| Literature DB >> 34886083 |
Jianchao Shi1, Yongrui Yang1, Qitao Yi1, Jin Zhang1, Lianxiang Wang1.
Abstract
Transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) have been described as a class of particulate acidic polysaccharides, which are commonly found in various surface waters. Due to their unique physicochemical characteristics, they have recently been receiving increasing attention on their effects in water treatment. Currently, TEP are commonly known as clear, gel-like polysaccharides. This review first introduced the definition of TEP in water treatment and the relationship between TEP and algal organic matter (AOM). Further, in the review, the authors attempt to offer a holistic view and critical analysis concerning the research on TEPs in source water reservoirs, water plants and membrane treatment processes. It was clearly demonstrated in this review that the formation of TEP in source water reservoirs is largely related to water quality and phytoplankton, and the seasonal water stratification may indirectly affect the formation of TEP. In the waterworks, the relationship between TEP and water treatment process is mutual and there is limited research on this relationship. Finally, the mechanism of TEP-induced membrane fouling and the effect of alleviating TEP-induced membrane fouling is discussed in this review. The TEP removed by ultrafiltration can be recombined after membrane, and the recombination mechanism may be an important way to reduce reverse osmosis membrane contamination.Entities:
Keywords: algal organic matter; drinking water treatment; membrane fouling; source water reservoir; transparent exopolymer particles
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34886083 PMCID: PMC8656632 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182312344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Dynamic relationship between the three pools of EPS. Arrows indicate possible conversions between the pools. The figure is from Thornton (2001) [18].
Overview of TEP concentrations in fresh water.
| Sample Type | pTEP | cTEP | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| μg Xeq·L−1 | μg Xeq·L−1 | ||
| Neuse River Estuary (Jan Apr), USA | 991~1712 | / | [ |
| Neuse River Estuary (May–Aug), USA | 805~1801 | / | [ |
| Neuse River Estuary (Aug), USA | >3500 | / | [ |
| Pearl River Estuary (Jan), China | 88.7~1586.9 | / | [ |
| Pearl River Estuary (Aug), China | 521.5~1727.4 | / | [ |
| Lake Taihu, China | 0~5190 | / | [ |
| Lake Kinneret, Israel | 759~2385 | / | [ |
| Mediterranean lakes, Spain | 66~9038 | / | [ |
| North temperate lakes, USA | 36~1462 | / | [ |
| Quentar Reservoir, Spain | 1.9~335.2 | / | [ |
| Surface water, Belgium | 14.8 ± 14 | 684 ± 94 | [ |
| Ground water, Belgium | <5 | <50 | [ |
| Secondary wastewater effluent, Belgium | 102 ± 20 | 1470 ± 189 | [ |
| Surface water in a pond, Belgium | 2~143 | 5~137 | [ |
| Meuse River (Jul), The Netherlands | ~105 | ~165 | [ |
| Lake IJssel (Jun), The Netherlands | ~110 | ~500 | [ |
| Gent-Terneuzen canal (Jul), Belgium | ~80 | ~330 | [ |
| River Estuary (Jul), Belgium | ~230 | ~290 | [ |
| Surface water, The Netherlands | 990 | / | [ |
“/” means there is no data available.
The removal of TEP by different water treatment processes reported in literature.
| Water Treatment Processes | Feed Water | Key Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prechlorination | Secondary wastewater effluent | Increased cTEP and pTEP concentrations with respectively 34 and 41% | [ |
| Coagulation+Sedimentation | Surface water | A decrease of cTEP amount and an increase of pTEP weight, while total TEP concentrations did not change significantly | [ |
| Coagulation+Flotation | Surface water | The pTEP amount stayed minimal and the cTEP concentration decreased by 70% | [ |
| River water | Decreased the total TEP concentration further with 70% | [ | |
| Filtration | Effluent after Coagulation+Sedimentation | A good option to remove these coagulated pTEP (decrease ~90%) but was a too rough method to abate the smaller cTEP (decrease ~5%) | [ |
| Effluent after Coagulation+Flotation | The pTEP amount stayed minimal and the cTEP concentration increased | [ | |
| In-line coagulation | The removal of TEP was 70% while the remaining fraction of TEP was totally removed by UF | [ | |
| Coagulation Effluent | TEP concentrations in the input seawater were diminished by 27% (±19) after passing the stage of the sand/ mixed-bed filter | [ | |
| Activated carbon | Filter Effluent | Decreased the cTEP concentration further with 50% | [ |
| Biological activated carbon filter | Seawater | The AOC and TEP concentration in seawater was reduced significantly by 90% and 84%, respectively | [ |
The removal of TEP by different membrane processes reported in literature.
| Membrane Processes | Feed Water | Rejection Rates | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microfiltration | Canal water | 0% pTEP, cTEP ~70% | [ |
| Estuary water | ~65% pTEP, ~50% cTEP | [ | |
| Surface water | 95% pTEP, 97% cTEP ※ | [ | |
| Ultrafiltration | Surface water | 100% pTEP, 17~67% cTEP | [ |
| coagulation effluent | 100% pTEP | [ | |
| Filtration effluent | 95% pTEP, 97% cTEP ※ | [ | |
| coagulation effluent | ~100% pTEP, ~99% cTEP | [ | |
| coagulation effluent | 26~29% total TEP | [ | |
| Reverse osmosis | UF effluent | 100% | [ |
| Surface water | 100% | [ |
※ UF membranes with a pore size as big as 100 nm.
Figure 2Membrane fouling mechanisms by TEP described in the literature. Information is from Villacorte (2013) [47] and Meng (2013, 2018, 2019) [46,48,49].
The investment estimates of common combined pretreatment processes. Information is from Wu et al. (2021).
| Pretreatment Processes | Investment | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro-Flocculation + Multi-media Filtration | 7.0~10.0 | |
| Coagulation + Sedimentation + Filtration + UF | 10.0~13.0 | Includes sludge treatment systems |
| Micro-Flocculation + Filtration + UF | 11.0~13.0 | |
| Coagulation + Flotation + Filtration + UF | 10.0~14.0 | Includes sludge treatment systems |