Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OZWater Zeta Potential
OZWater Zeta Potential
net/publication/280575005
CITATIONS READS
4 2,139
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Application of H2O2 as algaecide in drinking water reservoirs in the semi-arid Northeast of Brazil View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos J Pestana on 31 July 2015.
The Zetasizer™
ζ‐Potential (mV)
‐10
The Nano ZSP zeta potential analyser was
rigorously tested over the time span of five weeks in
the laboratory using samples obtained from ‐15
surface charge of the particles and colloids in a Figure 1: The effect of (■) no Cl, (▲) 2 mg L-1 Cl,
mixture. The instrument was easy to set up and (●) 5 mg L-1 Cl, in the presence of no algal cell
requiring bench space and a laptop or desktop spike.
computer to operate the analysis software supplied
with the instrument. The software includes analyser
and measurement diagnostic checks and allows
export of results to MS Excel and other file formats.
Pure ethanol is required to wet cells prior to use
and to rinse between samples as well as ultra pure
water.
The sample cells used to analyse zeta potential are
reusable/disposable and in excess of 200 single
measurements were completed without signal
0 rapidly, within minutes following alum addition using
Raw Water Chlorine Alum Slow Mix Sedimentation
zeta potential.
‐5 Treatments with pre chlorination at 2 and 5 mgL-1
increased the zeta potential compared to raw water
at zero, low and medium spiked algal density
ζ‐Potential (mV)
‐10
conditions. Combined treatment using pre
chlorination and alum coagulation was less
‐15
effective than alum alone in neutralising zeta
potential and measured values were -10.2 and -
‐20 10.1 mV respectively for comparable dose rates.
This increased zeta potential suggests increased
‐25 colloid and particle stability resulting in impaired
Treatment Step
removal of NOM, colloids and particles by
Figure 2: The effect of (■) no Cl, (▲) 2 mg L-1 Cl, sedimentation and filtration processes.
and (●) 5 mg L-1 Cl, in the presence of low density This trend was also demonstrated in Figures 2 and
algal cell spike. 3 which presents results for jar tests using raw
water spiked with low and medium algae cell
0 densities respectively. Treatment without pre
Raw Water Chlorine Alum Slow Mix Sedimentation chlorination (alum only) resulted in zeta potential
‐5
values closer to neutrality than that achieved with
pre chlorination. However, for raw water spiked with
high algal cell density (Figure 4), there was no
ζ‐Potential (mV)
‐10
significant difference between zeta potential
following treatment using alum only and pre
‐15 chlorination and alum (p> 0.05).
These results indicate that pre chlorination was not
‐20 beneficial in reducing zeta potential at all spiked
algal cell densities. In fact pre chlorination
increased zeta potential at low and medium spiked
‐25
Treatment Step algal cell densities.
Pre treatment using chlorine has been reported to
Figure 3: The effect of (■) no Cl, (▲) 2 mg L-1 Cl, be beneficial for the removal of algae from water
and (●) 5 mg L-1 Cl, in the presence of medium using treatment processes as a result of algal
density algal cell spike. inactivation (Henderson et al., 2008). Mechanisms
for this include modification of cell structures,
impairment of mobility, and modification of DOC to
0
Raw Water Chlorine Alum Slow Mix Sedimentation
decrease alum demand and to enable auto
flocculation (Henderson et al., 2008). There are
‐5 several drawbacks to pre chlorination including the
formation of disinfection by products such as
ζ‐Potential (mV)
‐20 0.35
100
0.30
WTC‐coag set point
‐25 80
UV254 per cm
Treatment Step 0.25
and 100) together with measured UV254, colour Figure 6: The effect of varying the coagulation dose
and turbidity values for the raw water sample based on WTC-coag model parameters set at (■)
obtained for jar testing. These predicted doses 100, (♦) 90, (▲) 70, and (●) 50.
were used for subsequent jar tests to investigate
the impact of alum dose on zeta potential. The impact of alum dose was then assessed in the
The relationship between WTC-coagTM set point presence of varying green algae densities. As with
and UV254 residual following jar testing with the the non-algal spiked test, preliminary results
indicated no significant difference between alum potential to -13.8 + 1.2 mV (p= 0.003) which was
doses equivalent to WTC-coagTM set points 50 and not significantly different to the values obtained
70. For this reason a single alum dose equivalent to without pre chlorine addition (p>0.005).
a WTC-coagTM set point 75 (44 mg L-1) was used in Interestingly lime addition for pH correction, as a
this test. Results for this test are presented in slaked-slurry, to settled water increased zeta
Figure 7 and a similar trend to that found in Figure potential to approximately -15 mV. However, the
6 can be seen. This illustrates that under the zeta potential post sand filtration was approximately
conditions used, coagulant dose impacted zeta -10 mV.
potential and the presence of green algae did not.
Treatment step
5 Raw Water Flash Mix (Alum) Slow speed Sedimentaion 0.0 7.8
Raw Water Alum LT22 Flocculated Settled Settled + Filtered
Lime
7.6
0 ‐5.0 7.4
100
Zeta Potential (mV)
WTC‐coag
ζ‐Potential (mV)
7.2
pH
‐5 90
91
‐10.0 7
WTC‐coag
6.8
70
75 6.4
WTC‐coag
‐15 ‐20.0 6.2