Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Pilot Study Analysis of Three Different Processes in Drinking Water Treatment
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Environmental Engineering Research
  • Volume 16, Issue 4,  2011, pp.237-242
  • Publisher : Korean Society of Environmental Engineering
  • DOI : 10.4491/eer.2011.16.4.237
 Title & Authors
Pilot Study Analysis of Three Different Processes in Drinking Water Treatment
Kim, Dae-Ho; Lee, Byoung-Ho;
  PDF(new window)
In this study, three pilot-scale plants with the capacity 30 /day were designed and set up to treat reservoir water for the production of drinking water. Three treatment processes were compared in the pilot testing: process 1 (coagulation- flocculation- sedimentationsand filtration- ozone- BAC); process 2 (coagulation- flocculation- sedimentation- microfiltration-ozone- BAC); and process 3 (coagulation- flocculation- sedimentation- sand filtration- GAC). The quality of water has been evaluated on the basis of selected parameters such as turbidity, color, consumption of , dissolved organic carbon (DOC), trihalomethane formation potential (THMFP), geosmin and 2-MIB. A detailed assessment of performance was carried out during a five months operation. Process 2 was found to have better removal efficiency of DOC, THMFP, geosmin and 2-MIB than process 1 and process 3 under identical conditions, although the removal rate of color was found to be the same in the three cases.
Activated carbon;Drinking water;Microfiltration;Ozonation;Sand filtration;
 Cited by
Bottino A, Capannelli C, Del Borghi A, Colombino M, Conio O. Water treatment for drinking purpose: ceramic microfiltration application. Desalination 2001;141:75-79. crossref(new window)

Fiksdal L, Leiknes T. The effect of coagulation with MF/UF membrane filtration for the removal of virus in drinking water. J. Membr. Sci. 2006;279:364-371. crossref(new window)

Kim HS, Takizawa S, Ohgaki S. Application of microfiltration systems coupled with powdered activated carbon to river water treatment. Desalination 2007;202:271-277. crossref(new window)

Xia S, Li X, Zhang Q, Xu B, Li G. Ultrafiltration of surface water with coagulation pretreatment by streaming current control. Desalination 2007;204:351-358. crossref(new window)

Bao ML, Griffini O, Santianni D, Barbieri K, Burrini D, Pantani F. Removal of bromate ion from water using granular activated carbon. Water Res. 1999;33:2959-2970. crossref(new window)

Lalezary S, Pirbazari M, McGuire MJ. Evaluating activated carbons for removing low concentrations of taste- and odor-producing organics. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 1986;78:76-82.

Zhao ZY, Gu JD, Fan XJ, Li HB. Molecular size distribution of dissolved organic matter in water of the Pearl River and trihalomethane formation characteristics with chlorine and chlorine dioxide treatments. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006;134:60-66. crossref(new window)

Eaton AD, Franson MA, American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 21st ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2005.

Bryant EA, Fulton GP, Budd GC, Hazen and Sawyer. Disinfection alternatives for safe drinking water. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1992.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Drinking water regulations and health advisories. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water; 1996.

Suffet IH, Corado A, Chou D, McGuire MJ, Butterworth S. AWWA: taste and odor survey. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 1996;88:168-180.

Cook D, Newcombe G, Sztajnbok P. The application of powdered activated carbon for MIB and geosmin removal: predicting PAC doses in four raw waters. Water Res. 2001;35:1325-1333. crossref(new window)