scholarly journals Reply to Ivy et al. Comment on “Khairul Zaman et al. Eco-Friendly Coagulant versus Industrially Used Coagulants: Identification of Their Coagulation Performance, Mechanism and Optimization in Water Treatment Process. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9164”

Author(s):  
Nadiah Khairul Zaman ◽  
Rosiah Rohani ◽  
Izzati Izni Yusoff ◽  
Muhammad Azraei Kamsol ◽  
Siti Aishah Basiron ◽  
...  

We appreciate very much the interest of Ivy et al. in our work [...]

Author(s):  
Afia Ivy ◽  
Kristian Dubrawski ◽  
Caetano Dorea

In a recent contribution by Zaman and colleagues, a few issues were noted on the justification of their study, which performed a comparative assessment of chitosan as a proposed alternative to aluminum-based coagulants for drinking water treatment applications. We have provided further clarity around such issues, which apply to other studies on the same theme.


Author(s):  
Nadiah Khairul Zaman ◽  
Rosiah Rohani ◽  
Izzati Izni Yusoff ◽  
Muhammad Azraei Kamsol ◽  
Siti Aishah Basiron ◽  
...  

The evaluation of complex organic and inorganic coagulant’s performances and their relationships could compromise the surface water treatment process time and its efficiency. In this work, process optimization was investigated by comparing an eco-friendly chitosan with the industrially used coagulants namely aluminum sulfate (alum), polyaluminum chloride (PAC), and aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) in compliance with national drinking water standards. To treat various water samples from different treatment plants with turbidity and pH ranges from 20–826.3 NTU and 5.21–6.80, respectively, 5–20 mg/L coagulant dosages were varied in the presence of aluminum, ferum, and manganese. Among all, 10 mg/L of the respective ACH and chitosan demonstrated 97% and 99% turbidity removal in addition to the removal of the metals that complies with the referred standard. However, chitosan owes fewer sensitive responses (turbidity and residual metal) with the change in its input factors (dosage and pH), especially in acidic conditions. This finding suggested its beneficial role to be used under the non-critical dosage monitoring. Meanwhile, ACH was found to perform better than chitosan only at pH > 7.4 with half dosage required. In summary, chitosan and ACH could perform equally at a different set of optimum conditions. This optimization study offers precise selections of coagulants for a practical water treatment operation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1867-1872
Author(s):  
Florina Fabian ◽  
Silvia Fiore ◽  
Giuseppe Genon ◽  
Deborah Panepinto ◽  
Valentin Nedeff ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1826-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong-mei Liu ◽  
Fu-yi Cui ◽  
Ya-qin Wu ◽  
Tao Lin ◽  
Min Zhang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-256
Author(s):  
Leonie Asfora Sarubbo ◽  
Alexandre Augusto Paredes Selva Filho ◽  
Lais Alexandre do Nascimento ◽  
Raquel Diniz Rufino ◽  
Juliana Moura de Luna ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document