Water Filtration

Water filtration is the process of removing or reducing the concentration of par-

ticulate matter, including suspended particles, parasites, bacteria, algae, viruses,
and fungi, as well as other undesirable chemical and biological contaminants from
contaminated water to produce safe and clean water for a specific purpose, such as
drinking, medical, and pharmaceutical applications.

From: Advances in Technical Nonwovens, 2016

Related terms:

Adsorption, Cellulose, Nanoparticles, Potable Water, Ultrafiltration, Nanomaterials,

Nanofibers, Water Purification

View all Topics

Learn more about Water Filtration

Nonwoven fabric filters

N. Mao, in Advances in Technical Nonwovens, 2016

10.4.2 Nonwoven water filters

Water filtration is the process of removing or reducing the concentration of par-
ticulate matter, including suspended particles, parasites, bacteria, algae, viruses,
and fungi, as well as other undesirable chemical and biological contaminants from
contaminated water to produce safe and clean water for a specific purpose, such as
drinking, medical, and pharmaceutical applications. The filtration systems for drink-
ing water usually incorporate a five-stage filtration process: sediment, mechanical,
chemical, mineral, and bacterial.

With consideration of the requirements of avoidance of fibre shedding in the filtra-

tion process, nonwoven fabrics made from continuous fibres such as melt blown,
spunbond, and hydroentangled nonwovens and electrospun/centrifugal spinning
nanofibre nonwovens, as well as their composite combinations comprising both
microfibres and nanofibres, are widely used in microfiltration as a water filtration
media. They functions as either an independent microfiltration media or prefilters
to remove a high contaminant content within the fluid to protect membrane filters.

Examples of such nonwoven filters comprising one or more layers of microfibres

and nanofibres for microfiltration of specific biological contaminants were report-
ed in US patents 2004/0038014, 2007/0075015, and 2007/0018361. Prefilters are
commonly pleated or wound filter fabrics. Prefilters have a large band of retention
ratings. The most common retention rating of these filters is 20 or 50 nm, and it
can be engineered to all necessary applications.

In the water filtration system, membrane filters are highly efficient in filtering
submicron contaminants in water, but have a deficiency of very limited filtrate
holding capacity. Nanofibre nonwoven fabrics are widely used in membrane water
filtration system as viral removal filters. They have two roles in the composite filter
structure: they act as a separate prefilter to separate out particles of larger size than
the rating of the membrane to promote the high filtration efficiency of membrane
filters, and they also provide depth filtration to the membrane to improve the particle
holding capacities of the membrane filtration system to extend the lifetime of the
membranes. Examples of such composite liquid filtration media, comprising a layer
of nanoweb adjacent to a microporous membrane, were reported in US patent
8038013146; a nanofiber web containing liquid filtration medium that simultaneously
exhibits high liquid permeability and high microorganism retention was reported
in patent EP2408482.147 Log Reduction Value (LRV) has been used to quantify the
filters in liquid sterilisation filter tests, it is defined as the logarithm of the ratio
of the total micro-organisms in challenge to the micro-organisms in filtered fluid.
Microorganisms such as bacteria Brevundimonas diminuta, Mycoplasma, and other
bacteria are removed from a liquid by passing the liquid through a porous nanofiber
containing a filtration medium having a bacteria B. diminuta LRV (Log Reduction
Value) greater than about 9, and the nanofiber(s) has a diameter from about 10 nm
to about 1000 nm.

Biofouling from bacterial, fungi, and other microorganisms in the water decrease
nonwoven prefilter membrane performance and increase the frequency and cost
of its chemical cleaning. There are many ways to make nonwoven filters antibac-
terial and biocidal. Water filters could be made to incorporate biocides, including
quaternary phosphonium salt,148 polymeric phosphonium salts,149 and onium-func-
tionalized polymers,150 into nonwoven filters to remove bacteria and other microor-
ganisms. Nanoparticles having antimicrobial functionalities are also employed to
remove microorganisms from water. Examples of such filters include covalently or
ionically tethering antimicrobial nanoparticles (eg, silver (Ag) nanoparticles encap-
sulated in positively-charged polyethyleneimine (PEI)) into the surface of oxygen
plasma modified polysulfone ultrafiltration membranes,151 nanofibrous nonwoven
membranes made from a mixture of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA), and chitosan
functionalized with graphene oxide (GO)–Ag nanocomposites152 and carbon nan-
otubes153 to prevent bacterial colonization on the membrane surfaces. The GO–Ag
nanoparticles are bonded onto the nanofibrous membrane via a chemical reaction
between the carboxyl groups of graphene and the primary amine functional groups
on the PLGA–chitosan fibres using 3-(dimethylaminopropyl)-N -ethylcarbodiimide
hydrochloride and N-hydroxysuccinimide as cross-linking agents.

