混凝-臭氧/吸附-超滤-反渗透组合工艺对页岩气返排液水质净化效能分析

白玉华; 孙玉; 吴明火; 周云; 唐怀彬; 曾艳; 刘百仓

doi:10.13205/j.hjgc.202107015

混凝-臭氧/吸附-超滤-反渗透组合工艺对页岩气返排液水质净化效能分析

doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202107015

白玉华¹,
孙玉^2,3,
吴明火⁴,
周云¹,
唐怀彬¹,
曾艳⁵,
刘百仓^2, ,

1. 成都大学基建处, 成都 610106;
2. 四川大学建筑与环境学院, 成都 610065;
3. 中国石油集团川庆钻探工程有限公司安全环保质量监督检测研究院, 四川广汉 618300;
4. 大连理工大学海洋科学与技术学院, 辽宁大连 116024;
5. 成都市排水有限责任公司, 成都 610052

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金面上项目（51678377，52070134）

详细信息

作者简介:
白玉华(1981-),女,硕士,高级工程师,主要从事水处理技术研究与工程设计工作。baiyuhua@cdu.edu.cn

通讯作者:
刘百仓(1981-),男,博士,教授,主要研究方向为水和污水处理理论与技术研究。bcliu@scu.edu.cn

计量
- 文章访问数: 69
- HTML全文浏览量: 3
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-12-03
- 网络出版日期: 2022-01-18

WATER PURIFICATION EFFICIENCY OF SHALE GAS FLOWBACK WATER BY COAGULATION-OZONE/ADSORPTION-UF-RO COMBINED PROCESS

1. Infrastructure Construction Department, Chengdu University, Chengdu 610106, China;
2. College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China;
3. Safety and Environmental Protection Quality Supervision and Testing Research Institute, CNPC Chuanqing Drilling Engineering Co., Ltd, Guanghan 618300, China;
4. School of Ocean Science and Technology, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China;
5. Chengdu Drainage Co., Ltd, Chengdu 610052, China

摘要

摘要: 页岩气返排液中部分小分子有机物如二甲基苄胺（DMBA）、吲哚啉和6-甲基喹啉较难去除，采用混凝-臭氧/吸附-超滤-反渗透组合工艺处理页岩气返排液，探究了其有机、无机组分的去除规律。结果表明：混凝-臭氧-超滤-反渗透组合工艺对离子的去除率为96.7%~99.86%，对DOC和UV₂₅₄的去除率分别为98.7%和99.13%，对DMBA、吲哚啉和6-甲基喹啉去除率分别为82.02%、98.02%和97.67%；混凝-吸附-超滤-反渗透组合工艺对离子的去除率为95.99%~99.86%，对DOC和UV₂₅₄的去除率分别为95.31%和97.54%，对DMBA、吲哚啉和6-甲基喹啉去除率分别为70.19%、94.70%和87.93%。混凝-臭氧/吸附-超滤-反渗透工艺可有效去除返排液中的离子、DOC和UV₂₅₄，对DMBA、吲哚啉和6-甲基喹啉的去除效果显著，有利于返排液的外部回用。
- 页岩气返排液 /
- 混凝-臭氧/吸附-超滤-反渗透组合工艺 /
- 水质参数 /
- 有机物
Abstract: Some low molecular weight organics, such as dimethylbenzylamine(DMBA), indoline and 6-methylquinoline are difficult to remove from shale gas flowback water(SGFW). The combined process of coagulation-ozonation/adsorption-UF-RO was used to treat the SGFW to explore organic and inorganic components' removal efficiency. The results showed that:the removal rates of ions by coagulation-ozone-UF-RO combination process were 96.7~99.86%, the removal rates of DOC and UV₂₅₄ were 98.7% and 99.13%, and the removal rates of DMBA, indoline and 6-methylquinoline were 82.02%, 98.02% and 97.67%; the removal rates of ions by coagulation-adsorption-UF-RO combination process were 95.99~99.86%, and the removal rates of DOC and UV₂₅₄ were 95.99%~99.86%, the removal rates of DMBA, indoline and 6-methylquinoline were 70.19%, 94.70% and 87.93%. Coagulation-ozonation/adsorption-UF-RO process could effectively remove ions, DOC and UV₂₅₄ in the effluent, and has significant removal effect on DMBA, indoline and 6-methylquinoline. The combined process could effectively ensure the external reuse of SGFW.
- shale gas flowback water /
- coagulation-ozone/adsorption-UF-RO combined process /
- water quality parameters /
- organic compounds

HTML全文

参考文献(25)

