Ultrafiltration as a feasible technology to drinking water production: three case studies in Brazil

Fabio Pereira de Carvalho, Renato Ramos, Andre Lima & Andre Belarmino Sousa
Dow Water & Process Solutions

Abstract

Recent advances in membrane technology and increasing requirements on water quality have stimulated
ultrafiltration (UF) for drinking water treatment. Countries like Brazil, where conventional treatment still is
first option, are experiencing some problems due quality problems and operational costs. This paper
introduces UF, with a brief description of technology and important concepts to be learned. To demonstrate
feasibility of membrane application, three pilot studies were performed in different types of surface water in
São Paulo, Brazil. Superior water quality, lower operational costs and compact automated system are some
keywords that can be used to increase interest and potential of application of UF in municipal water
treatment market.

Keywords

Ultrafiltration, surface water, water quality, pilot trials, operational parameters

1. Introduction UF technology is expected to spread worldwide

Ultrafiltration (UF) technology is an attractive
alternative to conventional treatment for drinking
water production, removing numerous
contaminants (virus, Giardia, Cryptosporidium,
coliforms, suspended solids) and will reduce
turbidity from different water sources, including
surface waters. Membrane technology is
becoming popular for water applications, based
on advances in membrane technology and
increasing water quality requirements and
regulatory compliance (1, 2, 3); in Brazil, for
example, a recent regulation (“Regulation
2.914/11”) requires public water supply systems
to have a superior quality water. The use of
surface water as water supply requires efficient
processes in order to fulfill these requirements
(4).
Decades ago in 1990’s, UF was not cost
competitive compared with traditional
technologies (coagulation, flocculation,
decantation and filtration) but in recent years this
situation has changed: lower costs of membranes
(representing 15-20% of plant cost),
standardization of the membrane, lower
manufacturing costs, higher production volumes
and optimization of the process. UF low-pressure
membranes are sufficiently competitive with
conventional processes and are becoming
gradually accepted compared to other
technologies (5, 6, 7). In this century, the trend of
(Figure 1), especially in large-scale water
purification plants (8)
Figure 1. Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Global Capacity
(m³/d) 1995-2012
Ultrafiltration membranes may be applied to
variable feed water sources to produce
disinfected and superior quality water, sometimes
without the use of pretreatment, generating
substantial operational costs reduction and being
competitive with most conventional alternatives
(3, 11, 17). Critical points to be highlighted for
these applications are:
 Capital expenditure (CAPEX) – with rapid
development of new technologies, capital
and operational costs of UF membrane
technology are still expected to decrease
(9). In addition, the implementation of
innovative cleaning strategies, like air

DOW RESTRICTED
 backwash system, and low operation  Inorganic – ceramic (ex.: alumina,
pressures contributes to reduce costs glass, zirconia)
(11). Considering these types of materials and
 Operational expenditure (OPEX) – UF different permeability characteristics, membrane
plants are automated and have low providers use some traditional membrane
operational labor requirements (10), formation techniques (22, 23, 24):
reduced energy consumption and  DIPS (Diffusion Induced Phase
chemicals dosages and solids residual Separation) – this process involves the
streams are generally considered less conversion of a liquid polymer
problematic. The technology is highly solution (based in two or more
flexible and can be used coupled with components) into a two-phase
other treatment processes to achieve system, using a precipitation fluid.
additional removal (11). During the phase separation process,
a solid phase (high content of
2. Technology description polymer) forms the membrane
In membrane filtration, solid particles to be structure, and a liquid phase (low
separated are usually larger than pore size content of polymer) forms the
characteristic of the membrane, with irregular membrane pores. Using this
shapes. The separation depends of different technique it is possible to produce
factors as size, charge or affinity or a combination asymmetric membranes with a graded
of these properties (12). In ultrafiltration, mass pore size, as well as completely
transport is controlled by the convective flux symmetric membranes.
through pores and the driving force is a pressure  TIPS (Thermally Induced Phase
gradient (Figure 2) between feed solution and Separation) – is an alternative
filtrate (13). technique used for producing porous
structures, driven by temperature
change. In this technique a polymer is
dissolved in a poor solvent at high
temperature. Phase separation occurs
upon cooling the homogeneous
solutions, resulting in a porous
material after removal of the solvent.
It can be applied to a wide range of
polymers, generating dense and
porous films, with different types of
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of principle of ultrafiltration microstructures.
These membranes are commonly
The technology is used to remove particulate packaged in different types of modules; some
and microbial contaminants, but not ions and important properties include: mechanical
small molecules. UF membranes are generally robustness, sealing, flow distribution, cleanability,
characterized by pore size (nominal diameter, chemical resistance, low cost, scalability and high
expressed in microns – generally 0.01–0.05 µm) product recovery. The most common modules are
and molecular weight cut-off (MWCO – molecular (14):
weight of solute for >90% of rejection, expressed  cassettes,
in Daltons) (10, 11). Membranes materials  spiral wound,
primarily consist in two types (14):  hollow fibers,
 Organic - polymeric structures (ex.:  tubes,
polyethersulfone, cellulose  flat sheets
derivatives, polysulfone, polyamide, Other important modes of ultrafiltration
polyacrylonitrile, fluoropolymers); process are:

