11.07.2015 Views

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

AWWARF (1998) also per<strong>for</strong>med UF pilot-scale tests. Single element pilot tests wereper<strong>for</strong>med on two groundwaters, one with a DOC level <strong>of</strong> 11 mg/L <strong>and</strong> one with a DOC level <strong>of</strong> 1mg/L, <strong>and</strong> a spiked, finished surface water. <strong>Arsenic</strong> removal results from these tests are shown inTable 2-6.TABLE 2-6<strong>Arsenic</strong> <strong>Removal</strong> by UF at Pilot-ScaleMembrane MWCO <strong>Water</strong> Type As Species As RejectionDesal GM2540F 8,000 High DOC GW Total As 70%Low DOC GW Total As 30%Desal GM2540F 8,000Finished SWV 47%III 10%As seen in Table 2-6, arsenic removal varied with DOC levels, being much higher in the highDOC groundwater (70%) than in the low DOC groundwater (30%). The authors postulated that thisdifference was due to a reduction in electrostatic <strong>for</strong>ces caused by adsorption <strong>of</strong> NOM to themembrane surface. Adsorption <strong>of</strong> NOM would reduce the surface charge <strong>of</strong> the membrane <strong>and</strong> would,in effect, increase the repulsion towards negatively charged arsenic compounds. Increases in theapparent size <strong>of</strong> the arsenic molecules through “bridging” with humic substances was ruled out sincea concurrent increase in UV 254 removal was not seen. In contrast to DOC levels, changes in flux <strong>and</strong>recovery did not seem to impact the arsenic rejection rate. As shown in Table 2-6, testing on thefinished surface water showed fairly effective removal <strong>of</strong> As(V), but unimpressive As(III) removal.Considering the MWCO, however, these removals were expected.2.5.6 Nan<strong>of</strong>iltrationNan<strong>of</strong>iltration membranes are capable <strong>of</strong> removing significant portions <strong>of</strong> the dissolvedarsenic compounds in natural waters due to their small pore size. NF will primarily remove divalentions (e.g., Ca, Mg), but not monovalent salts (e.g., Na, Cl). Through size exclusion, NF can removeboth dissolved As(V) <strong>and</strong> As(III). This makes NF a reliable arsenic removal process <strong>for</strong> groundwaterwhich contains up to 90% dissolved arsenic (AWWARF, 1998). The small pore size, however,makes NF membranes more prone to fouling than UF or MF membranes. The application <strong>of</strong> NF <strong>for</strong>2-33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!