Nonwovens made from polymers having antibacterial activities are another route
to achieve antimicrobial filters. One of such polymers against Escherichia coli and
Staphylococcus hyicus was synthesed154 via copolymerization of three monomers of
N,N -dimethyl-N-alkylmethacryloxylethyl ammoniumbromide (DMAEA) with dif-
ferent lengths of alkyl chains (DMAEA-RB) (R-ethyl/hexyl/dodecyl), acrylic acid (AA),
and acrylamide.

Water filters containing fibres, especially nanofibers, of ion exchange properties155

have been applied in the fields of biotechnology, pharmaceutical processing, pro-
ducing ultrapure water for the semiconductor industry, catalytic conversion pro-
cessing, and battery technologies.156 Polymers containing ionic functional groups
might be difficult to be made into ion exchange fibres using electrospinning
methods because polymer solutions with a high electric conductivity (eg, poly-
electrolyte solution) prevent electric field-induced charging of the solution and
lead to a low electrospinnability. Therefore, ion exchange nanofibers formed using
electrospinning methods have relied on the following three approaches157: (1) the
addition of water soluble and electrospinnable polymers to the spinning solution as
the carrier; and (2) electrospinning of a nonionic polymer or inorganic materials (eg,
sol–gel and carbon precursors) and successive chemical modification.158,159

> Read full chapter

Design, Energy and Cost Analyses of

Membrane Processes
Rajindar Singh, in Membrane Technology and Engineering for Water Purification
(Second Edition), 2015

UF/MF water treatment cost figures

The design of a membrane filtration water treatment plant requires a clear selection
of flux in order to achieve a stable cost-effective design to ensure that fouling can be
controlled at an acceptable level [29]. Flux data and specifications for various MF/UF
systems are provided in Table 3.13. The cost of reclaimed water from secondary and
wastewater using integrated membrane systems (MF/UF + RO/NF) is in the range of
$0.25–$0.40/m3 [9,28]. According to another study, the Capex for full-scale MF sys-
tems as pre-treatment for RO units in wastewater reclamation was $140–215/m3/day
for a 10,000 m3/day plant with Opex approximately $0.10/m3 [30]. Process design
of a cross-flow tubular UF plant for treating industrial wastewater was discussed in
Chapter 2. Specifications for a tubular UF system are given in Table 2.12.

In one case study on seawater desalination in the Mediterranean Sea, the total
cost of conventional pre-treatment SWRO system and membrane pre-treatment
SWRO system was about the same, $0.90/m3 [3]. Even though membrane filtration
pre-treatment is more expensive than conventional treatment, potential savings
were a result of: (i) RO permeate flux increase of 25%, (ii) footprint and RO
membrane replacement costs decrease of 33%, and (iii) chemical costs decrease of
45–65%.

> Read full chapter

Functional nanofibers for water purif-

ication
H. Ma, ... B.S. Hsiao, in Functional Nanofibers and their Applications, 2012

15.1.2 Challenges in membrane technology

The development of membrane science has greatly accelerated advances in water
filtration technology. However, with the rapid population increase and growing
environmental concerns, the need to find new water production technology with
significant economic and energy benefits has become a pressing global issue. In
spite of the tremendous progress made in the last three decades, membrane tech-
nology currently faces two critical challenges (Shannon et al., 2008; Ma et al., 2011a).
The first challenge is to identify or to create new materials (e.g., high durability,
low cost and fewer environmental concerns) that can fabricate more cost-effective
membranes. The second challenge is to design and to optimize structure and mor-
phology in existing membranes that can lead to a substantial increase in filtration
efficiency (e.g., high permeation flux, high retention and low pressure drop). These
two challenges can be explained in more detail as follows.