DOW RESTRICTED
  Flow direction: in inside-out mode the
feed water flows inside the fibers and the
permeate flows outside. In outside-in
mode occurs the opposite, feed water
flows outside the fibers, while permeate
flows inside (16);
 Flow configuration: in dead-end filtration
all the solution is forced through the
membrane, retaining particles on surface.
In cross-flow membrane filtration, the
feed liquid flows tangentially to the
membrane surface. (12)
Three studies (application of UF for producing
drinking water for different surface water
sources) were carried with an automated pilot
plant using Dow Ultrafiltration module
(pressurized vertical) (Table 1) (10).
Table 1. UF module information
Item
Fiber type Hollow fiber
Fiber material Hydrophilic PVDF
Flow configuration
Filtration configuration
Pore size (µm)
Temperature (°C)
Max. operation pressure (bar)
2
Filtrate flux (25°C) (L/m /hr)
Max. Transmembrane Pressure (bar)
pH range for continuous operation
Pilot plant configuration was defined, since it
specifications can provide many advantages in
application of UF technology in surface water
treatment:
 Use of polymeric hydrophilic membrane
PVDF (Polyvinylidene fluoride) hollow
fibers increase mechanical strength,
chemical resistance (different acids, bases
solvents and oxidants) and longevity
(generally 5-10 years for water
applications). Also, surface modification
provides fouling reduction, easy cleaning,
wettability and increasing flux (10, 12,
15);
 The use of dead-end mode provides
higher system recovery (typical recoveries
of 90-97%), energy consumption
reduction compared with cross-flow
mode (10, 18);
 Use of outside-in configuration is tolerant
of wide ranging feed water qualities and
solids. Allows air scour cleaning, providing
less consumption of chemicals and an
effective method to maintain TMP low (4,
10);
 The membrane nominal pore size
(0.03μm) provides high filtration
performance and high flux, also stabile
long term filtration performance
compared to microfiltration; hollow fiber
has large membrane surface per module
volume, giving higher performances (10,
20);
 Pressurized vertical shell-and-tube design
allows the possibility of using an air flush
cleaning, facilitates integrity tests and
provides protection for the membranes.
Also, it operates at higher fluxes than the
submerged systems (22).
In order to demonstrate the viability of the UF
technology for the production drinking water, a
UF module
pilot plant was installed in three different
locations in São Paulo, Brazil and different surface
water sources. The study evaluated different
Dead-end operational parameters of UF treatment process,
Outside-in
0.03
aiming to achieve regulatory goals for drinking
1 - 40 water and optimal operational conditions to each
6.25 type of feed water.
40 - 120
2.1 3. Sites description
2–11
In this study, three different feed water
(surface water) were evaluated in Brazilian water
treatment plants (WTP):
 Alto Cotia (28 days of operation): part of
Alto Cotia System that supplies the
Metropolitan Region of São Paulo using
feed water from Graça Reservoir.
Although historically considered to be one
of the best sources of water, the recent
trend is degradation of raw water due to
human action, mainly color problems.
Capacity: 1.2 m³/s; Type of treatment:
pre-chlorination, coagulation,
flocculation, sedimentation, filtration,
disinfection and fluoridation (19, 25).
 Alto da Boa Vista (58 days of operation):
is part of the System
Guarapiranga/Billings also supplying the
Metropolitan Region of São Paulo. The
water quality of the source (Guarapiranga
Reservoir) is compromised by diffuse
pollution (human occupation). Problems
with algal blooms, caused by
eutrophication, create physicochemical
DOW RESTRICTED
 and organoleptic problems in water.  Alto da Boa Vista
Capacity: 14 m³/s; Type of treatment:
Grating, sandbox, pre-chlorination,
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation,
filtration, disinfection and fluoridation
(19, 26).
 Indaiá (49 days of operation): supplies
part of Bertioga City, São Paulo coast. The
source of water is based on Itapanhaú
River and WTP problems mainly are
related with inefficient control during
color peaks. Capacity: 130 L/s; Type of
treatment: grating, sandbox, pre- Figure 4. Alto da Boa Vista – Feed and filtrate water turbidity
chlorination, coagulation, flocculation, values during tests
sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, pH
correction and fluoridation (27). Again, 99.2% of all samples had values
Table 2 shows several parameters to assess below 0.05 NTU and 0.8% had values between
the feed water quality: 0.05 and 0.1 NTU. Results variations in outlet
turbidity during tests are related with technical
Table 2. Feed water common characteristics for three sites (19)
problems in turbidity sensor (water flow back).
Parameter Alto Alto da Indaiá
Cotia Boa
Vista  Indaiá
Turbidity (NTU) 6.7 5.3 3.8
Apparent color (UC) 49 32.4 256
pH 6 6.9 6.5-6.8
Total suspended solids - <5 20
(mg/L)

