War. Res. Vol. 31, No. 12. pp.

3064-3072, 1997
~ Pergamon © 1996ElsevierScienceLtd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0043-1354(96)00084-X 0043-1354/97$17.00+ 0.00

USE OF CROSSFLOW MICROFILTRATION IN

WASTEWATER TREATMENT
M U H A M M A D H. AL-MALACK'@ * and G. K. ANDERSON 2
~KFUPM, Box # ll50, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia and 2Civil Eng. Dept., The University,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne,NEI 7RU, U.K.

(Received April 1995; accepted in revisedform February 1996)

Abstract--Implementation of crossflow microfiltration in the field of wastewater treatment was

investigated. The membrane used throughout the research was made of multifilament polyester yarn
woven in the form of a double interleave cloth with a pore size of 20-40 gm. Secondary effluent and
primary settled sewage, from Blyth Sewage Treatment Plant, were used in the investigation. The study
showed that the permeation rate (flux) was linearly affected by the crossflow velocity (CFV) in the case
of treating secondary effluent. Permeate quality was also found to be affected by the crossflow velocity
values. In addition, the effect of feed suspended solids concentration was found to proceed according to
the concentration-polarization phenomena. Using the crossflow microfiltration process in treating
primary settled sewage, without pretreatment, was found to be impractical due to the low flux values.
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Key words--secondary effluent,settled sewage, crossflow microfiltration, crossflow velocity,flux, permeate

quality

INTRODUCTION more comparable to both ultrafiltration and conven-

Crossflow or tangential filtration is a process in which
the formation of a filter cake is either limited or,
under certain conditions, almost completely sup-
pressed by a flow of the suspension parallel to the
filtration surface and, because this system is
pressurized, water is forced through the filter. In
crossflow filtration, the feed stream is divided into
streams, namely the permeate or fitration and the
concentrate or retentate. Perhaps the name "parallel"
or "tangential" filtration is more illustrative than
"crossflow" filtration. In contrast, in the case of
conventional cake filtration, so-called dead-end
filtration, the suspension flows at right angles to the
filter medium under the applied pressure. The
particles are retained by the filter medium while the
liquid flows through the filter cake and through the
medium. Figure 1 shows a comparison of conven-
tional dead-end and crossflow filtration. It is clear
that, in the case of dead-end filtration, clogging will
occur in a short time due to the build-up of filtered
cake, while in crossflow filtration particles deposited
on the filter medium are swept away by the crossflow
velocity action. This parallel flow produces shear and
lift forces on the particles as they become attached to
the filter medium. Thus, the particle and solute
concentration polarization are controlled by the flow
velocity, resulting in a more controllable flux decline.
Microfiltration is the membrane process which is
*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.
tional coarse filtration. The pore size of a
microfiltration membrane ranges between 0.05 and-
10 #m. Michaels (1989) reviewed the factors influenc-
ing the selection of crossflow microfiltration and
stated that the properties to be considered in filter
media selection and testing should include: chemical
compatibility, cleanability, service life, flux and cost.
Microporous membranes for microfiltration have
been prepared from a variety of materials, including
ceramic, glass, graphite, metal or metal oxides, and
polymers. As cited by Gregor (1988) and Mulder
(1991), the manufacturing techniques used to produce
microporous membranes vary widely and include the
following: (i) sintering, (ii) nucleation track, (iii)
stretch, and (iv) phase inversion.
More information on microfiltration membranes
(materials and manufacturing techniques) can be
found in Gekas and Hallstrom (1990) and Van Der
Horst and Hanemaaijer (1990).
FOULINGTHEORYIN CROSSFLOWMICROFILTRATION
The decline in flux or permeation rate is believed
to be the major hindrance in the wide implementation
of crossflow microfiltration in the water and
wastewater treatment industry. This decline in flux
rate is attributed to the formation of a dynamic or
secondary membrane on top of the primary
membrane. Whether automatically or by design from
constituents in the feed, this dynamic membrane is
always formed. The decline in flux rate, which is