Only a limited selection of materials, such as ceramic (Bein, 1996) and synthetic
polymers (e.g., polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polysulfone (PSU), polyethersulfone (PES),
polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), cellulose acetate (CA) and cross-linked polyamide
(PA)) (Petersen, 1993; Ulbricht, 2006), have been successfully used for commercial
membranes. All aforementioned materials have their advantages and limitations
with regard to their applicability for different water purification processes. Ceramic
membranes are mechanically durable and chemically inert. However, the high cost
has seriously affected their usage, especially in developing countries. Polymers, such
as PAN, PSU, PES and PVDF, are routinely used for the fabrication of MF and
UF membranes, which have good chemical resistance, mechanical properties and
processibility, and are cost-effective. However, their hydrophobic properties often
induce fouling problems, drastically decreasing the water permeability. Membranes
made of cellulose derivatives are pH sensitive and can only be used within a narrow
pH range, while membranes containing cross-linked PA have low tolerance for
chlorine (Sagle and Freeman, 2004). Often, volatile and toxic solvents have to be
used for processing these materials during membrane fabrication, causing serious
environmental concerns. Although there are some new synthetic materials, exhibit-
ing excellent properties for water filtration, their complex preparation schemes,
high cost and environmental concerns make them difficult to scale up for
immediate commercialization (Holt et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2007;
Brady-Estevez et al., 2008; Peng et al., 2009).

With respect to the design and optimization of structure and morphology to enhance
the filtration performance of existing membranes, it is necessary to briefly re-
view the current state-of-the-art membrane technology. Thin-film composite (TFC)
membranes have been proven as a practical model for the fabrication of polymer
membranes (Mulder, 1991; Petersen, 1993). Typically, TFC membranes consist of
a two- or three-layer structure (Chu and Hsiao, 2009a). The bottom layer, which
primarily provides mechanical support to the membrane, could be a commercial,
tough, nonwoven substrate of fibrous materials (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) nonwoven mats). The barrier layer, typically produced by the phase inversion
method, has relatively low porosity and an asymmetric porous structure (i.e., ~ 50%
bulky porosity and 20% surface porosity in the barrier layer) (Deniz, 2006; Ma et al.,
2010a). Often, the unconnected pores in the barrier layer can be easily plugged by
feeding substances, thus decreasing the permeation flux. A barrier layer with very
high porosity, interconnected pore structure and directional water channels has been
recognized as a way to substantially increase the permeation flux without sacrificing
the selectivity and rejection ratio.

In this chapter, we will review the recent development of nanofiber technology, which
has opened new doors for the fabrication of highly permeable, energy-saving and
durable membranes for water purification (Burger et al., 2006; Chu et al., 2008;
Botes and Cloete, 2010; Ramakrishna et al., 2010). This development includes the
use of inorganic nanofibers (e.g., TiO2 nanowire) (Rao et al., 2003), carbon nanofibers
(Mauter and Elimelech, 2008; Upadhyayula et al,. 2009) and electrospun polymeric
nanofibers (Burger et al., 2006; Reneker et al., 2006; Thavasi et al., 2008). The
combination of the optimized TFC structure and the newly developed thin-film
nanofibrous composite (TFNC) concept has provided a new pathway for the fabrica-
tion of highly efficient MF, UF, NF and RO membranes (Wang et al., 2005; Yoon
et al., 2006, 2008; Chu et al., 2008; Ma et al., 2011b).

> Read full chapter

Synthesis, Characterization, and Appli-

cations of Graphene and Derivatives
Yotsarayuth Seekaew, ... Chatchawal Wongchoosuk, in Carbon-Based Nanofillers
and Their Rubber Nanocomposites, 2019

9.6.4 Water Filtration

Nanoporous graphene membranes could be considered an ideal separation mem-
brane for water filtration and desalination at a removal efficiency of 33%–100%,
depending on the pore size and applied pressure [94]. Nanoporous graphene for
water filtration and desalination was first studied using classical molecular dynamics
simulations in 2012 by Cohen-Tanugi and Grossman. They reported that water could
flow across a graphene membrane at rates in the range of 10–100 L cm−2 day−1 per
MPa, 2–3 orders of magnitude higher than diffusive RO membranes and effectively
filtering NaCl salts from water [95]. Recently, Abraham et al. [96] demonstrated
control of interlayer spacing in GO membranes in the range below 10 Å. The
graphene-based membranes exhibited the capability to remove salt from seawater,
with 97% rejection for NaCl. Moreover, they showed that the permeation rates
decreased exponentially with decreasing interlayer spacing but water transport was
weakly affected.