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Removal objectives
4.1.1. Turbidity
For three sites, results of turbidity of feed
and filtrate water during tests are plotted below:
 Alto Cotia
Figure 5. Indaiá – Feed and filtrate water turbidity values
during tests

In this case, UF reduced turbidity to less

Figure 3. Alto Cotia – Feed and filtrate water turbidity values
during tests
UF reduced turbidity to less than 0.05 NTU
at 99.2% of samples and 0.8% generated
ultrafiltered water with values between 0.05 and
0.1 NTU.
than 0.1 NTU in all of samples during tests.
These results are in compliance with
standard limit (0.5 NTU in 95% of samples).
Actually, it’s common that conventional treatment
have difficult to reach this goal, which must be
achieved in four years after Regulation publication
(until 2015). In other words, ultrafiltration
demonstrates feasibility to be applied in different
types of surface waters without problems to reach
turbidity goals with stable operation.
4.1.2. Apparent color
 Alto Cotia

DOW RESTRICTED
 In the beginning of tests, without addition water and permeate are performed to evaluate
of coagulant, results of apparent color of feed algae removal by UF:
water in six different samples were inside the  Alto Cotia
range of 49-57 uC. After UF treatment color has
reduced to a range of 10-19 uC (Regulation Table 3. Alto Cotia - Hydrobiological analysis results
Sampling 1 Sampling 2
2.914/11 limit – 15 uC). To reduce color until
Content Content Content
acceptable values (target 5 uC), different Content in
in Raw in Raw in
Microorganism permeate
concentrations of coagulant were added in feed water
(ASU/ml)
water permeate
(ASU*/ml) (ASU/ml) (ASU/ml)
water with starting concentration of 25 ppm of
Cyanobacteria 1.53 - 1 -
aluminum sulfate (dosage of local conventional Chlorophyta 307.08 - 210.2 0.2
treatment). After sequential reductions in dosage Bacillariophyta 179.31 - 284.6 0.1
and looking for combined solution between low Others algae 0.31 0.05 18.4 0.1
Others
TMP and low color, 5 ppm of Al2(SO4)3.18H2O microorganisms
14.09 - 10.6 1.2
achieved color values around 5 uC; in six samples Total 502.32 0.05 524.8 1.6
of feed water with results between 40-55 uC, the Removal 99.99% 99.70%
ultrafiltered water achieve values between 2-5 uC, *Algal Areal Standard Units (ASU)

consistent with the regulatory goals.