3064
 Crossflow microfiltration
(1)
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of (1) conventional and (2) crossflow filtration.
created by the less in membrane permeability, has
been the focus of several investigations. Resistance to
the filtration flux by the membrane material and
particles in the feed, and concentration polarization
are the two main phenomena governing the flux rate
decline in crossflow microfiltration.
Resistance phenomenon
Darcy's Law which relates the flow rate (the flux)
through a porous medium to the pressure drop can
be applied. Darcy's Law states that the flux is directly
proportional to the potential pressure drop and
inversely proportional to the resistance (l/k). The
resistance explicitly includes the contribution of cake
and filter medium:
k AP
v = (1)
pl
l/k = Rm + R~ (2)
where v = liquid velocity, k = proportionality con-
stant, A P = pressure drop across the medium,
1 = medium thickness, p = liquid viscosity,
Rm = resistance caused by filter media, and
R. = resistance caused by cake.
Thus, when filtering a suspension containing a wide
range of particles and colloids using a microporous
membrane at a constant pressure, the filtration flux,
J, can be expressed by the following resistance
equation:
AP
S = ~,R--S (3)
where J = filtration flux, Rt = total resistance to the
flux = Rm + Re.
At a constant applied pressure and, for a given
solution, constant viscosity (at a given temperature
and composition), the filtration flux is inversely
proportional to the total resistance. The total
resistance consists of the resistance caused by the
filter media (R.,) which is the product of the pore size,
the pore density, and the pore depth; resistance due
to internal colloidal fouling (R. + R,); resistance due
to the formation of a highly concentrated layer
adjacent to the membrane, concentration polariz-
ation (P.~); and re,sistance caused by the formation of
the gel layer (R~), due to the increasing concentration
of particles near the surface of the membrane. The
3065
II011 0 n
(2)
phenomenon of concentration polarization will be
discussed in a separate section. Thus, the total
resistance (Rt) can be expressed as follows:
Rt = Rm + Ra + Rp + Rep + Rg. (4)
Concentration polarization phenomenon
When a solution flows through a membrane-
bounded channel where the solvent passes through
the membrane while the solute is rejected at the
solution-membrane boundary, the criterion for local
steady-state mass transfer of solute requires that the
rate of convective transport of solute toward the
membrane surface be equal to the rate of transport
(by convective and diffusive mechanisms) of solute
away from the membrane surface, Michaels (1968).
This condition can be satisfied only if the solute
concentration in the layer of solution adjacent to the
membrane surface is greater than that in the bulk of
the solution within the channel. In the simplest terms,
concentration-polarization is the accumulation, at
the upstream surface of the membrane, of solute
molecules which are rejected or retained by the
membrane in the course of ultra- and microfiltration.
More details about the concentration polarization
concept are cited in Michaels (1968) and Blatt et al.
(1969). The concentration polarization model in
crossflow microfiltration was also reported by
Mulder (1991), Tanny (1978), Murkes (1990),
Murkes and Carlsson (1988), Anderson et al. (1986),
Van Den Berg and Smolders (1990), Zydney and
Colton (1986) and Schulz and Ripperger (1989).
Basically, the steady-state mass-transfer conditions
which must exist within the polarized boundary layer
are represented by the following relationship:
JCx - Ds ddCx - JCp = 0 (5)
where J = transmembrane solvent flux,
Cx = concentration at the boundary layer,
Ds = molecular diffusion coefficient, Cp = permeate
concentration.
By integrating, rearranging and assuming Cp = 0,
the above relation can be simplified to:
Cw
d = Km In ~ (6)
3066 M.H. AI-Malack and G. K. Anderson

H 13 V5
r - * - --.n
CONCENTRATE
, i

, i

CFMF
6
AIR
LO a ooooo 0 0 mO|
0 0 o o o o o ~ L j 14

11 V4
lz_.l 7

V3
VI
PERMEATE

DRAIN

V2

10

Fig. 2. Flow diagram of the process.