> Read full chapter

Electrospun nanofiber scaffolds

Piyush P. Mehta, Vividha S. Pawar, in Applications of Nanocomposite Materials in
Drug Delivery, 2018

22.6 Regulatory obligations/aspects

Nanotechnology refers to deal with a variety of commercial goods from water filtra-
tion and purification to healthcare and biomedical engineering. Growing research
interest in the novel and unique assets of nanotechnology-related pharmaceuticals
and biomedical devices has led to global reviews of safety regulation. Such nanotech-
nology set ups and their associated business communities have initiated calls for
increased society contribution and valuable regulatory guidance [240]. Regulatory
bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or Health and Consumer Protection Directorate of the
European Commission have initiated the assessment of potential risks caused by
nanomaterials. Regulatory bodies have concluded that nanomaterials form the
potential for totally new risk and it becomes obligatory to perform an extensive
risk analysis. Until now, neither engineered nanomaterials nor the fully developed
products that contained them were subjected to any special regulation regarding
handling, production, or labeling [241]. Based upon accessible information, it has
been argued that existing risk assessment methodologies are unable to evaluate
all the hazards related with nanomaterials; in precise, existing toxicological and
eco-toxicological techniques are not up to the mark; exposure evaluation (dose)
needs to be expressed as quantity of nanomaterials and/or surface area rather
than simply mass; tools for routine detecting and measuring nanomaterials in
environment (air, water, or soil) are insufficient; and very little is known about
the physiological responses to individual nanomaterials [240]. The challenge for
regulators is to develop a system matrix to identify nanomaterials; product derived
from nanoprocesses and more complex nanoformulations which are likely to have
special toxicological profiles. It is also essential that nanotechnology guidelines and
regulation would promote innovative models for safe drug discovery and develop-
ment that are more scientifically targeted as the universal burden of disease.

> Read full chapter

Use of Clayey Salty Soils and its Com-

posite Derivatives for Construction and
Ceramics for Household Use in the
Thar Desert in India
Amrita Kaurwar, ... Anand K. Plappally, in Reference Module in Materials Science and
Materials Engineering, 2018

Characterization of Ceramics
Fig. 15(a) shows the microstructure of fired ceramics for water filtration. The scan-
ning electron microscopic image Fig. 15(a) showcases the presence of hetero-
geneous pore distribution over the clay matrix. The pore size distribution range
and porosity correlations are shown in Fig. 15(b). It can be inferred that the high
frequency of porosity is contributed by the pores in the range between 0.02 and 5
microns. This porosity range is at par with the average porosity values of frustum
shaped ceramic water filters manufactured at other parts of the globe using a factory
mode.

Fig. 15. (a) Surface morphology of Ceramics and (b) Pore size distribution in the
Ceramics.

> Read full chapter

Application and Uses of Graphene

Sekhar C. Ray, in Applications of Graphene and Graphene-Oxide Based Nanomate-
rials, 2015

1.4.25 Graphene as Purification of Water

Graphene sheets perforated by small holes were first explored as potential candidates
for water filtration by researchers at MIT. Holes with a diameter of 1 nanometer (a
billionth of a meter) are big enough to let water molecules sift through, but they are
small enough to stop any undesired chemicals. Han et al. (2013) fabricated ultrathin
(~22–53 nm thick) graphene nanofiltration membranes (uGNMs) on microporous
substrates that were used for efficient water purification. The performance of the
uGNMs for water treatment was evaluated on a dead-end filtration device, and the
pure water flux of uGNMs was high (21.8 L/m2/h/bar). The uGNMs showed high
retention (>99%) for organic dyes and moderate retention (~20–60%) for ion salts.

