Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Operating Parameters Influencing Ultrafiltration of Organic Model Solutions
Operating Parameters Influencing Ultrafiltration of Organic Model Solutions
Vernica Garca Molina Technical Service and Development Dow Water Solutions 27-28th November, Aachen
Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) or an affiliated company of Dow
Ultrafiltration is a size exclusion membrane process that reject particles, pathogens, high molecular weight species, and ultimately lower turbidity. However, UF does not reject any dissolved salts, dissolved organics, or other species like true color, taste & odor, etc.
molecular
macro molecular
micro particle
macro particle
human hair beach sand
paint pigment
Pollen
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
UF
PRINCIPLES OF ULTRAFILTRATION
Why UF? Ultrafiltration membrane development has been accelerated due to more stringent drinking water rules around the world to remove pathogens from drinking water coupled with its potential of easy integrity validation.
Pathogens
[bar = 10 m]
E. Coli Microcolony average cell is ~ 4 m long James Shapiro and Clara Hsu, University of Chicago Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) or an affiliated company of Dow Vernica Garca Molina, Aachen 27-28th November
Concentrate
membrane
membrane
Permeate
Dead-End Module Application Operation Cleaning Drawbacks Hollow fiber (submerged and pressurized) Feed TDS Discontinuous operation Back wash feasible Flux decline or feed pressure increase with time
Permeate
Cross-Flow Spiral wound Feed TDS Continuous operation Back wash not possible With high TDS, higher feed spacer required
Vernica Garca Molina, Aachen 27-28th November
Air Scrub
o Air pressure is <1 bar delivered at the module o Frequency is typically every 6 hours when necessary
PRINCIPLES OF ULTRAFILTRATION Main fields of applications of Ultrafiltration? Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment and reuse Membrane Bioreactors
Hygienization of WWTP Pre-filter before NF/RO
Drinking water processing Pre-treatment for NF/RO Surface water treatment for industrial use
Food industry Pharmaceutical industry Metal processing industry
Seawater pretreatment
Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) or an affiliated company of Dow Vernica Garca Molina, Aachen 27-28th November
PRINCIPLES OF ULTRAFILTRATION
CASE 1 Petrochemical Water Reclamation
Source: Petrochemical plant wastewater Capacity: 560 m3/h Location: Beijing, China Running Time: From 2005 Process: UF Pretreatment UF Feed Water Quality
Item CODcrmg/L TurbidityNTU Oilmg/L NH3-Nmg/L TSSmg/L TDSmg/L Ca2+mg/L Amount 40 5.0 2 1 5 1000 240
High COD
UF RO
DI
PRINCIPLES OF ULTRAFILTRATION
CASE 2 Microelectronics Water Reclamation
Source: Plant industrial wastewater [from cut and grind process] Capacity90 m3/h Location: Shanghai, China Running Time: From 2006 Process: CoagulationSedimentationBag Filter UF
Parameter pH Turbidity CODcr TDS Actived Silica Total Silica Oil NTU mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Unit 7.5 4847 1122 69.1 (15.5) 82.9 91.6 0.08
Vernica Garca Molina, Aachen 27-28th November
Feed water
PRINCIPLES OF ULTRAFILTRATION
CASE 3 High TSS Surface Water Treatment Operational Performance Feed 2 ppm NaOCl before UF System
Process: Raw Water Tank UF Feed Pump Heater Exchanger OMEXELLTM UF
High TSS raw water feed to OMEXELLTM UF directly
RO
Turbidity is less than 0.4 NTU (100%) and less than 0.2 NTU (90%)
TMP is less than 0.5 bar (average) CIP is only once during 2 years operation
PRINCIPLES OF ULTRAFILTRATION
CASE 3 Seawater Pretreatment
Source: Seawater Capacity: 50,000 m3/d UF Permeate and 28,800 m3/d RO Water Location: HeBei, China Running Time: From 2005 Process: Disc-Filter + UF + RO
TMP is less than 0.4bar Without CEB BW Frequency: >30min CIP Frequency: Once/3~4months
STRUCTURE OF THE TALK Overview of Ultrafiltration Experimental Results Objective Experimental Device Discussion of results Conclusions
EXPERIMENTAL PART Objective: Study the influence of some operating parameters on the performance of an UF test unit Concentration of solutes in the Feed Pressure Applied pH of the solution Presence of Calcium
EXPERIMENTAL PART
Ultrafiltration Test Cell
Stirrer Membrane Feed and concentrate Permeate Pressurized air conduction
400 mL 30 kDa (cellulose), 20 kDa and 5 kDa (polyethersulfone) Dextran, Humic Acid, Fulvic Acid, NOM, Cellulose powder, Alginic Acid 300 rpm 1 3 bar Ambient Until a certain amount of permeate is collected
Vernica Garca Molina, Aachen 27-28th November
EXPERIMENTAL PART
Influence of the solute concentration in the feed solution
1 mg/L
3 mg/L
5 mg/L
8 mg/L
10 mg/L
80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
65
60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Permeability vs. Permeate volume. Dextran solutions containing from 1 to 10 mg/L High concentrations higher membrane fouling/cake layer formation
Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) or an affiliated company of Dow Vernica Garca Molina, Aachen 27-28th November
EXPERIMENTAL PART
Influence of the solute concentration in the feed solution
+ Concentration Feed
membrane
membrane
membrane
Permeate
Permeate
Permeate
EXPERIMENTAL PART
Influence of the solute concentration in the feed solution
1 0.9 0.8 30 kDa 20 kDa
30 kDa Membrane
- Concentration
+ Concentration
Retention
Re tention = 1
20 kDa Membrane
- Concentration
+ Concentration
30 kDa membrane Cake layer model: Concentration Passage 20 kDa membrane Difussion Model: concentration difference Passage
Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) or an affiliated company of Dow Vernica Garca Molina, Aachen 27-28th November
EXPERIMENTAL PART
Influence of the transmembrane pressure
33 30 27
1 bar
2 bar
3 bar
Higher transmembrane pressure results in higher permeate production Retention values after UF of solutions containing NOMs and Dextran
1 bar NOM 1R101N (10 mg/mL) 5 kDa 0.65 2 bar 0.57 3 bar 0.45
Flux (mL/m h)
24 21 18 15 12 9
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
0.62
0.44
0.27
Flux vs. Permeate volume. 10 mg/L of Fulvic Acids solutions. 5 kDa Polyethersulfone membrane
EXPERIMENTAL PART
Influence of the pH of the feed solutions
1
pH 4.8
pH 6
pH 8
pH 9.7
64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48
0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 3 4 5
Flux (mL/m h)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
pH
10
The higher the pH: -The membrane is more negatively charged - Dextran more negatively charged due to deprotonation
EXPERIMENTAL PART
Influence of the presence of Ca2+ in the feed solution
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3 g/L Alginic Acid 3 g/L Alginic Acid + 218.2 mg/L CaCl2.2H2O
Flux (L/m h)
Fastest formation of a fouling layer on the surface of the membrane; Higher resistance for the water
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions Flux decline during UF operation still remains an issue for its further development Concentration in feed, applied pressure, pH and presence of divalent cations have been proved to have a direct influence on the process Membrane selection plays a crucial role for the success of the process