where Km is the particle mass-transfer coefficient solution concentration, Cb, and a mass-transfer
between bulk suspension and membrane surface and coefficient, Kin, as follows:
Cb is the concentration of solids in the bulk
suspension. J =Km In C~ (7)
The gel formation process begins when, initially,
the rate of convective transport of the solute to the Km and Cs can be determined by a semi-log plot of
membrane is greater than the back-transport. This solution concentration versus limiting flux (taken as
results in an increase in the wall concentration until stabilized flux values)
a limiting concentration is reached, when further
concentration cannot take place because of the FACTORS AFFECTING CROSSFLOW FILTRATION
impermeability of the polarized macromolecular
layer to other macromolecules. This limiting value The efficiency of crossflow filtration is primarily a
of Cw is referred to as Cs, the gel concentration. function of the operating parameters. This efficiency
Once Cw reaches C~, further build-up of the solute is measured by the filtrate flow rate (flux) and its
must occur by thickening of the gel layer rather than quality. The following factors were found to affect the
by further concentration. The formed gel layer will performance of crossflow filtration: (i) crossflow
act as a hydraulic barrier in series with the velocity; (ii) transmembrane pressure; (iii) tempera-
membrane. As the wall concentration, Cw, becomes ture; (iv) pore size of membrane; and (v) feed
constant and equal to C~, the flux will become a concentration.
dependent variable which is constant for a given
Table 2. Wastewater characteristics
Constituent Value
Table 1. Characteristics of the woven fabric
Turbidity (NTU) 22
Configuration Tubular pH 7.45
Material Polyester Density (g) 1001.84
Pore size 20--40#m Viscosity (cpu) 1.07
Radius 1.25 cm (0.5 inch) Alkalinity (mg/I) 300
Length 4 x 0.98 meter Chlorides (rag/l) . 3720
Cross-sectional area 4.597 m2 Sulfates (ms/I) 640
Total surface area 0.295 ms Suspended solids (mg/l) 66
Wall thickness 0.34--0.375 mm COD (rag/l) 130
Hydraulic resistance 2.7 x 106 (l/m) BOD (rag/l) 20
pH resistance range 2-14 TOC (mg/l) 86
 Crossflow microfiltration 3067
600 "

400 ---
eq

g
200 ---
I

0-

2 4 6 8 10

TIME (hrs)

Fig. 3. Permeate flux with respect to time.

FLUX DECAYAND FOULINGCONTROL particulate matter into the concentration polarization

For evaluation of the process and economic
viability of membrane-based filtration applications,
flux stability is a significant component which must
be taken into consideration. Flux decay and any
subsequent membrane cleaning or replacement play a
key role in the overall economics of microfiltration
and ultrafiltration processes. The flux decline is
caused by the continuous infiltration of fine
layer or by the compaction of the layer. A number of
techniques which could be adopted in order to
increase permeate flux rates were reported and
include the following: (i) abrasives; (ii) filtration aids
and coagulants; (iii) electrofiltration; (iv) ultrasonic
fields; (v) dynamically formed membranes; (vi)
membrane surface modification; (vii) backwashing;
(viii) pulsed flow, and (ix) rotating membranes.

300 -

C F V = 1.2 m / s e e

o C F V = 1.2 m / s e e

• CFV = I.S m/see

200 -~_

f,qo

loo - - -

0-

2 4 6 8 10 12

TIME (hrs)

Fig. 4. Effect of crossflow velocity (CFV) on permeate flux.

3068 M.H. AI-Malack and G. K. Anderson

15

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

CROSSFLOW VELOCITY (m/sec)

Fig. 5. Relationship between crossflow velocity (CFV) and permeate flux.

MEMBRANE CLEANING MATERIALS AND METHODS

The progressive decline o f flux with time is a
measure of h o w m u c h reality deviates from wishful
thinking. This flux decline c a n n o t be avoided a n d
eventually the flux becomes uneconomically low a n d
some type o f cleaning or regeneration o f the
m e m b r a n e must be carried out. The cleaning process
a n d its frequency depend o n the filtered p r o d u c t a n d
on the chemical resistance o f the m e m b r a n e . M o s t
cleaning procedures are a c o m b i n a t i o n of hydraulic
a n d chemical cleaning.
Figure 2 shows a flowchart of the process. The rig is
comprised of the following components:
(i) feed tank: this was circular and of about 3 m 3 capacity.
(ii) circulation or concentration tank: this was a rectangular
tank with dimensions of 30 x 70 x 80 cm.
(iii) circulation pump: a centrifugal pump.
(iv) membrane: the membrane used throughout was made
of multifilament polyester yarn woven in the form of
interleave fabric of tubular configuration when inflated with
a tube of 25 mm diameter. Flowboxes and manifolds were
fitted to both ends of the tube to direct the flow through
several passes of tubes both in parallel and series.