> Read full chapter

Application of Forward Osmosis to

Reduce Produced Water Injection Vol-
umes
Joel Minier-Matar, ... Samer Adham, in Proceedings of the 4th International Gas
Processing Symposium, 2015

1 Introduction
Forward Osmosis (FO) is an emerging membrane technology for water treatment
that typically involves two steps:

Step 1 - Filtration: Water flows by simple diffusion through a semi-permeable

membrane from a feed solution (at lower osmotic pressure) into a draw solu-
tion (at higher osmotic pressure); contaminants in the feed water, including
dissolved ions, are rejected by the membrane, and are concentrated in the feed.
The draw solution is diluted by the water passing through the membrane.
Step 2 - Water Recovery: Water is recovered from the draw solution restoring it
back to its original condition to be reused in step 1. The recovery of water from
the draw solution can be done by a variety of means including evaporation of
the draw solution.

In Step 1, the driving force across the membrane is the osmotic pressure gradi-
ent caused by the difference in solute concentrations between the feed and draw
solutions [1]. The greater the difference in solute concentrations, the higher the
membrane flux. In Step 2, an input of energy is required to remove the water from
the draw solution and restore its original osmotic pressure.

The key advantages of the FO process over RO are [2]:

• Lower operating costs because the energy needed to drive water through the
membrane is provided simply by a natural osmosis and not by high pressure
pumps;
• Lower capital costs since pressure-rated vessels and high pressure pumps are
not required;
•
There is strong evidence that FO membranes are less prone to irreversible •
fouling than RO membranes and that foulants can be removed by simple
flushing with clean water with no addition of chemicals [3];
The more reversible fouling in FO implies that less stringent pre-treatment •
maybe required;
The flat sheet and hollow fibre (HF) FO commercial configurations currently
available are also less prone to fouling than to the traditional spiral wound RO
process configuration;

The application of FO in recent years has expanded, not only in terms of installed ca-
pacity but also in the diversity of industries where the technology has been installed.
Applications such as power generation, desalination, wastewater treatment (osmotic
membrane bioreactor) and liquid food concentration are reported in the literature
[4]. Commercial FO products are available for a variety of applications including
personal water filtration and desalination, oil & gas drilling water reclamation and
landfill leachate treatment.

Although recent advances have improved the efficiency of the FO technology, there
are still three areas for improvement [5]:

• Available membranes and modules;

• Cost-effective draw solutes that can be easily separated to recover the water;

• Membrane fouling and pre-treatment for specific applications (such as PW).

The draw solution is a key element in a FO process, and should possess the following
characteristics:

• High osmotic pressure;

• Good water solubility;

• Low leakage or reverse flux;

• Easy recovery;

• Membrane compatibility;

• Zero toxicity.

Significant work has been undertaken to develop optimum draw solutions with the
characteristics listed above [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. However, no single draw solution seems to
be ideal and the application of one instead of another is more related to the nature
of the effluent to be treated.

The primary disadvantage with FO is typically the input energy needed in step 2
to recover the water from the draw solution. The novel aspect of this project is
to eliminate step 2 by to using seawater or thermal brine to “draw” water from
the produced water and then directly discharge the diluted seawater/brine into the
Arabian Gulf. This is particularly applicable in Qatar since both the desalination plant
and the produced water from the gas fields are in close proximity to each other.

Commercial flat sheet FO membranes and experimental hollow fiber FO membranes

(developed by Nanyang Technological University in Singapore) are currently being
tested in a bench-scale unit using different operating conditions with the objectives
of comparing the performance of different membrane materials and understanding
the fouling potential of produced water. Different operating parameters (tempera-
ture, cross flow velocity, draw solution concentrations and active layer position) are
being evaluated to optimize process performance. This presentation will show some
of the results obtained to date with flat sheet membranes.

> Read full chapter

International Governance Perspectives

on Nanotechnology Water Innovation
David Rejeski, Evan S. Michelson, in Nanotechnology Applications for Clean Water
(Second Edition), 2014