Predominant organisms: Staurastrum
 Indaiá (Cyanobacteria); Cosmarium, Closteriopsis and
Using combined alternatives with Chlorococcales (Chlorophyta); Melosira and
coagulant and hypochlorite, color removal were Pennales (Bacillariophyta); Dinoflagellate, rotifers,
evaluated: ciliate and filamentous bacteria (others
o in three samples with only dosage of 5 microorganisms).
ppm of FeCl3, color values were
reduced from 22.5 uC to 2.5 uC;
 Alto da Boa Vista:
o in two samples with dosage of 5 ppm
of FeCl3 plus hypochlorite (2 ppm of Table 4. Alto da Boa Vista - Hydrobiological analysis results
residual chlorine), color values were Hydrobiological analysis - Total of microorganisms (ASU/mL)
reduced from 15 uC and 22.5 uC to 2
Date Raw Water Permeate % Removal
uC and 1 uC, respectively;
o in one sample with addition of
11/30/2012 3301.5 0.22 99.99%
hypochlorite, color value were
reduced from 15 uC to 1.5 uC 12/06/2012 1758.5 0.20 99.99%

12/13/2012 2398.9 0.10 100.00%

4.1.3. Algae
12/17/2012 796.6 0.08 99.99%
In drinking water treatment, one of most
common problem to be solved is algae bloom. The 01/07/2013 1342.1 0.02 100.00%

removal of algae content is extremely important, 01/10/2013 2435.8 0.06 100.00%

mainly for harmful cyanobacterias. However it has
01/16/2013 2401.3 0.20 99.99%
been proved that coagulation, flocculation and
filtration (conventional treatment) are partially 01/31/2013 662.4 0.00 100.00%
effective for algae removal, but generating stress 02/14/2013 2762.8 0.00 100.00%
and dissolved toxins. Pre-oxidation has been
02/20/2013 3217.5 0.00 100.00%
shown to be effective, but high dosage required
may induce cell lysis, releasing undesirable Predominant organisms: Cyanobacteria
compounds. Moreover, there is a risk for Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta.
formation of harmful by-products. Membrane These results demonstrate ultrafiltration
filtration technology is very effective and safe for capacity in algae and microorganism removal
the removal of algae after bloom, since it offers (>99.7%) at those sites, providing safe and
an absolute removal of the algal cells and avoids superior water quality and reducing problems
releasing of harmful toxin by cell lysis (28). Due to related with presence of these organism in
this problem, hydrobiological analysis of raw drinking water.

