Ionics Technical Paper
Using Membrane Filtration as
Presented at the 2000 North
American Biennial Conference
of the American Desalting
Association on August 7, 2000.
Copyright © 2000, ADA.
TP-388 E-US 0800-286
Printed on Recycled Paper in the USA
Pretreatment for Reverse Osmosis
to Improve System Performance
by Antonia J. M. von Gottberg and Janet M. Persechino, Ionics, Incorporated
Introduction
Membrane filtration has been used
for many years as pretreatment to
reverse osmosis (RO) for industrial
applications. This paper will discuss
various configurations of membrane
filtration systems, their advantages
for RO pretreatment over more
conventional pretreatment, and will
use several case studies to illustrate
the benefits of membrane filtration.
RO Pretreatment
The need for appropriate pretreat-
ment to ensure optimum performance
of RO systems is well understood. RO
system suppliers usually require the
SDI15 (15 minute Silt Density Index)
of the feed to the RO to be less than 5,
and generally recommend that the
SDI15 should be less than 3 to
minimize problems caused by
suspended solids blocking the brine
spacers in an RO membrane module.
When RO was first introduced to the
marketplace, many applications of RO
treated brackish groundwater.These
well waters tend to be low in
suspended solids, and so, generally, it
is possible to achieve an SDI15 of less
than 3 with simple multi-media filters
followed by 5 micron cartridge filters.
As RO has become widely accepted
for both industrial and potable
applications, the water sources that
are being used to feed RO systems
have become more and more
challenging. For example, in the past,
many systems designed to produce
boiler feed water from surface water
sources used mixed-bed ion exchange
directly to demineralize the surface
water. Today, it is frequently more cost
effective to use RO as a pre-
demineralizer before either mixed-bed
ion exchange or electrodeionization
(EDI), to produce boiler feed water.
Surface water sources usually have
high levels of suspended solids and
bacteria. In some cases, multi-media
filters are sufficient to treat the water
to feed an RO system, but in other
cases a more complicated system of
coagulation, flocculation, clarification
and filtration is needed to achieve an
SDI15 of 3. This conventional system
consumes large quantities of chemicals,
produces sludge, and requires
operator attention to ensure that
the appropriate chemical dosing
is maintained as the surface water
quality varies.
Conventional RO pretreatment for
surface water and other challenging
water sources such as secondary-
treated municipal effluent, recycled
industrial waste, and some open
intake seawaters, is expensive in
capital cost and expensive to operate.
When conventional systems are
operated well, they can achieve an
SDI15 of less than 3. There are many
systems in operation using con-
ventional pretreatment to an RO
system that operate with few
problems. However, upsets in the
performance of a conventional be expected to be larger than the scale water treatment, but are used
system can lead to solids causing nominal pore size. The pore size frequently in food and beverage
excessive brine spacer plugging variation depends on the applications as well as for the
and increased pressure drop on the membrane type and manufacturing treatment of industrial waste. Flat
concentrate side of the membrane. process. sheet UF is applied to some niche
Overdosing or use of the wrong applications, but generally is not
chemicals in a conventional pre- Filtrate Water Quality competitive with spiral wound and
treatment system can increase Both UF and MF will remove hollow fiber technologies.
transmembrane pressure, some- suspended particles, algae and
bacteria. UF will also remove Spiral Wound UF
times irreversibly. The result of
viruses. Table 1 shows the expected Spiral wound UF has been used
upsets such as those described
filtrate water quality from MF and for over 15 years as pretreatment to
above will increase power
UF systems and compares with RO systems for industrial
consumption, increase chemical
multi-media filtration. applications such as the production
cleanings, reduce membrane life,
Microfiltration will guarantee an of ultrapure water from surface
and overall, increase the system’s
SDI15 less than 3 regardless of water.[1,2,3]
operating and maintenance costs.
variation in the feed water quality. Spiral wound UF modules look
Membrane Filtration Ultrafiltration usually achieves an identical to spiral wound RO mod-
SDI15 below 2, frequently below 1. ules, and are housed in pressure
Problems such as those listed above
The lower SDIs guarantee the water vessels identical to those used for
have led to a growing number of
quality to the RO system to ensure RO membranes. The membrane
people selecting membrane
that the RO is easy to operate and material is usually polysulfone.
filtration for RO pretreatment.