[1]	KARGBO D M,WILHELM R G,CAMPBELL D J.Natural gas plays in the Marcellus Shale:challenges and potential opportunities[J].Environmental Science & Technology,2010,44:5679-5684.
[2]	QIN Y,EDWARDS R,TONG F,et al.Can Switching from Coal to Shale Gas Bring Net Carbon Reductions to China?[J].Environmental Science & Technology,2017,51(5):2554-2562.
[3]	SHAFFER D L,CHAVEZ L H A,BEN-SASSON M,et al.Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water:drivers,technologies,and future directions[J].Environmental Science & Technology,2013,47(17):9569-9583.
[4]	JACKSON R B,VENGOSH A,CAREY J W,et al.The environmental costs and benefits of fracking[J].Annual Review of Environment and Resources,2014,39:327-362.
[5]	OLSSON O,WEICHGREBE D,ROSENWINKEL K H.Hydraulic fracturing wastewater in Germany:composition,treatment,concerns[J].Environmental Earth Sciences,2013,70(8):3895-3906.
[6]	ESTRADA J M,BHAMIDIMARRI R.A review of the issues and treatment options for wastewater from shale gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing[J].Fuel,2016,182:292-303.
[7]	BARBOT E,VIDIC N S,GREGORY K B,et al.Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality parameters of produced waters from Devonian-Age shale following hydraulic fracturing[J].Environmental Science & Technology,2013,47(6):2562-2569.
[8]	ROSENBLUM J,THURMAN E M,FERRER I,et al.Organic chemical characterization and mass balance of a hydraulically fractured well:from fracturing fluid to produced water over 405 days[J].Environmental Science & Technology,2017,51(23):14006-14015.
[9]	KONG F X,CHEN J F,WANG H M,et al.Application of coagulation-UF hybrid process for shale gas fracturing flowback water recycling:performance and fouling analysis[J].Journal of Membrane Science,2017,524:460-469.
[10]	BUTKOVSKYI A,BRUNING H,KOOLS S A E,et al.Organic pollutants in shale gas flowback and produced waters:identification,potential ecological impact,and implications for treatment strategies[J].Environmental Science & Technology,2017,51(9):4740-4754.
[11]	HE C,WANG X H,LIU W S,et al.Microfiltration in recycling of Marcellus Shale flowback water:solids removal and potential fouling of polymeric microfiltration membranes[J].Journal of Membrane Science,2014,462:88-95.
[12]	GREGORY K B,VIDIC R D,DZOMBAK D A.Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing[J].Elements,2009,7(3):181-186.
[13]	PIEMONTEA V,PRISCIANDAROB M,MASCISA L,et al.Reverse osmosis membranes for treatment of produced water:a process analysis[J].Desalination and Water Treatment,2015,55(3):565-574.
[14]	XIONG B,ZYDNEY A L,KUMAR M.Fouling of microfiltration membranes by flowback and produced waters from the Marcellus shale gas play[J].Water Research,2016,99:162-170.
[15]	BUTKOVSKYI A,FABER A H,WANG Y,et al.Removal of organic compounds from shale gas flowback water[J].Water Research,2018,138:47-55.
[16]	LESTER Y,FERRER I,THURMAN E M,et al.Characterization of hydraulic fracturing flowback water in Colorado:implications for water treatment[J].Science of The Total Environment,2015,512/513:637-644.
[17]	CHANG H Q,LIU B C,YANG B X,et al.An integrated coagulation-ultrafiltration-nanofiltration process for internal reuse of shale gas flowback and produced water[J].Separation and Purification Technology,2019,211:310-321.
[18]	HAO H W,HUANG X,GAO C J,et al.Application of an integrated system of coagulation and electrodialysis for treatment of wastewater produced by fracturing[J].Desalination and Water Treatment,2014,55(8):2034-2043.
[19]	JIANG Q Y,RENTSCHLER J,PERRONE R,et al.Application of ceramic membrane and ion-exchange for the treatment of the flowback water from Marcellus shale gas production[J].Journal of Membrane Science,2013,431:55-61.
[20]	GUO C,CHANG H Q,LIU B C,et al.A combined ultrafiltration-reverse osmosis process for external reuse of Weiyuan shale gas flowback and produced water[J].Environmental Science:Water Research & Technology,2018,4(7):942-955.
[21]	SHANG W,TIRAFERRI A,HE Q,et al.Reuse of shale gas flowback and produced water:effects of coagulation and adsorption on ultrafiltration,reverse osmosis combined process[J].Science of the Total Environment,2019,689:47-56.
[22]	TANG P,LIU B C,ZHANG Y L,et al.Sustainable reuse of shale gas wastewater by pre-ozonation with ultrafiltration-reverse osmosis[J].Chemical Engineering Journal,2020,392:123743.
[23]	CHANG H Q,QU F S,LIU B C,et al.Hydraulic irreversibility of ultrafiltration membrane fouling by humic acid:effects of membrane properties and backwash water composition[J].Journal of Membrane Science,2015,493:723-733.
[24]	WANG J L,BAI Z Y.Fe-based catalysts for heterogeneous catalytic ozonation of emerging contaminants in water and wastewater[J].Chemical Engineering Journal,2017,312:79-98.
[25]	BELLONA C,DREWES J E,XU P,et al.Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment:a literature review[J].Water Research,2004,38(12):2795-2809.