600

Legend

' ~" ~" ~ ~1~

4oo- .....

0 2 4 6 8 10

TIME (hr)
Fig. 6. Effect of suspended solids concentration (SS) on permeate flux.
 Crossflow microflltration 3069

Table 3. Results of flax modeling when secondary effluent was valve (V5) until the desired pressure was reached. It was
treated noticed that when excessive back pressures (more than
Experimental Calculated 1 bar) were applied, pinholes and breakthroughs would
flux SS flux form. Breakthroughs were seen to have a dramatic negative
(l/m2.hr) (mg/l) ln(SS) Km (l/m2.hr) effect on the permeate quality even at marginal rates. The
42 29 3.37 - 33.53 43 transmembrane pressure was calculated based on the
29 50 3.91 - 33.53 25 average value of both inlet and outlet pressures.
14 64 4.16 - 33.53 17 The hydraulic resistance was calculated using equation (3)
assuming that the kinematic viscosity of the permeate was
unity.
In the laboratory, secondary effluent from a domestic
Table 1 shows some characteristics of the fabric used in the wastewater treatment plant was used throughout the
project. research period. The wastewater was characterized in the
(v) permeate tank: the permeate tank was rectangular with Environmental Engineering Laboratory of the Civil
dimensions of 30 x 30 x 70 cm, and used to collect the Engineering Department at the University of Newcastle
permeate. upon Tyne. Table 2 shows the general characteristics of the
(vi) pressure gauges: these were used to measure the inlet secondary effluent delivered to the laboratory, the values
and outlet pressures. being that of an average wastewater in terms of suspended
(ix) flow meter: the circulation flow rate was measured by solids content.
a Ficher flow meter. During the course of the research, the wastewater
(vii) air-injection line: air was injected into the tubes, turbidity, as an example, ranged from 15 to 57 NTU which
through the inlet pipe with a flow meter installed to measure represents a suspended solids of about 20-130 mg/l. Most of
the air flow rates. the time the wastewater was oily which could have been
The wastewater was mixed continuously, in the feed tank, caused by the tanker delivering the wastewater, and which
using a multi-rotational speed stirrer. A submersible pump was used to handle all types of waste.
was placed on the bottom of the tank to feed the wastewater Routine cleaning, at the end of each run, was carried out
to a header-tank fixed at the top of the feed tank. using brushes. This practice employs the use of brushes on
Wastewater was fed, by gravity, from the header-tank to the the outside surface of the woven fabric and took place while
filtration rig via a float. The purpose of the float was to circulating tap water at low flow rates (1500 l/hr).
maintain the wastewater level inside the circulation tank by
feeding the same amount of wastewater equal to that being
produced as permeate.
The wastewater was circulated through the woven fabric RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
using a single-speed centrifugal pump with the flow rates
being adjusted using valve (V4), and measured using the Treatment of secondary effluent
flow meter. The crossflow velocity was calculated from the
flow rate values and the cross-sectional area of the tube. S e c o n d a r y effluent f r o m a c o n v e n t i o n a l activated
The permeation rate (flux) was measured by establishing sludge p r o c e s s was used for this investigation. T h e
the time required to fill the 250 ml cylinder. The flux rates first r u n was carried o u t by circulating b o t h the
were then calculated based on the total surface area of the p e r m e a t e a n d the c o n c e n t r a t e at a crossflow velocity
woven fabric. Flux values at the end of each run were
o f 1.63 m / s a n d m o n i t o r i n g the p e r m e a t e flux with
considered as the stabilized flux.
Inlet and outlet pressures were measured using pressure time, w h i c h is s h o w n in Fig. 3. T h e flux s t a r t e d at a
gauges. The back pressure could be applied by turning off relatively high value (24001/m2.hr) a n d d e c r e a s e d

60--

40 ----

jg

PC
,..] 20 - -
[,T,,
cu )