37.2 Diagnosing the need

With a number of potentially groundbreaking nanotechnology water purification
products entering the market—such as LifeStraw, a personal, portable water filtra-
tion product aimed at improving access to clean water in the developing world—the
application of nanotechnology to water has the potential to become a major industry
over the next 10–15 years [1]. In their comprehensive report “Nanotechnology,
Water and Development,” Hillie, Munasinghe, Hlope, and Deraniyagala [2] conclude
that “nanotechnology applications for water treatment are not years away; they are
already available and many more are likely to come on the market in the coming
years.” The promise of such nanotechnologies is also well documented, ranking
high on a list of potential applications for the developing world [3]. However, it
is anticipated that the realization of such benefits from nanotechnology could be
hindered by challenges facing other, more conventional technologies that have
attempted to solve such development-related problems. For example, a study com-
paring the use of conventional and nanotechnology water treatment and filtration
technologies notes that each faces a range of access, ownership, social, economic,
and environmental barriers to success [4–6]. However, in addition to these broader
issues involving the application of new technologies to international development,
there is an additional set of scientific and policy barriers more specifically related to
the field of nanotechnology that could interfere with the long-term success of these
water applications. Without addressing such obstacles, it remains an open question
whether nanotechnology water applications will be able to surpass their conventional
counterparts in terms of effectiveness, reliability, and ease of diffusion.

One of the first challenges facing the application of nanotechnology to water is

addressing a number of critical, yet underlying, research areas as the field advances.
In NanoFrontiers: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology, author Karen Schmidt
[7] reports that a discussion among leading scientists, engineers, and policy analysts
about applying nanotechnology to long-term, global problems led to the articulation
of a need for a set of information management, measurement, and communication
tools that will allows researchers to share vast kinds of information quickly and
efficiently. With multiple kinds of nanotechnology water treatment options in the
pipeline, from carbon nanotube membranes to nanoporous ceramics to nanoscale
zero-valent iron [4], such broad research tools must be developed to help organize
and distribute a wealth of information that will emerge from laboratories and
companies over the ensuing decades. Without such close-knit sharing of results,
testing procedures, and standard material by way of databases, interdisciplinary
collaborations, and other methods, there is a real risk that such efforts will fall prey
to the drawbacks that other development-related technologies have encountered.

Second, a clear and transparent oversight system for nanotechnology is needed,

one that demonstrates a vision, risk management principles, and a commitment
to investigating and anticipating risks early in the research process. Without such
a consistent regulatory approach from governments, both in the United States
and around the world, even the development of promising nanotechnology water
applications runs the risk of being hampered by distrust from the public at large.
This may be one lesson that the introduction of nanotechnology can learn from the
uneven and often resisted introduction of genetically modified foods: that initial lack
of trust due to perceived secrecy, or concerns that potentially negative health and
environmental impacts are not being addressed, can be difficult to overcome, if
not insurmountable, in some cases.

As public perception research from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and

others indicates [8–11], the good news is that surveys and focus groups have shown
a high degree of consistency in terms of what it takes to increase public confidence
in government and industry involved with nanotechnologies: first, disclosure and
transparency concerning the risk and benefits of nanotechnologies; second, more
pre-market testing of products; and, third, testing done by trusted, third-party
entities. This may be particularly important in the realm of nanotechnology water
applications, where a dynamic could emerge that has companies from the developed
world creating and marketing products for the developing world. Over the next
few years, the social contract between government, industry, and the public around
nanotechnology water applications will be defined, and creating trust will become a
critical and essential factor in creating value and commercialization opportunities.

Closely tied to the issues of trust and transparency is the need for extensive risk
research to determine how nanotechnology water applications might negatively
impact human health and environmental well-being. To date, such risk research
is generally scarce and offers little indication about how nanomaterials such as
carbon nanotubes or nano-engineered silver, that may be used for environmental
remediation or water filtration, could cause ecotoxicity, dispersion through the
aquatic system, or contamination of the food chain. For example, an inventory
of ongoing nanotechnology risk research projects maintained by the Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies [12] reveals that a disproportionately low amount of
funding is being directed into looking into these environmental impact questions.
Affected populations will begin to ask if such materials lead to uptake in the drinking
water or persist in soil for extended periods of time.

For some nanomaterials, such as silver, there still remains uncertainty as to how
government regulators will respond to its use in a variety of applications [13], and
there are also concerns from environmental groups that the same properties that
make nanoscale silver beneficial in improving water quality—because its enhanced
properties are more effective at killing off bacteria and microbes—will be the
same properties that reduce the effectiveness of municipal water treatment facilities
that rely on the action of bacteria and microbes to purify sewage and wastewater
[14–15]. As Breggin and Pendergrass [16] note, there is even growing concern that
certain classes of nanomaterials may, in the future, be considered hazardous waste
due to their as-of-yet unknown toxicological properties, creating potential legal
liabilities for manufacturers, investors, and insurers. Addressing such uncertainties
early in the development process would be beneficial and could help avoid health,
environmental, and legal problems in the future.

