Removal characterization of 133Cs and 127I in a water treatment process using a laboratory scale experiment

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 1289-1294
Author(s):  
Hee Suk Lee ◽  
Jeongyup Lee ◽  
Byengsuk Yoon ◽  
Youjin Yim ◽  
Ilhwan Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Activated Carbon ◽  
Water Treatment ◽  
Ion Exchange ◽  
Powdered Activated Carbon ◽  
Laboratory Scale ◽  
Radioactive Material ◽  
Radioactive Materials ◽  
Removal Rates ◽  
Exchange Method

Due to the tragic disaster that happened in Japan and crippled the Fukushima nuclear power plant, serious concerns have been raised regarding the contamination of drinking water as a result of the radioactive materials that were released. Even though the quantities of radioactive material in rain were relatively low, people were concerned about the drinking water. Therefore, there is a need to know the removal efficiency of the unit process of water treatment and to prepare a safety plan to protect the public's health from radioactive materials. In this study, the laboratory scale removal rates were estimated for the coagulation/flocculation, adsorption, and ion exchange processes. The reference standard materials which are stable elements, Cesium-133 (Cs-133) and Iodine-127 (I-127), were used for the typical and advanced water treatment processes at the laboratory scale. For the coagulation/flocculation process, three major coagulants were assessed for this process. However, the removal rates of this process were low. For the adsorption process, powdered activated carbon and zeolites were investigated. The powdered activated carbon showed insignificant removal rates for both reference materials. However, synthetic zeolite was an effective process for Cs-133, and the ion exchange method showed high removal rates for both Cs-133 and I-127.

scholarly journals Removal of radio N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) from drinking water by coagulation and Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) adsorption

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Chung ◽  
Y. Yoon ◽  
M. Kim ◽  
S.-B. Lee ◽  
H.-J. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Activated Carbon ◽  
Water Treatment ◽  
Background Electrolyte ◽  
Treatment Plant ◽  
Drinking Water Treatment ◽  
Powdered Activated Carbon ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Solution Ph ◽  
Treatment Processes

Abstract. The presence of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in drinking water supplies has raised concern over its removal by common drinking water treatment processes. A simple detection method based on scintillation spectroscopy has been used to quantify the concentration of 14C-labeled NDMA at various ratios of sample to scintillation liquid. Without sample pretreatment, the method detection limits are 0.91, 0.98, 1.23, and 1.45 ng/L of NDMA at scintillation intensity ratios of 10:10, 5:15, 15:5, and 2.5:17.5 (sample: scintillation liquid), respectively. The scintillation intensity in all cases is linear (R2>0.99) and is in the range of 0 to 100 ng/L of NDMA. In addition, because scintillation intensity is independent of solution pH, conductivity, and background electrolyte ion types, a separate calibration curve is unnecessary for NDMA samples at different solution conditions. Bench-scale experiments were performed to simulate individual treatment processes, which include coagulation and adsorption by powdered activated carbon (PAC), as used in a drinking water treatment plant, and biosorption, a technique used in biological treatment of waste water. The commonly used coagulation process for particulate control and biosorption is ineffective for removing NDMA (<10% by coagulation and <20% by biosorption). However, high doses of PAC may be applied to remove NDMA.

Prediction of powdered activated carbon doses for 2-MIB removal in drinking water treatment using a simplified HSDM approach

Chemosphere ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 156 ◽  
pp. 374-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianwei Yu ◽  
Fong-Chen Yang ◽  
Wei-Nung Hung ◽  
Chia-Ling Liu ◽  
Min Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Activated Carbon ◽  
Water Treatment ◽  
Drinking Water Treatment ◽  
Powdered Activated Carbon

Removal of selected pharmaceuticals by chlorination, coagulation–sedimentation and powdered activated carbon treatment

