| Literature DB >> 34940491 |
Xianghao Meng1, Fukuan Wang2, Shujuan Meng1, Rui Wang1, Zhongyuan Mao1, Yue Li1, Meifeng Yu1, Xuye Wang1, Qian Zhao3, Linyan Yang4.
Abstract
It is difficult to recognize specific fouling mechanisms due to the complexity of practical feed water, thus the current studies usually employ foulant surrogates to carry out research, such as alginate and xanthan gum. However, the representativeness of these surrogates is questionable. In this work, the classical surrogates (i.e., alginate and xanthan gum) were systematically studied, and results showed that they behaved differently during filtration. For the mixture of alginate and xanthan gum, both filtration behaviors and adsorption tests performed by quartz-crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (QCM-D) indicated that alginate plays a leading role in fouling development. Furthermore, by examining the filtration behaviors of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) extracted from practical source water, it turns out that the gel layer formation is responsible for EPS fouling, and the properties of gel layer formed by EPS share more similarities with that formed from pectin instead of alginate. In addition, with the use of experimental data sets extracted from this study and our previous studies, a modeling method was established and tested by the support vector machine (SVM) to predict complex filtration behaviors. Results showed that the small differences of fouling mechanisms lying between alginate and pectin cannot be recognized by Hermia's models, and SVM can show a discrimination as high as 76.92%. As such, SVM may be a powerful tool to predict complex filtration behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: extracellular polymeric substances; membrane fouling; support vector machine; surrogates of foulants
Year: 2021 PMID: 34940491 PMCID: PMC8703382 DOI: 10.3390/membranes11120990
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
The concentration parameters of the sample solution.
| Polysaccharides (mg/L) | Ca2+ (mM) | Mg2+ (mM) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Alginate (50 mg/L) | 0 | 0, 1 |
| 1 | 0, 1, 4 | ||
| Xanthan gum | 0 | 0, 1 | |
| 1 | 0, 1, 4 | ||
| B | Alginate and xanthan gum | 0 | 0, 1 |
| 1 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 0 | ||
| Alginate and xanthan gum | 0 | 0 | |
| C | Alginate (50 mg/L) | 0, 1, 2, 6, 10 | 0 |
| Pectin (10, 50 mg/L) | 0, 1, 2, 6, 10 | 0 |
Figure 1Filtration behaviors of (a) alginate and (b) xanthan gum (50 mg/L) in the presence of divalent cations.
Figure 2(a) The filtration behaviors and (b) distribution of resistance of mixed polysaccharides (mg/L) with the presence of divalent cations.
Adsorption mass of alginate and xanthan gum deposited on the gold-coated quartz crystal sensors (ng/cm2).
| Polysaccharide | Without Cations (ng) | Mg2+ (ng) | Ca2+ (ng) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alginate | 0.4754 ± 0.0292 | 5.8891 ± 0.0652 | 5.9683 ± 0.0597 |
| Xanthan gum | 0.2066 ± 0.0330 | 2.0566 ± 0.0764 | 2.2125 ± 1.4847 |
Figure 3(a) The flux at the equilibrium of pectin and alginate (50 mg/L) with a series concentration of Ca2+; (b) the morphology characteristics of membrane surface formed by alginate and pectin after 120 min filtration test.
Figure 4The filtration behaviors of EPS with the addition of a series of concentrations of Ca2+.
Five representative polysaccharides to reflect different mechanisms of membrane fouling [8].
| Number | Model | Polysaccharide |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Standard blocking | Agarose (AG) |
| 2 | Gel | Alginate (ALG) |
| 3 | Complete blocking | Starch (S) |
| 4 | Intermediate blocking | Xanthan gum (XG) |
| 5 | Gel-like | Pectin (P) |
Confusion matrix (taking the five classes as examples).
| Correct Class | Predicted Class | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG (1) | ALG (2) | S (3) | XG (4) | P (5) | Total | |
| AG (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ALG (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| S (3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| XG (4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| P (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 5The simulation results of categories and accuracy of training with SVM (the accuracy of training: (I) tranching: 1, 2, 3, 4 (68.42%); (II) tranching: 1, 2 and 5, 3, 4 (72.73%); (III) tranching: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (59.09%); (IV) tranching: 2, 5 (76.92%)). (The meaning of the numbers is shown in Table 3).