maintain. The removal of Feed water, pressurized to about
Membrane filtration is generally
suspended solids prevents fouling 20-100 psi, is fed to one end of the
considered to include both micro-
and blockage of the RO brine spiral module. Feed water travels
filtration (MF) and ultrafiltration
spacer. The elimination of large across the feed spacer, and is forced
(UF). Microfiltration ranges in size
quantities of chemicals from the through the membrane, leaving
from approximately 0.05 µm to
pretreatment avoids the risk of behind suspended solids and
1.0 µm. Ultrafiltration is expressed
overdosing. The removal of bacteria particulates larger than the mem-
in terms of molecular weight
by a membrane process reduces a brane MWCO. Filtered water then
cut-off (MWCO), and ranges from
potential source of bacteria into the travels in a spiral to the filtrate core
1,000 MWCO for a very tight UF
RO system, which should help to tube at the center of the membrane
membrane to approximately
reduce bio-fouling. module, from where it can be
500,000 MWCO for a very open UF
transported out of the membrane
membrane. There is some overlap
Membrane Configurations module as UF product.
between these two ranges, so a
Ultrafiltration and microfiltration Most spiral UF membranes
membrane with a pore size that
membranes are available in a num- cannot be physically backwashed,
might be considered to be a loose
ber of configurations. These include defined as applying filtered water to
UF membrane might also be
hollow fiber, spiral wound, flat the opposite side of the membrane,
considered to be a tight MF mem-
sheet, tubular and ceramic. Tubular because the membrane coating
brane depending on the industry.
and ceramic membranes are would come away from its backing
For comparison, a 100,000 MWCO
generally not found to be cloth. Hence, the solids that are
membrane has a pore size of about
economical when applied to large- filtered out of the water by the
0.01µm. Membrane sizes are
usually nominal. A generally accepted
definition is that a membrane with Table 1: Filtrate Water Quality
a given pore size or MWCO would
Water Quality Multimedia MF UF
be expected to remove 90% of
Turbidity 0.5 NTU < 0.1 NTU < 0.1 NTU
material of this size. The largest
pores in these membranes would SDI15 3-5 <3 <2

2
membrane are removed by means
of a crossflow velocity that contin-
uously scours the membrane
surface. To maintain a crossflow
velocity at the recommended levels,
a portion of water that enters the
system as feed leaves as concen-
trate. To achieve high water
recovery, roughly half of this water
is recycled to the feed stream, with
a blowdown stream used to remove
solids from the system.
Over time, the spiral wound UF
membrane system will foul. The
feed pressures will increase from
20 psi to up to 100 psi over an oper-
ating cycle to maintain production.
Once the feed pressure reaches its
maximum design value, a chemical
clean-in-place (CIP) is performed.
A typical operating cycle ranges
in length from a few weeks to
several months.
typically 0.5 - 1 mm diameter.
Several thousand hollow fibers are
bundled into a membrane element.
At either one or both ends of the
membrane element, the fibers are
potted in epoxy. Feed water can
either be fed to the inside of the
fibers, with filtrate passing to the
outside of the fibers (inside-out),
or else from the outside of the
fibers, with filtrate passing from
the inside of the fibers (outside-in).
Membranes are manufactured from
several different materials, depend-
ing on the membrane supplier.
Typical membrane materials
include polysulfone, PVDF, poly-
propylene, polyacrylonitrile,
polyethylene and polyethersulfone.
Many systems mount the hollow
fiber modules vertically. A more
compact design mounts the
membrane modules in horizontal
membrane housings similar to
RO vessels.[5]
Hollow fiber systems are typically
operated in a dead-end mode.
Particulates are removed from the
membrane surface by means of a
physical backwash that forces the
particulates out of the membrane
pores and away from the surface of
the membranes. The backwash may
occur every 20 minutes to every few
hours depending on the system and
the feed water source. Since the sys-
tem operates in a dead-end mode,
operating pressures are generally
low (usually around 10 psi), and
there is no recirculation stream
requiring extra pumping power.