0"-
2.$ 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

In (SS)
Fig. 7. Relationship between suspended solids concentration (SS) and permeate flux.
3070 M.H. AI-Malack and G. K. Anderson

120
• s s - laa ~
• ss-2ao n~
• ss-4oo m~l

~ 80

~ -
N -

~ 40
~ --

O--
100 200 300 400 500

TIME (min)
Fig. 8. Effect of suspended solids (SS) on permeate flux when treating settled sewage.

sharply in the first few minutes of the run and by
more than 95% of its original value in the first 30
minutes of the experiment. After this, the flux started
to decrease at relatively slower rates until it came to
a value of 30 l/m 2.hr after 5 hours of running time.
The sharp decline in the flux, at the start of the run,
is attributed to the fact that the filter was clean and
all pores were open. This will result in higher
permeation rate (flux) which will in turn result in a
higher solids deposition rate, thus clogging the fabric
more rapidly. The increase in flux to 4801/m2'hr,
after 6 hours of running, was due to the off--on
mechanism, namely switching off and on the
circulation pump. The flux rose to 482 l/m2-hr, which
is more than 19 times greater than the value before,
but decreased to a stabilized value of 301/m2"hr
within 3 hours. This mechanism causes the filter wall
to collapse, creating destabilization and loosening of
the bond of the particles adhering to the filter surface.
These particles will be swept away by the crossflow
shear force, once the circulation pump is switched on
again. This mechanism has not been fully investigated

6O

d~ 4O
fq

,d 2O
k.

