Cargando…

Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing

Two pilot trials of powdered activated carbon (PAC)/(coagulation)/ceramic microfiltration were conducted to compare continuous 10–12 mg/L PAC inline dosing with 8–10 mg/L dosing to a 2 h-contact tank. Two low turbidity/low natural organic matter (NOM, total organic carbon <2 mg C/L) surface water...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Viegas, Rui M. C., Campinas, Margarida, Coelho, Rosário, Lucas, Helena, Rosa, Maria João
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7909294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33498247
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes11020072
_version_ 1783655902198366208
author Viegas, Rui M. C.
Campinas, Margarida
Coelho, Rosário
Lucas, Helena
Rosa, Maria João
author_facet Viegas, Rui M. C.
Campinas, Margarida
Coelho, Rosário
Lucas, Helena
Rosa, Maria João
author_sort Viegas, Rui M. C.
collection PubMed
description Two pilot trials of powdered activated carbon (PAC)/(coagulation)/ceramic microfiltration were conducted to compare continuous 10–12 mg/L PAC inline dosing with 8–10 mg/L dosing to a 2 h-contact tank. Two low turbidity/low natural organic matter (NOM, total organic carbon <2 mg C/L) surface waters spiked with 7.2–10.3 µg/L total-pesticides were tested and the dosing options were compared towards operational performance, average removal of pesticides and NOM and costs. Removal differences between the two PAC dosing options depended on pesticides’ amenability to adsorption and NOM characteristics (254 nm absorbance, A254). Waters containing low A254-absorbing NOM and only pesticides amenable to adsorption showed very high removals (all pesticides ≥93%) and no significant differences between the two PAC dosing options. Waters containing higher A254-absorbing NOM and high loads of pesticides less amenable to adsorption (dimethoate, bentazone) required higher inline PAC dose. Those or more severe conditions may require PAC doses higher than tested to comply with the Drinking Water Directive limits for pesticides. Cost analysis showed PAC inline dosing is more cost-effective than PAC dosing to the contact tank when identical PAC dose is sufficient or when the doses are low, even if 50% higher for inline dosing, and the plant is small.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7909294
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79092942021-02-27 Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing Viegas, Rui M. C. Campinas, Margarida Coelho, Rosário Lucas, Helena Rosa, Maria João Membranes (Basel) Article Two pilot trials of powdered activated carbon (PAC)/(coagulation)/ceramic microfiltration were conducted to compare continuous 10–12 mg/L PAC inline dosing with 8–10 mg/L dosing to a 2 h-contact tank. Two low turbidity/low natural organic matter (NOM, total organic carbon <2 mg C/L) surface waters spiked with 7.2–10.3 µg/L total-pesticides were tested and the dosing options were compared towards operational performance, average removal of pesticides and NOM and costs. Removal differences between the two PAC dosing options depended on pesticides’ amenability to adsorption and NOM characteristics (254 nm absorbance, A254). Waters containing low A254-absorbing NOM and only pesticides amenable to adsorption showed very high removals (all pesticides ≥93%) and no significant differences between the two PAC dosing options. Waters containing higher A254-absorbing NOM and high loads of pesticides less amenable to adsorption (dimethoate, bentazone) required higher inline PAC dose. Those or more severe conditions may require PAC doses higher than tested to comply with the Drinking Water Directive limits for pesticides. Cost analysis showed PAC inline dosing is more cost-effective than PAC dosing to the contact tank when identical PAC dose is sufficient or when the doses are low, even if 50% higher for inline dosing, and the plant is small. MDPI 2021-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7909294/ /pubmed/33498247 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes11020072 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Viegas, Rui M. C.
Campinas, Margarida
Coelho, Rosário
Lucas, Helena
Rosa, Maria João
Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing
title Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing
title_full Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing
title_fullStr Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing
title_full_unstemmed Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing
title_short Hybrid Process of Adsorption/Coagulation/Ceramic MF for Removing Pesticides in Drinking Water Treatment—Inline vs. Contact Tank PAC Dosing
title_sort hybrid process of adsorption/coagulation/ceramic mf for removing pesticides in drinking water treatment—inline vs. contact tank pac dosing
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7909294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33498247
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes11020072
work_keys_str_mv AT viegasruimc hybridprocessofadsorptioncoagulationceramicmfforremovingpesticidesindrinkingwatertreatmentinlinevscontacttankpacdosing
AT campinasmargarida hybridprocessofadsorptioncoagulationceramicmfforremovingpesticidesindrinkingwatertreatmentinlinevscontacttankpacdosing
AT coelhorosario hybridprocessofadsorptioncoagulationceramicmfforremovingpesticidesindrinkingwatertreatmentinlinevscontacttankpacdosing
AT lucashelena hybridprocessofadsorptioncoagulationceramicmfforremovingpesticidesindrinkingwatertreatmentinlinevscontacttankpacdosing
AT rosamariajoao hybridprocessofadsorptioncoagulationceramicmfforremovingpesticidesindrinkingwatertreatmentinlinevscontacttankpacdosing