Finally, nanotechnology faces the problem of waiting for a “killer application”—an

indispensable, high-profile application that transforms the industry from its nascent
stages of research to a more mature stage of commercialization—that has yet
to arrive. Certainly, a nanotechnology water application, whether it is used for
desalinization, purification, or recycling, could serve as such a visible use for the
technology. However, without such a “got to have it” product or set of products,
the presumed nanotechnology revolution risks becoming out of date in today’s
rapidly advancing technological landscape. There are already signs of “nano fatigue,”
with scientists, policymakers, and media outlets beginning to focus on emerging
fields of synthetic biology, advanced climate change, and next-generation robotics.
Whereas transformative breakthroughs take time, advancing nanotechnology water
applications will require that a range of stakeholders, including government, identify
long-term goals and develop a well-articulated strategy for reaching them. Although
such roadmaps are available from a variety of organizations, such as the Foresight
Nanotech Institute [17], governments needs an improved process of searching for
new, “game changing” ideas for improving water quality and helping to transform
them into revolutionary products and services that would benefit people in the
developed and developing world.

> Read full chapter

Fundamentals
In The MBR Book, 2006

2.1.4.3 Physical and chemical cleaning

Since the flux and driving force are interrelated, either one can be fixed for design
purposes. For conventional pressure-driven water filtration, it is usual to fix the value
of the flux and then determine the appropriate value for the TMP. The main impact of
the operating flux is on the period between cleaning, which may be by either physical
or chemical means (Fig. 2.10). In MBRs physical cleaning is normally achieved either
by backflushing, that is, reversing the flow, or relaxation, which is simply ceasing
permeation whilst continuing to scour the membrane with air bubbles. These two
techniques may be used in combination, and backflushing may be enhanced by
combination with air. Chemical cleaning is carried out with mineral or organic acids,
caustic soda or, more usually in MBRs, sodium hypochlorite, and can be performed
either in situ (“cleaning in place” or CIP) or ex situ (Section 2.3.9.2). Alternatively, a
low concentration of chemical cleaning agent can be added to the backflush water
to produce a “chemically enhanced backflush” (CEB).

Figure 2.10. Membrane cleaning methods

Physical cleaning is less onerous than chemical cleaning on a number of bases. It

is generally a more rapid process than chemical cleaning, lasting no more than 2
min. It demands no chemicals and produces no chemical waste, and also is less
 likely to incur membrane degradation. On the other hand, it is also less effective
than chemical cleaning. Physical cleaning removes gross solids attached to the
membrane surface, generally termed “reversible” or “temporary” fouling, whereas
chemical cleaning removes more tenacious material often termed “irreversible”
or “permanent” fouling, which is obviously something of a misnomer. Since the
original virgin membrane permeability is never recovered once a membrane is
fouled through normal operation, there remains a residual resistance which can be
defined as “irrecoverable fouling”. It is this fouling which builds up over a number
of years and ultimately determines membrane life.

Since flux, amongst other things, determines the permeability decline rate (or
pressure increase dP/dt), it also determines the period between physical cleaning
(backflushing or relaxation), that is, the physical cleaning cycle time. If backflushing
is used, this period can be denoted tp and, assuming no changes to other oper-
ating conditions, increasing the flux decreases tp. Since backflushing does not, in
practice, return the permeability to the original condition only a finite number of
backflush cycles can be performed before a threshold pressure is reached (Pmax)
beyond which operation cannot be sustained. At this point chemical cleaning must
be conducted to return the pressure to close to the original baseline value (Fig. 2.11).
As with physical cleaning, chemical cleaning never recovers the original membrane
permeability but is normally considerably more effective than physical cleaning. For
crossflow operation, backflushing is not normally an option due to the nature of the
membrane module (Table 2.2), and membrane permeability is thus maintained by a
combination of relaxation and chemical cleaning.

Figure 2.11. Pressure transient for constant flux operation of a dead-end filter

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.