111111I 17111111
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

in (SS)
Fig. 9. Relationship between suspended solids (SS) and permeate flux.
 Crossflow microfiltration
60 m
40 '
20 ---
o--:; I I F I I l l l l l l l l I I I J l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I r t l b l l l l l l l l
10
Fig. 10. Experimental versus model predicted flux values [Flux = 93 - 17 x In(55)].
in this study. The quality of the permeate during that
operation (off-on mechanism) was seen to be
deteriorating but started to improve gradually
through the course of the run.
The effect of crossflow velocity on the flux
behaviour during secondary effluent microfiltration
was investigated. The investigation was carried out at
three different crossflow velocities for the same
effluent (i.e. same', solid concentration). Figure 4
shows the effect of' crossflow velocity on flux values.
It is clear that, as the crossflow velocity was
increased, the flux was stabilizing at higher values.
The relationship between stabilized flux and
crossflow velocity is shown in Fig. 5, which was
produced using stabilized flux values from Fig. 4, at
a specific time. Figure 5 suggests a linear relationship
between flux and crossflow velocity.
The effect of crossflow velocity on permeate quality
was also investigated and showed that lower
permeate suspended solids were obtained at lower
crossflow velocities. High crossflow velocities will
result in higher transmembrane pressure, which have
forced some particles in the feed to penetrate through
the membrane surface.
The effect of the. initial solids concentration in the
secondary effluent on the performance of the
crossflow microfikration process was also investi-
gated by studying the effect of three different solids
concentrations at the same crossflow velocity. The
results are shown in Fig. 6. It suggests that as the feed
concentration was increased, the stabilized flux values
decreased. Elkabir (1991), in his investigation of the
effect of solids cortcentration, claimed that it has no
effect on the performance of crossflow microfiltra-
tion. This is because he did not use different initial
3071
20 30 40 $0 60
PREDICTED FLUX
solids concentrations like he did when he was
investigating the effect of solid concentration on
ultrafiltration. Using stabilized flux values, in Fig. 6,
a relationship between flux and suspended solid
concentration, based on concentration-polarization
phenomena (equation (7)), was investigated and
Table 3 summarizes the results. The model produced
predicted flux values acceptably close to those
obtained experimentally.
Figure 7 shows the steady-state flux values versus
the natural logarithm of the solids concentrations.
The slope of the regression line represents the
mass-transfer coefficient, Kin, while the x-intercept
represents the natural logarithm of Cg, the gelatinous
concentration.
Regarding the permeate suspended solids, it was
noticed that lower solids concentrations in the
permeate were obtained when the feed contained a
low concentration of suspended solids.
TREATMENT OF SETTLED SEWAGE
Settled sewage, after primary sedimentation, was
used in this study at suspended solids concentrations
between 180 and 400 mg/1. The significant effect of
such high solids concentration on flux is shown in
Fig. 8. At a concentration of 280 mg/l suspended
solids, a flux value of about 10 l/m2.hr was obtained
after 5 minutes from the start of the experiment. This
is natural and expected in microfiltration, where pore
sizes are larger than those found in ultrafiltration and
crossflow velocities are lower. Thus, when treating a
feed such as settled sewage, where all types of particle
sizes may be encountered, blockage of these pores
could take place in the first few minutes of the run.
3072 M.H. Al-Malack and G. K. Anderson
The permeate quality in terms of suspended solids
was also investigated. As the suspended solid content
of the feed increases, blockage of the pores increases
and at a faster rate, which results in build-up of a
thicker deposited layer. Such a layer was seen to
almost completely block the fabric pores (from the
very low flux values) which would certainly result in
retaining the solid particles in the feed, thus
producing a permeate of high quality (low suspended
solids). The modeling of crossflow microfiltration
with respect to suspended solids concentration was
investigated using the experimental data obtained
from both secondary and settled sewage effluents.
Simple regression was adopted in the model by taking
flux values as the dependent variable and the
suspended solids concentration as the independent
variable. The results are shown in Fig. 9, which
suggests a linear relationship between stabilized flux
and the initial suspended solids concentration. Figure
l0 shows the experimental flux values versus those
predicted by the model.
CONCLUSIONS
It could be concluded that using the woven
polyester fabric without dynamically formed mem-
branes was found to produce impractically low
permeate flux values due to either pore size of the
membrane or the physical interactions between the
particles in the feed and the primary membrane. The
stabilized flux was seen to vary between 2 and
42 l/m 2.hr and was found to depend mainly upon the
feed suspended solids concentration and the
crossflow velocity, while the suspended solids
removal was also low. Chemical cleaning was,
occasionally, necessary depending on the feed solids
content.
Acknowledgements--The authors would like to express their
gratitude to the Research Institute of King Fahd University
of Petroleum and Minerals (Dhahran, Saudi Arabia) for the
technical support provided during the preparation of the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Anderson G. K., James A. and Saw C. B. (1986) Crossflow
microfiltration--a membrane for biomass retention in
anaerobic digestion. 4th World Filtration Congress,
Ostend, Belgium.
Blatt W. F., David A., MichaelsA. S. and Nelson L. (1970).
Solute polarization and cake formation in membrane
ultrafiltration: Causes, consequencesand control technol-
ogy. In Membrane Science and Technology (Edited by
Flinn J.). Plenum Press, New York.
Elkebir A. A. (1991). Application of crossflow filtration for
biomass retention in aeration tanks. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, U.K.
Gekas V. and Hallstrom B. (1990) Microfiltration
membranes, crossflow transport and fouling studies.
Desalination 77, 195-218.
Michaels A. S. (1968) New separation technique for the CPI.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 6402), 31-44.
Michaels S. L. (1989) Crossflow microfilters: The ins and
outs. Chem. Eng. 96(1), 84-91.
Mulder M. (1991) Basic Principles of Membrane Technol-
ogy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Murkes J. (1990) Fundamentals of crossflow filtration.
Separation and Purification Methods 19(1), 1-29.
Murkes J. and Carlsson C. G. (t988) Crossflow Filtration.
John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, U.K.
Schulz G. and Ripperger S. 0989) Concentration polariz-
ation in crossflow microfiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 40,
173-187.
Tanny G. B. 0978). Dynamic membranes in ultrafiltration
and reverse osmosis. Separation and Purification Methods
7(2), 183-220.
Van Den Berg G. B. and Smolders C. A. (1990) Flux decline
in ultrafiltration processes. Desalination 77, 101-133.
Van Der Horst H. C. and Hanemaaijer J. H. 0990)
Crossflow microfiltration in the food industry: State of
the art. Desalination 77, 235-258.
Zydney A. L. and Colton C. K. (1986) A concentration
polarization model for the filtration flux in cross-flow
microfiltration of particulate suspension. Chem. Eng.
Commun. 47, 1-21.