| Literature DB >> 28671604 |
Joerg Winter1, Benoit Barbeau2, Pierre Bérubé3.
Abstract
Nanofiltration (NF) and tight ultrafiltration (tight UF) membranes are a viable treatment option for high quality drinking water production from sources with high concentrations of contaminants. To date, there is limited knowledge regarding the contribution of concentration polarization (CP) and fouling to the increase in resistance during filtration of natural organic matter (NOM) with NF and tight UF. Filtration tests were conducted with NF and tight UF membranes with molecular weight cut offs (MWCOs) of 300, 2000 and 8000 Da, and model raw waters containing different constituents of NOM. When filtering model raw waters containing high concentrations of polysaccharides (i.e., higher molecular weight NOM), the increase in resistance was dominated by fouling. When filtering model raw waters containing humic substances (i.e., lower molecular weight NOM), the increase in filtration resistance was dominated by CP. The results indicate that low MWCO membranes are better suited for NOM removal, because most of the NOM in surface waters consist mainly of humic substances, which were only effectively rejected by the lower MWCO membranes. However, when humic substances are effectively rejected, CP can become extensive, leading to a significant increase in filtration resistance by the formation of a cake/gel layer at the membrane surface. For this reason, cross-flow operation, which reduces CP, is recommended.Entities:
Keywords: concentration polarization; fouling; nanofiltration; natural organic matter; tight ultrafiltration
Year: 2017 PMID: 28671604 PMCID: PMC5618119 DOI: 10.3390/membranes7030034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Membranes (Basel) ISSN: 2077-0375
Figure 1Experimental setup.
Fouling coefficient k for different filtration tests (ranges correspond to observed minimum/maximum values).
| NOM Constituents | NOM Concentration [mg/L] | Fouling Coefficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MWCO = 300 Da | MWCO = 2000 Da | MWCO = 8000 Da | ||
| SRNOM | 5 | 0.7 (0.5–0.9) | 0.1 (0–0.1) | 0.1 (0.1–0.1) |
| 10 | 3.5 (3.5–3.5) | 0.6 (0–1.1) | 0.2 (0.2–0.2) | |
| Alginate | 5 | 1.1 (0.8–1.6) | 0.8 (0.5–1.1) | 0.8 (0.7–0.9) |
| 10 | 2.1 (2.0–2.2) | 2.1 (1.6–2.4) | 1.6 (1.5–1.7) | |
| SRNOM + Alginate | 4 + 1 | 0.7 (0.4–1.0) | 0.2 (0.1–0.3) | 0.2 (0.2–0.2) |
| 8 + 2 | 5.1 (4.7–5.5) | 1.2 (0.7–2.0) | 0.5 (0.5–0.5) | |
Figure 2Typical size exclusion chromatograms of model raw water and permeate samples: (a) model raw water containing Suwannee River natural organic matter (SRNOM) at 10 mg/L; (b) model raw water containing alginate at 10 mg/L. Dalton values correspond to the molecular weight cut offs (MWCOs) of the different membranes; note that the retention time of the chromatograms is inversely proportional to the log of the molecular weight.
Figure 3Typical results from filtration tests: (a) MWCO = 300 Da and SRNOM at 5 mg/L of DOC, (b) MWCO = 8000 Da and alginate at 5 mg/L of DOC.
Figure 4Relative recovery during post-clean water filtration (a) MWCO = 300 Da; (b) MWCO = 2000 Da; (c) MWCO = 8000 Da; SR5: SRNOM at 5 mg/L; SR10: SRNOM at 10 mg/L; Alg5: Alginate at 5 mg/L; Alg10: Alginate at 10 mg/L; SR4 + Alg1: SRNOM at 4 mg/L + alginate at 1 mg/L; SR8 + Alg2: SRNOM at 8 mg/L + alginate at 2 mg/L; error bars correspond to observed minimum/maximum values).
Figure 5Correlation between Absolute Recovery and Initial Rapid Increase in Resistance (model raw waters containing SRNOM and a mixture of SRNOM + alginate; solid line: linear regression, R2 = 0.97, slope = 1.31 ± 0.35, intercept = 3 × 10 11; p = 0.05; error bars correspond to minimum/maximum values).