Over time, the physical backwash
will not remove some membrane
fouling. Most membrane systems
allow the feed pressure to gradually
increase over time to around 30 psi

Hollow Fiber UF and MF

Over the last five years, hollow Table 2: Hollow Fiber Versus Spiral Wound Membranes
fiber membrane systems for
membrane filtration have gained Hollow Fiber Spiral Wound
wide acceptance for surface water Physical backwash Possible Not generally possible
treatment for potable water Chemical cleanings CIPs or CEBs possible CIPs possible
production, with over 200 mgd
Operating pressures 5 - 30 psi 20 - 100 psi
(million gallons per day) of installed
Membrane life 5 years 8 years
capacity in operation by 1999.[4]
For potable water applications, Prefilter requirements 100 - 500 micron strainer 5 micron cartridge filter

hollow fiber membrane systems Operating mode Dead-end Crossflow

can guarantee removal of bacteria Valves Requires several pneumatically Can be operated with
such as giardia cysts and cryp- operated valves for backwash manual valves
sequence
tosporidium oocysts because the
Control Requires PLC and transmitters May be simple on/off with
integrity of the membrane system for monitoring to maintain indicators for manual
can be verified. Extensive applica- performance adjustment
tion of hollow fiber UF and MF for Breaktank Requires breaktank to supply Operates continuously so
potable water production has led to backwash water and no breaktank before RO
to continuously feed RO system is required
the costs of this technology coming when offline for backwash
down to the point where it is cost
Availability of membrane Each system is proprietary, with Spirals are a standard size,
competitive with conventional replacements spare membranes only available with replacements available
water treatment and spiral wound from manufacturer from several vendors
UF systems for RO pretreatment. Power consumption 0.05 - 0.2 kWh/kgal 0.2 - 0.8 kWh/kgal
Hollow fiber membranes for Capital cost $0.50 - $0.90 /gpd $0.40 - $0.60 /gpd
water treatment may either be MF (based on 200 gpm system)
or UF membranes. The fibers are

3
and then perform a CIP. CIP fre-
quency might vary from 10 days to
several months. Another approach
is to use a Chemically Enhanced
Backwash (CEB), where, on a
frequent basis (typically every
1 - 14 days), chemicals are injected
with the backwash water to clean
the membrane and maintain
system performance at low pressure
without going off-line for a CIP.[5]
Hollow Fiber Versus
Spiral Wound
The selection of hollow fiber
membrane filtration versus spiral
wound membrane filtration de-
pends on the application. Table 2
compares some of the advantages
and disadvantages of the different
configurations.
Membrane Filtration — RO
Many comparisons of using UF
or MF as RO pretreatment have
previously been presented.[6,7,8]
The most recent papers have shown
that utilizing UF or MF for RO
pretreatment is economical when
one considers overall life-cycle
costs. Benefits of using membrane
filtration as pretreatment to RO fall
into two areas. The first area is the
benefit of membrane filtration in
comparison with conventional
pretreatment. The second area is
the benefit of better feed water
quality to the RO.
Equipment Cost
The equipment cost of mem-
brane filtration systems is generally
higher than the equipment cost of
conventional pretreatment to RO.
This obviously depends upon how
extensive the conventional
pretreatment needs to be in a
particular situation. When
compared with multi-media filters,
membrane filtration systems are
4
obviously more capital intensive.
However, when compared to
clarifiers and filters, the cost
difference between membrane
and conventional systems is
not so great.
Spiral wound UF systems are
generally lower in capital cost than
hollow fiber UF systems since they
have fewer automatic valves,
controls, and monitoring
requirements. However, spiral
wound systems require additional
prefiltration to ensure reasonable
performance. For example, on
many surface water sources, a
media filter is required as spiral
wound UF pretreatment where a
backwashable strainer is sufficient
for a hollow fiber system.
Floorspace Requirements
Membrane systems are generally
more compact than conventional
systems, taking up less than 50%
of the area of a conventional
pretreatment system. This means
that building costs are lower.
Especially in areas where space is
limited, or areas where civil costs
are high, a membrane system may
be favored.
Power Consumption
Hollow fiber UF systems in
particular use very low power. Since
the RO systems do not foul or plug
as much due to the better quality
feed water, RO power consumption
may also be reduced.
Chemical Consumption
Conventional pretreatment
systems often use large quantities
of chemicals. This may include lime
softening to reduce turbidity, ferric
or alum and polymers for coagu-
lation. The RO system will also
require more chemical cleaning
with a conventional system.
Reduction in chemical cleaning
of an RO system due to membrane
pretreatment will reduce chemical
costs, waste disposal costs, increase
RO membrane life and reduce labor
related to performing CIPs.
Operator Attention
Membrane systems operate in an
automatic mode. The water quality
from a UF or MF system will be
consistent regardless of changes in
feed water quality. When feed water
quality does deteriorate, the most
sophisticated membrane systems
will compensate by adjusting
operating conditions to minimize
system fouling. Conventional
systems require an operator to pay
attention to the feed water quality
and to adjust chemical dosing
rates accordingly.
In general, even a large UF or MF
plant will only require an operator’s
attention for a couple of hours per
day to keep the plant running. A
conventional plant needs an opera-
tor to check the water quality and
make changes every few hours.
Cartridge Filter Replacement
Membrane filtration eliminates
the need for cartridge filters in front
of the RO system. This provides a
small savings in capital cost, and a
large saving in consumables over
the life of the plant.
