized that the pressure difference is ignored since, as proved in several studies, modifying the TMP did not result in a significant change in the stable flux value in the GDM system [ 10 , 58 , 60 ]. This suggests that when the TMP applied to the membrane grew during filtration, the total resistance of the fouled membrane increased as well.…”
Section: Gdm Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The biofilter cake layer on the membrane surface serves as a physical barrier, intercepting pollutants in the raw water, and also acts as a biosystem that can remove biodegradable contaminants from water sources. [7][8][9][10] However, the low water yield and membrane fouling are still the main limiting factors for the application of GDM technology. These issues mainly stem from the deposition of particulates from the biofilter cake layer on the membrane surface.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 The treatment methods for SG-FFF to remove dissolved salts include coagulation, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, 19 membrane distillation, 20 vapor compression evaporation (MVR), 15 reverse osmosis (RO) membrane concentration, 21 ozone pre-oxidation and gravity driven membrane filtration. 22,23 The treatment methods for SG-FFF to remove organic matter include thermally activated persulfate, 1,7,24 an anoxic/oxic membrane bioreactor (A/O-MBR) mediated by nano-iron, 25 zero-valent iron and persulfate synergistic ozone, 26 microbial fuel cells, 27,28 electrocoagulation combined with ozone, 29,30 electrofenton, 31,32 carbon nanotube embedded diatomite adsorbent adsorption, 33 aerosol adsorption, 34 ozone-coupled activated carbon adsorption and aerobic, 35 the aerobic granular sludge method, 36 the ozone-coupled moving bed biofilm method 37 and pre-oxidation coupled with the biological method. 38 The combined processes to treat SG-FFF for discharge include coagulation, precipitation, adsorption, ultrafiltration and RO, 39 ozone, ultrafiltration and RO, 40 and gravity driven membrane filtration combined with granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, and solar aeration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%