DOW RESTRICTED
 as chlorine; because of their toxicity, they are
4.1.4. Aluminum and iron regulated by drinking water regulations (21).
One of the problems of conventional Based on Brazilian legislation, the limit value is
treatment, the excess of coagulant, can contribute 0.08 mg/L and the sample result was adequate,
to increasing the value of metals (generally iron or with a concentration below 0.01 mg/L.
aluminum) content in the treated water. Also, iron Total organic carbon (TOC) removal also is
and aluminum concentration in feed water can an important parameter of UF performance.
contribute to exceed regulatory limits of these According to US EPA Stage 1
metals. Due to this problem, studying the content Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule is
of metals in the treated water was carried out. important to monitor and reduces NOM, and for
 Alto Cotia measuring NOM, total organic carbon (TOC)
With an optimal coagulant (aluminum analysis was chosen (29). So, it’s extremely
sulfate) concentration of 5 ppm, all samples of important analyzing TOC as a parameter of
ultrafiltered water had values below 0.2 mg/L content of DBPs precursors. In Alto da Boa vista
(standard limit based on Regulatory 2914/11). pilot study, TOC content of raw water and
 Alto da Boa Vista permeate were evaluated: reduction of 5.7 mg/L
With 5 ppm of coagulant (ferric chloride), in raw water to 1.0 mg/L in permeate,
a study of presence of total iron in filtered water demonstrating a considerable reduction of TOC
was performed. 64 samples were analyzed and content and reduction of precursors of DBPs,
none exceeded the regulatory limit (0.3 mg/L) and providing a superior water quality, even though
with a mean value of 0.007 mg/L. most of the organic matter was soluble.
 Indaiá
Removal analysis of Fe: this part of the 4.2. Operational efficiency objectives
study was divided into three phases. In first 4.2.1. Optimal conditions and system recovery
phase, the study was conducted by adding 5 ppm Recovery is the volume fraction of feed
of ferric chloride in raw water (samples 1 and 2). water that is converted to permeate a given time
During the second phase (samples 4 and 5), study interval. It should be deducted from the volume
was performed with hypochlorite (guaranteeing of permeated water used for chemical cleanings
residual chlorine of 2 ppm) and 5 ppm of ferric and backwashes. Systems recoveries were
chloride. The third phase (sample 6) was made calculated, after several attempts it was possible
with addition of the hypochlorite, (residual to find optimal parameters for operation in three
chlorine of 2 ppm) and no coagulant. Results different sites:
below (Table 5):  Alto Cotia
Table 5. Iron removal study results
Iron in Table 6. Alto Cotia – Optimal operational conditions
Iron in feed Parameter Optimal conditions
Chemicals dosage ultrafiltered
water
water Backwash frequency 20 minutes
Sample 1 0.32 mg/L <0.05 mg/L Backwash duration 60 seconds
5 ppm ferric chloride 2
Sample 2 0.42 mg/L <0.05 mg/L Operational Flux 50 L/m .h
2
5 ppm ferric chloride Backwash flux 120 L/m .h
+ hypochlorite Sample 3 0.39 mg/L <0.05 mg/L Air Duration 60 seconds
(residual chlorine 2 Sample 4 0.38 mg/L <0.05 mg/L cleaning Output
3
12 Nm /h
ppm) CEB Frequency Every 6 hours
Only hypochlorite Duration Reagents injection: 90 sec.
(residual chlorine 2 Sample 5 0.37 mg/L <0.05 mg/L Soak: 10min
ppm)
Reagents Alkaline: - 650ppm NaOH
- 750ppm NaClO
4.1.5. Haloacetic acids e TOC
 Alto Cotia Acid: -500ppm Oxalic acid
CIP Frequency Every 30 days
A sample of permeate was analyzed to Duration 4 hours
determine total haloacetic acids concentration. Reagents Alkaline: - 1000ppm NaOH
These substances are disinfection byproducts - 2000ppm NaClO
(DBPs), formed by reaction between NOM Acid: -2000 ppm H2C2O 4
o
(natural organic matter) with disinfectants, such Temperature 40 C
Recovery 90%

DOW RESTRICTED
  Alto da Boa Vista 4.2.2. Coagulant dosage
 Alto Cotia
Table 7. Alto da Boa Vista – Optimal operational conditions
Parameter Optimal conditions
It has been established the optimum
Backwash frequency 60 minutes dosage of coagulant (5 ppm) to ensure the water
Backwash duration 60 seconds with color values less than 5 uC (conservative
2
Operational Flux 62.3 L/m .h limit). With this dosage of aluminum sulfate,
2
Backwash flux 120 L/m .h
Air Duration 60 seconds
permeate reached the regulatory goals, while the
cleaning Output
3
12 Nm /h conventional treatment used to consider roughly
CEB Frequency Alkaline: Every 48 hours 20-25 ppm of coagulant to be compliant with
Acid: Every 50 hours
limits.
Duration Reagents injection: 90 sec.
Soak: 8 min  Alto da Boa Vista
Reagents Alkaline: - 750ppm NaOH
In that study, no coagulant was used to
- 650ppm NaClO provide good quality water, in accordance with
Acid: -500ppm Oxalic acid
regulatory standards and optimal parameters of
CIP Frequency Estimated: Every 90 days UF treatment.
Duration 4 hours  Indaiá
Reagents Alkaline: - 1000ppm NaOH It has been established that a dosage of 5
- 2000ppm NaClO
ppm of ferric chloride is sufficient to guarantee
Acid: -2000 ppm H2C2O 4
o
color removal (below 5 uC) and provide good
Temperature 40 C
Recovery 97,1%
water quality parameters in compliance with
regulation.
 Indaiá
4.2.3. Membrane permeability
Table 8. Indaiá – Optimal operational conditions Membrane permeability measures how
Parameter Optimal conditions
the water flows through the membrane and is
Backwash frequency 40 minutes
Backwash duration 60 seconds related to amount of permeate passing through
Operational Flux
2
50 L/m .h the membrane per unit time, unit area and
2
Backwash flux 110 L/m .h transmembrane pressure. The trend in
Air Duration 60 seconds
cleaning 3 permeability values (normalized) for the duration
Output 12 Nm /h
CEB Frequency Alkaline: Every 48 hours of the pilot studies can be seen in following
Acid: Every 24 hours graphs:
Duration Reagents injection: 90 sec.  Alto Cotia
Soak: 10min

