RESUMO

The combination of photocatalysis and membrane filtration in a single reactor has been proposed, since the photocatalytic treatment may degrade the pollutants retained by the membrane and reduce fouling. However, polymeric membranes can be susceptible to degradation by UV radiation and free radicals. In the present study, five commercial polymeric membranes were exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation before and after applying a sol-gel coating with TiO2 nanoparticles. Membrane stability was characterized by changes in hydrophilicity as well as analysis of soluble substances and nanoparticles detached into the aqueous medium, and by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscope (SEM), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) for structural, morphological, and elemental distribution analysis, respectively. The TiO2 coating conferred photocatalytic properties to the membranes and protected them during 6 h of UV radiation exposures, reducing or eliminating chemical and morphological changes, and in some cases, improving their mechanical resistance. A selected commercial nanofiltration membrane was coated with TiO2 and used in a hybrid reactor with a low-pressure UV lamp, promoting photocatalysis coupled with cross-flow filtration in order to remove 17α-ethinylestradiol spiked into an aqueous matrix, achieving an efficiency close to 100% after 180 min of combined filtration and photocatalysis, and almost 80% after 90 min.

RESUMO

Neste trabalho foi mostrada a influência do tipo de material suporte: P4 (plástico reciclado rugoso, diâmetro médio de 2,31 mm, densidade de 900 kg.m-3, superfície específica potencial de 2.596 m².m-3sup) e P5 (polietileno, pouco rugoso, forma cilíndrica, diâmetro médio de 10 mm, densidade de 880 kg.m-3, superfície específica potencial de 3.075m².m-³sup) utilizados em dois reatores biológicos de leito móvel, fluxo contínuo, na remoção de carbono e nitrificação de esgoto sanitário, os quais foram divididos em duas fases, de acordo com a idade do lodo (IL): fase A: IL de 10 dias e fase B: IL de 3 dias. Foram aplicadas cargas orgânicas superficiais médias de 4,0 kgDQO.m-2.d-1 (P4) e de 4,1 kgDQO.m-2.d-1 (P5); e cargas superficiais de nitrogênio de 0,63 kgN.m-2.d-1 (P5) e de 0,66 kgN.m-2.d-1 (P5). Para o material P4, a remoção média foi de 87 por cento de carbono e 83 por cento de nitrogênio (fase A) e 80 por cento de carbono e 77 por cento de nitrogênio (fase B). Para o P5, remoção de 63 por cento de carbono e 55 por cento de nitrogênio (Fase A) e 59 por cento de carbono e de nitrogênio (fase B). Com base nos resultados obtidos, verificou-se que a remoção de carbono e nitrogênio não foi influenciada pela idade do lodo, mas pelo tipo de material suporte (forma ou características de superfície) e superfície disponível para o crescimento da biomassa.

This paper presented the influence of material support kind: P4 (rugous recycled plastic, medium diameter of 2.31 mm, density of 900 kg.m-3, specific surface potential of 2,596 m².m-3sup) and P5 (polietilene, cilindric shape, medium diameter of 10 mm, density of 880 kg.m-3, specific surface potential of 3,075m².m-3sup) used in two continuous flux biological moving bed reactors using different material support to remove nitrogen and carbon from sewage, which was divided in two phases according to sludge retention time (SRT): phase A: SRT of 10 days and phase B: SRT of 3 days. The organic loading rates applied were 4.0 kgCOD.m-2.d-1 (P4) and 4.1 kgCOD.m-2.d-1 (P5); and the nitrogen loading rates applied were 0.63 kgN.m-2.d-1 and 0.66 kgN.m-2.d-1 for P4 and P5, respectively. The support P4 achieved efficiencies of 87 percent for total carbon removal and 83 percent for nitrogen removal during phase A. These efficiencies slightly decreased to 80 and 77 percent for total carbon and nitrogen, respectively (phase B). The support P5 got removal efficiencies of 63 percent for total carbon and 55 percent for nitrogen (phase A) and 59 percent for total carbon and nitrogen (phase B). These results showed that the total carbon and nitrogen removal efficiencies were not affected by the SRT, but by the kind of support used (carrier geometry or surface characteristics) and available specific surface area for biomass growth.