Membrane Replacement
Conventional systems do not
have membranes that need to be
replaced. Membrane systems
obviously include membranes that
need to be replaced. Depending on
the type of membrane, membrane
life is expected to be 5 - 10 years.
Since the feed to the RO system
is improved, and therefore fewer
chemical cleanings would be
expected, the RO membranes
should last longer with membrane
pretreatment. For example, if
membranes were expected to last
three years with conventional
pretreatment, they should last five
years with membrane pretreatment.
Waste Disposal
Single stage membrane systems
generally have a water recovery of
85 - 95%, whereas a conventional
filtration system would be expected
to have 95 - 97% water recovery.
When water recovery is important,
a secondary membrane system can
be used to treat the backwash water
from the first system to increase
water recovery to over 99%. The
product water from the secondary
system is the same quality as that
from the primary system, and so
it reduces the size of the primary
system. For large plants, a sec-
ondary system adds a relatively
small amount to the system cost
since multiple trains would be
installed. For small plants, the
increase in complexity translates
into significant cost increase that
may not be justifiable.
Membrane filtration systems use
few chemicals, and hence there is
no sludge to dispose of. Where a
waste handling system has to be
installed, or where waste must be
transported, a membrane system
may show considerable cost benefits
over a conventional system.
Higher Design Flux Rates
RO membrane manufacturers
typically allow RO systems to be
designed at higher flux rates with
UF feed than with conventional
pretreatment. For example,
Hydranautics suggests a maximum
lead element flux of 28 gfd with
UF/MF permeate, versus 20 gfd
for a low fouling surface water.[9]
Design guidelines for FILMTEC
elements recommend a maximum
permeate flux per element of 27 gfd
and 18 gfd for a surface water
supply.[10] Higher design flux rates
reduce the capital cost and size of
the RO system.
Case Studies
Carbery Milk Products
Carbery Milk Products is located
in Ballineen, County Cork, Ireland.
The dairy requires water for steam
generation and potable quality
process water. Due to the
expansion of the cheese whey
manufacturing business, the
existing ion-exchange system at the
dairy was reaching the limits of its
capacity, as was the pretreatment
system. The feed water source is the
adjacent fishing river, the River
Bandon. The existing water
treatment system included clari-
fication and filtration, followed
by an ion-exchange plant for
demineralization. The clarifier
was operating at its maximum
capacity, and the ion-exchange
system was life expired.
In 1998, a new water treatment
system was commissioned. The
existing clarifier was retained to
supply only the plant process water.
A new water treatment system
utilizes a UF plant to feed an RO
system. The RO system reduces the
feed water total dissolved solids
(TDS) from 140 mg/l to less than
10 mg/l. RO product directly sup-
plies the required demineralized
water quality for boiler feed. The
system production rate is 180 gpm.
The combination of UF/RO was
selected to save on chemical usage,
both from the existing pretreatment
system and from the ion-exchange
plant, and to reduce the effluent
load on the nearby river.
The UF system utilizes hollow
fiber UF membranes made by
X-Flow, which is part of NORIT
Membrane Technology, BV. The
membranes are 35 m2 and are
installed in horizontal membrane
housings. This membrane was
selected because of its compact
design and low operating and
maintenance costs.
The river water contains organic
acids, and is faintly yellow. Once
the system started up, the organics
were found to cause two problems.
The first was that the organics
fouled the UF membrane, causing
a reduction in membrane perme-
ability and an increase in chemical
cleaning costs. The second was
that the organics, which are smaller
than the MWCO of the UF
membrane, went through the
UF membrane and started to foul
the RO membranes.
A pilot testing program was
undertaken to determine how to
handle the fouling problems. It was
found that addition of 5 mg/l alum
could completely control the
fouling. The alum coagulates TOC
so that it can be removed effectively
by the UF system without fouling
the UF. This ensures a clean feed
to the reverse osmosis system.
Salt Union
Salt Union Ltd. is a subsidiary of
Harris Associates located at Weston
Point in the United Kingdom. Salt
Union makes salt crystals from
brine made by solution mining
some 40 km away. Next to the site is
a chemical works that supplies
superheated steam to the plant.
The chemical works will buy high
quality waste condensate from the
multiple effect evaporators that Salt
Union utilizes to manufacture salt
crystals. Unfortunately, the
evaporators only provided a low-
5
grade condensate that suffered
from ‘carry over’ of fine clay and
salt, and from corrosion products
(iron). If these could be removed,
then they would have a saleable
by-product. A 240 gpm integrated
membrane system was installed
in 1997 to achieve Salt Union’s
objective of economically
producing a saleable by-product.