Reagents Alkaline: - 650ppm NaOH

- 500ppm NaClO

Acid: -500ppm Oxalic acid

CIP Frequency Estimated: Every 60 days
Duration 4 hours
Reagents Alkaline: - 1000ppm NaOH
- 2000ppm NaClO

Acid: -2000 ppm H2C2O 4

o
Temperature 40 C
Recovery 93,4%

Considering typical recoveries of conventional

treatment (around 95%), it’s important to improve the
UF conditions to reach high recovery levels. In all of
the case studies, the recovery rate expected for a UF
system was achieved (90-97%). Those recoveries were
calculated not taking into consideration a possible
recirculation of part of the backwash water discharge,
which can contribute to an even higher recovery rate.
Figure 6. Alto Cotia - Normalized Permeability and trendline
In figure 6, it has been considered optimal
operational parameters and a coagulant dosage
(ferric chloride) of 5 ppm. Permeability decreasing
can be predicted by a trendline:
P = 97.924 – 0.0043T

DOW RESTRICTED
Where: P = permeability (LMH/bar) and T = time
(minutes)
It’s possible to realize a sustainable operation
over the time, considering permeability reducing
(TMP increasing) and consistent behavior of
recovery of permeability after regular cleanings.
 Alto da Boa Vista
Figure 7. Alto da Boa Vista - Normalized Permeability and
trendline
In the study on figure 7, no coagulant was
added to treatment, providing higher permeability
values.
Again, permeability decreasing can be followed by
a trendline:
P = 127.23 – 0.00008T
It was part of the study to operate in different CEB
frequencies and it is noticed a substantial
decrease, suggesting a TMP increase caused
exactly by reducing of CEB frequencies (48 hours –
alkaline/oxidant and 50 hours – acid).
 Indaiá
Figure 8. Indaiá - Normalized Permeability and two different
trendlines
DOW RESTRICTED
In figure 8, it has been considered coagulant
dosage (ferric chloride) of 5 ppm. It’s possible to
observe two different stages of performance and
different trendlines:
- First stage (P1) trendline:
P1 = 99.867 - 5.3809T
- Second stage (P2) trendline:
P2 = 69.195 - 0.00093T
Even with regular cleanings, it’s possible
to observe substantial reducing of permeability,
caused mainly by coagulant use which may
contribute to formation of bigger particles that
cause membrane fouling. Second stage
permeability values, considering optimal
parameters, indicate more stable operation, but
with lower permeability values than initial ones.
4.2.4. Transmembrane Pressure
Transmembrane pressure refers to the
pressure required for water passes through the
membrane pores (inlet pressure minus outlet
pressure). As the filtered water is being produced,
residues will be deposited on the outer surface of
the membrane, causing pressure increasing.
 Alto Cotia
Figure 9. Alto Cotia - Normalized TMP and Flux, TMP
trendline and pressure limits
Flux values show a very stable operation
during test period (5 ppm of coagulant), even with
TMP increasing. During this period, TMP values
were below CIP limit but considering raising rate,
it’s possible to predict a CIP frequency of 23 days
(trendline: TMP = 0,4988 + 0,00003T), which is
conservative due to use of coagulant for color
removal.
 Alto da Boa Vista