2008 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 1129-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Simazaki ◽  
J. Fujiwara ◽  
S. Manabe ◽  
M. Matsuda ◽  
M. Asami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Activated Carbon ◽  
Water Treatment ◽  
Drinking Water Treatment ◽  
Powdered Activated Carbon ◽  
Clofibric Acid ◽  
Batch Adsorption ◽  
Raw Water ◽  
Initial Concentration ◽  
Carbon Treatment

Removal property of nine pharmaceuticals (clofibric acid, diclofenac, fenoprofen, gemfibrozil, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketoprofen, naproxen and propyphenazone) by chlorination, coagulation–sedimentation and powdered activated carbon treatment was examined by laboratory-scale experiments under the conditions close to actual drinking water treatment processes. Indomethacin and propyphenazone were completely degraded by chlorination within 30 minutes, but others remained around 30% (naproxen and diclofenac) or more than 80% of the initial concentration after 24 hours. A couple of unidentified peaks in a chromatogram of the chlorinated samples suggested the formation of unknown chlorination by-products. Competitive adsorption was observed when the mixed solution of the target pharmaceuticals was subjected to batch adsorption test with powdered activated carbon. Clofibric acid and ibuprofen, which were relatively less hydrophobic among the nine compounds, persisted around 60% of the initial concentration after 3 hours of contact time. Removal performance in actual drinking water treatment would become lower due to existence of other competitive substances in raw water (e.g. natural organic matter). Coagulation–sedimentation using polyaluminium chloride hardly removed most of the pharmaceuticals even under its optimal dose for turbidity removal. It is suggested that the most part of pharmaceuticals in raw water might persist in the course of conventional drinking water treatments.

Behaviour of brominated and chlorinated flame retardants during drinking water treatment

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 610-617
Author(s):  
F. Sacher ◽  
B. Körner ◽  
A. Thoma ◽  
H.-J. Brauch ◽  
D. Khiari
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Water Treatment ◽  
Flame Retardants ◽  
Chemical Properties ◽  
Drinking Water Treatment ◽  
Laboratory Scale ◽  
The Other ◽  
Removal Rates ◽  
Plastic Materials ◽  
Efficient Option

Flame retardants are chemicals that are added to plastic materials in order to prevent them from catching fire and to slow down the burning process. Due to the widespread occurrence of flame retardants in the environment, it can be expected that especially the more hydrophilic compounds already contaminate raw water resources of water utilities. In this paper results of laboratory-scale experiments on the behaviour of ten brominated and chlorinated flame retardants during different steps of drinking water treatment will be presented. The target compounds were selected based on their production volumes and physical-chemical properties. The final list includes 1- and 2-bromostyrene, 2,4- and 2,6-dibromophenol, tetrabromophthalic acid, tetrachlorophthalic anhydride, chlorendic acid, tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate, tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), and tris(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP). The results obtained from the laboratory-scale experiments clearly indicate that from the selected flame retardants only 1- and 2-bromostyrene are well biodegradable under aerobic conditions whereas the other flame retardants under investigation turned out to be persistent. Flocculation with either iron or aluminium salts is not an efficient option for removal of the selected flame retardants. For 1- and 2-bromostyrene removal rates of ca. 50% can be achieved whereas for the other compounds removal rates are in the range of 10 to 30% even when dosing 50 mg/L of flocculation agent. Oxidation with either ozone or ozone/hydrogen peroxide proved also to be rather inefficient for removal of the flame retardants under investigation, even at elevated doses of oxidant of 10 mg/L. However, results showed that the selected flame retardants adsorb well onto activated carbon and thus GAC adsorption seems to be a promising option for their removal.

Biological ion exchange as an alternative to biological activated carbon for drinking water treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 168 ◽  
pp. 115148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Liu ◽  
Kim Maren Lompe ◽  
Madjid Mohseni ◽  
Pierre R. Bérubé ◽  
Sébastien Sauvé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Activated Carbon ◽  
Water Treatment ◽  
Ion Exchange ◽  
Drinking Water Treatment ◽  
Biological Activated Carbon
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document