Table 3 shows the feed and product
water quality from this plant.
To deal with the silt and iron
problem, an ultrafiltration plant is
used. This is a hollow fiber system
using X-Flow membranes. The
hollow fibers are 0.8 mm internal
diameter. A clean water backwash
flushes the accumulated dirt off the
membranes every 15 minutes. A
periodic chemically enhanced
backwash maintains the system
performance. This was primarily
selected over a continuous
crossflow spiral wound UF system
due to the low energy requirement.
The clean UF filtrate water is then
processed through a reverse
osmosis plant to give demineralized
water. The RO reject wastewater is
utilized on site for washing and
other utility purposes.
Table 3: Feed Water Quality
Feed Product
Quality Quality
Conductivity (µS/cm) 400 - 2,000 4 - 25
SDI15 5 0.1
Iron 0.1 mg/l
Temperature (°F) 95 - 104
Northern California
Power Agency
In 1994, Northern California
Power Agency (NCPA) installed
a new 49-MW power generation
facility in Lodi, California. NCPA
6
signed a 10-year own-and-operate
agreement with Ionics Ultrapure
Water Corporation. Ionics Ultrapure
built a water treatment plant to
treat clarified secondary-treated
municipal effluent from the Lodi
White Slough Water Pollution
Control Facility. The recycled water
is first chlorinated and filtered for
general use at the power generation
facility. 200 gpm of filtered water is
used as cooling tower make-up. An
integrated membrane system
consisting of UF, UV, RO and mixed-
bed polishing ion-exchange, treats
600 gpm of filtered water for use
as boiler feed.
The UF system selected was a
spiral-wound UF system. UF was
selected as pretreatment to the
RO to minimize operating costs
of the system. In 1994, hollow fiber
membrane filtration had only been
recently introduced to the market-
place and was not considered as
an option. The UF system used
Ionics’ Barrier™ spiral-wound
UF elements. UF reduces organics
and silt in the filtered water. UV
further reduces organics to ensure
that the RO is not susceptible to
organic fouling. This system has
been operating reliably with few
membrane cleanings.
Summary
The significant benefits of mem-
brane filtration are leading to more
and more industrial applications
of MF and UF for RO pretreatment.
This trend is expected to continue
as industries look to tougher water
sources to ensure availability of
water at a reasonable price.
References
1. Katz, William E., and Frederick
G. Clay, “Demineralization—
Triple Membrane Demineralizers”,
Ultrapure Water,
September/October 1986.
2. Valcour, Jr., Henry C., “Triple
Membrane Makeup Water
Treatment at Four Nuclear
Power Plants,” 52nd Annual
Meeting International Water
Conference, Pittsburgh, PA,
October 1991.
3. Schexnailder, Sandy J.,
“Choosing Membrane-Based
Water Treatment for Advanced
Boiler Makeup in the Power
Industry”, presented at Power-
Gen Americas ’93, Dallas, TX,
November 1993.
4. American Water Works
Association, “Current Issues in
Membrane Applications and
Research”, AWWA Membrane
Technology Conference
Preconference Workshop,
February 1999.
5. van Hoof, Stephan, “Semi
dead-end ultrafiltration in
potable water production”,
Filtration + Separation,
January/February 2000.
6. Leslie, G. L., W. R. Mills,
W. R. Dunvin, M. P. Wehner,
R. G. Sudak, “Performance and
Economic Evaluation of
Membrane Processes for Reuse
Applications”, Proceedings,
American Water Works
Association Water Reuse
Conference, Lake Buena Vista,
FL, February 1998.
7. Chellam, Shankararaman,
Christophe A. Serra, Mark R.
Wiesner, “Estimating costs for
integrated membrane systems”,
Journal AWWA, Volume 90,
Issue 11.
8. Rosberg, Rick, “Ultrafiltration
(new technology), a viable cost-
saving pretreatment for reverse
osmosis and nanofiltration—
A new approach to costs”,
Desalination 110 (1997),
107 - 114.
9. Bates, W., “Hydranautics’
Industrial RO Design
Guidelines”, roguide.xls, Rev. 1
(1/20/98)
10. Dow, “FILMTEC Membranes;
Membrane System Design
Guidelines”, Product
Information, April 1998.
Worldwide Headquarters
Ionics, Incorporated
65 Grove Street
Watertown, Massachusetts
02472 - 2882 USA
Telephone: (617) 926-2500
1 (800) 4-IONICS (USA & CAN)
Fax: (617) 926-4304
Web: www.ionics.com
E-mail: sales @ ionics.com