Figure 10. Alto da Boa Vista - Normalized TMP, trendline and
pressure limits
In this graph, it’s possible to observe three
different flux conditions: initial (54.5 lmh),
intermediate (59.7 lmh) and final (62.3 lmh).
Therefore, TMP values are directly correlated with
flux conditions, remarkably TMP peaks appear
during higher flux conditions. Also, it’s observed
stable operation, with values below CIP limit and
predicted frequency above 231 days (trendline:
TMP = 0.4551 + 0,000003T).
 Indaiá
Figure 11. Indaiá - Normalized TMP, trendline and pressure
limits
In this case study, two flux conditions
were observed. With values around 60 lmh, TMP
values indicated an unstable operation (peaks
near CIP limit) due to high flux for this condition
(use of coagulant). With flux reduction to 50 lmh,
UF pilot showed better conditions and
consequently more stable operation over the time
and with a CIP frequency (predicted) of 23 days
(trendline: TMP = 0,5 + 0,00003T).
4.2.5. Sludge production
DOW RESTRICTED
Several empirical formulas have been
developed which allow obtaining an
approximation of sludge generation in water
treatment plants. All equations are conceptually
similar and generally assumed that sludge
produced by the water treatment have two
components: the first consists of the solid fraction
of the raw water (generally based as solids
concentration or turbidity) and the second
component comes from chemicals used in
treatment, which precipitate, are insoluble or are
adsorbed (examples: polymers, coagulants) (19).
Using one of these formulas, it’s possible to have
an idea of sludge production of UF as water
treatment technology.
Formula: Association Francaise Pour L'Etude Des
Eaux (AFEE)
P = (1,2 x Tu + 0,07 x C + 0,17 x D + A) x 10 -3
Where: P = solids production (kg dry matter/m³
water treated)
Tu = raw water turbidity (NTU)
C = apparent color of the raw water (uC)
D = dosage of aluminum sulfate (mg/L)
A = Additives such as polymer (mg/L)
Sludge generation prediction (considering
5 ppm of aluminum sulfate when coagulant is
present):
 Alto Cotia: 0.012 (kg dry
matter/m³ water treated)
 Alto da Boa Vista: 0.009 (kg dry
matter/m³ water treated)
 Indaiá: 0.023 (kg dry matter/m³
water treated)
Considering formula components, it’s clear
that conventional treatment will generate more
sludge compared with UF technology, related to
the reduction of coagulant dosage (or even none
dosage) and chemicals. This is an important
parameter to be considered in a water treatment
plant, since a reduction in sludge generation, will
result in less expenses with waste disposal.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, outside-in pressurized UF has been
shown to be a viable process for production of
drinking water. The UF pilot, in three pilot studies
with different source waters, allowed sustainable
operation when optimal parameters were applied,
even with variability of feed water quality. In
these cases, good performance and superior
water quality (remarkably very low turbidity, color
removal with coagulant dosing and algae removal)
demonstrate feasibility of technology as a good
alternative for conventional water treatments.
Additionally, sludge reduction and lower OPEX
contribute to grow interest in membrane
technology and help to increase options of
application of UF.
For future studies, more pilot trials can be
performed to increase knowledge and create
guidelines for different sources of water and
optimal operational parameters for each one.
6. Bibliography
(1) Chiu, K. P., Gramith, K., & Oppenheimer, J.
(2005). Development of a microfiltration and
ultrafiltration knowledge base. S. Adham (Ed.).
American Water Works Association.
(2) Shengji, X., Xing, L., Ji, Y., Bingzhi, D., &
Juanjuan, Y. (2008). Application of membrane
techniques to produce drinking water in
China. Desalination,222(1), 497-501.
(3) Herschell Green, J., & Tylla, M. (1998). A
comparison of ultrafiltration on various river
waters. Desalination, 119(1), 79-83.
(4) Lipp, P., & Baldauf, G. (2002). Application of
out—in MF/UF-systems for drinking water
treatment with air supported backwash—three
case studies. Desalination, 147(1), 63-68.
(5) P. Huck, M. Sozański (2011), 3.16 - Chemical
Basis for Water Technology, In: Treatise on Water
Science, Elsevier, Oxford, Pages 429-469
(6) Laîné, J. M., Vial, D., & Moulart, P. (2000).
Status after 10 years of operation—overview of
UF technology today. Desalination, 131(1), 17-25.
(7) Gao, W., Liang, H., Ma, J., Han, M., Chen, Z. L.,
Han, Z. S., & Li, G. B. (2011). Membrane fouling
control in ultrafiltration technology for drinking
water production: A review. Desalination, 272(1),
1-8.
(8) Y. Watanabe, K. Kimura (2011), 4.02 -
Membrane Filtration in Water and Wastewater
Treatment, In: Treatise on Water Science, Elsevier,
Oxford, Pages 23-61
(9) Guo, X., Zhang, Z., Fang, L., & Su, L. (2009).
Study on ultrafiltration for surface water by a
polyvinylchloride hollow fiber
membrane. Desalination,238(1), 183-191.
DOW RESTRICTED
(10) Dow Ultrafiltration – Product Manual
(11) AWWA (2005), Microfiltration and
Ultrafiltration Membranes for Drinking Water -
Manual of Water Supply Practices, M53 (1st
Edition), American Water Works Association
(AWWA)
(12) R. Sahai (2000), MEMBRANE SEPARATIONS |
Filtration, In: Encyclopedia of Separation Science,
Academic Press, Oxford, Pages 1717-1724
(13) H. Strathmann (2012), Membranes and
Membrane Separation Processes. In: Ullmann's
Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim,Vol. 22,
pages 413-456
(14) H. Lutz (2010), 2.06 - Ultrafiltration:
Fundamentals and Engineering, In:
Comprehensive Membrane Science and
Engineering, Elsevier, Oxford, Pages 115-139
(15) Kubota, N., Hashimoto, T. and Mori, Y. (2008)
Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration, in Advanced
Membrane Technology and Applications , John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA
(16) Xu, J., Ruan, G., Gao, X., Pan, X., Su, B., & Gao,
C. (2008). Pilot study of inside-out and outside-in
hollow fiber UF modules as direct pretreatment of
seawater at low temperature for reverse
osmosis. Desalination, 219(1), 179-189.
(17) Kennedy, M. D., Kamanyi, J., Rodríguez, S. G.,
Lee, N. H., Schippers, J. C., & Amy, G. (2008).
Water treatment by microfiltration and
ultrafiltration.Advanced Membrane Technology
and Applications, 131-170.
(18) AWWA Subcommittee On Periodical
Publications Of The Membrane Process
Committee (2008), Microfiltration and
ultrafiltration membranes for drinking water,
Journal (American Water Works Association), Vol.
100, No. 12, pp. 84-97
(19) Katayama, V. T. (2012). Quantificação da
produção de lodo de estações de tratamento de
água de ciclo completo: uma análise crítica.
Master's Dissertation, Escola Politécnica,
University of São Paulo, São Paulo
(20) Bentama, J., Schmitz, P., Destrac, P., &
Espenan, J. M. (2004). Technological innovation
for the production of drinking water by
membrane processes. Desalination, 168, 283-286.
(21) Karnik, B. S., Davies, S. H., Baumann, M. J., &
Masten, S. J. (2005). Fabrication of catalytic
membranes for the treatment of drinking water
using combined ozonation and
ultrafiltration. Environmental science &
technology,39(19), 7656-7661.
(22) Berghmans, S., Berghmans, H., & Meijer, H. E.
H. (1996). Spinning of hollow porous fibres via the
TIPS mechanism. Journal of membrane
science, 116(2), 171-189.
(23) Kimmerle, K., & Strathmann, H. (1990).
Analysis of the structure-determining process of
phase inversion membranes. Desalination, 79(2),
283-302.
(24) Li, Dongmei, William B. Krantz, Alan R.
Greenberg, and Robert L. Sani. "Membrane
formation via thermally induced phase separation
(TIPS): Model development and
validation." Journal of membrane science 279, no.
1 (2006): 50-60.
(25) SABESP (2012), Relatório Anual de Qualidade
da Água – Embu-Guaçu
(26) SABESP (2012), Relatório Anual de Qualidade
da Água – São Paulo
(27) SABESP (2012), Relatório Anual de Qualidade
da Água – Bertioga
(28) Zhang, Y., Tian, J., Nan, J., Gao, S., Liang, H.,
Wang, M., & Li, G. (2011). Effect of PAC addition
on immersed ultrafiltration for the treatment of
algal-rich water. Journal of hazardous
materials, 186(2), 1415-1424.
(29) Wallace, B., Purcell, M., & Furlong, J. (2002).
Total organic carbon analysis as a precursor to
disinfection byproducts in potable water:
Oxidation technique considerations. Journal of
Environmental Monitoring, 4(1), 35-42.

DOW RESTRICTED