Theortical Part

Chapter One :
Introduction
Reverse Osmosis (RO):
is a water purification technology that uses a semipermeable membrane to remove
ions, molecules and larger particles from drinking water. In reverse osmosis, an
applied pressure is used to overcome osmotic pressure, a colligative property, that is
driven by chemical potential differences of the solvent, a thermodynamic
parameter. Reverse osmosis can remove many types of dissolved and suspended
species from water, including bacteria, and is used in both industrial processes and
the production of potable water. The result is that the solute is retained on the
pressurized side of the membrane and the pure solvent is allowed to pass to the
other side. To be "selective", this membrane should not allow large molecules or
ions through the pores (holes), but should allow smaller components of the solution
(such as solvent molecules) to pass freely.
In the normal osmosis process, the solvent naturally moves from an area of low
solute concentration (high water potential), through a membrane, to an area of high
solute concentration (low water potential). The driving force for the movement of
the solvent is the reduction in the free energy of the system when the difference in
solvent concentration on either side of a membrane is reduced, generating osmotic
pressure due to the solvent moving into the more concentrated solution. Applying
an external pressure to reverse the natural flow of pure solvent, thus, is reverse
osmosis.
The process is similar to other membrane technology applications. However, key

differences are found between reverse osmosis and filtration. The predominant
removal mechanism in membrane filtration is straining, or size exclusion, so the
process can theoretically achieve perfect efficiency regardless of parameters such as
the solution's pressure and concentration. Reverse osmosis also involves diffusion,
making the process dependent on pressure, flow rate, and other conditions. Reverse
osmosis is most commonly known for its use in drinking water purification from
seawater, removing the salt and other effluent materials from the water molecules.
History of Reverse Osmosis :
A process of osmosis through semipermeable membranes was first observed in
1748 by Jean-Antoine Nollet. For the following 200 years, osmosis was only a
phenomenon observed in the laboratory. In 1950, the University of California at
Los Angeles first investigated desalination of seawater using semipermeable
membranes.
Researchers from both University of California at Los Angeles and the University
of Florida successfully produced fresh water from seawater in the mid-1950s, but
the flux was too low to be commercially viable until the discovery at University of
California at Los Angeles by Sidney Loeb and Srinivasa Sourirajan at the National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, of techniques for making asymmetric
membranes characterized by an effectively thin "skin" layer supported atop a highly
porous and much thicker substrate region of the membrane.
John Cadotte, of FilmTec Corporation, discovered that membranes with
particularly high flux and low salt passage could be made by interfacial
polymerization of m-phenylene diamine and trimesoyl chloride. Cadotte's patent on
this process was the subject of litigation and has since expired. Almost all
commercial reverse osmosis membrane is now made by this method. By the end of
2001, about 15,200 desalination plants were in operation or in the planning stages,
worldwide.
In 1977 Cape Coral, Florida became the first municipality in the United States to
use the RO process on a large scale with an initial operating capacity of 3 million
gallons (11350 m³) per day. By 1985, due to the rapid growth in population of Cape
Coral, the city had the largest low pressure reverse osmosis plant in the world,
capable of producing 15 million gallons per day (MGD) (56800 m³/d).
Reverse osmosis production train, North Cape Coral Reverse Osmosis Plant
Process:
Formally, reverse osmosis is the process of forcing a solvent from a region of high
solute concentration through a semipermeable membrane to a region of low solute
concentration by applying a pressure in excess of the osmotic pressure. The largest
and most important application of reverse osmosis is the separation of pure water
from seawater and brackish waters; seawater or brackish water is pressurized
against one surface of the membrane, causing transport of salt-depleted water across
the membrane and emergence of potable drinking water from the low-pressure side.
The membranes used for reverse osmosis have a dense layer in the polymer matrix
—either the skin of an asymmetric membrane or an interfacially polymerized layer
within a thin-film-composite membrane—where the separation occurs. In most
cases, the membrane is designed to allow only water to pass through this dense
layer while preventing the passage of solutes (such as salt ions).
This process requires that a high pressure be exerted on the high concentration side
of the membrane, usually 2–17 bar (30–250 psi) for fresh and brackish water, and
40–82 bar (600–1200 psi) for seawater, which has around 27 bar (390 psi) natural
osmotic pressure that must be overcome. This process is best known for its use
in desalination (removing the salt and other minerals from sea water to
produce fresh water), but since the early 1970s, it has also been used to purify fresh
water for medical, industrial, and domestic applications
A semipermeable membrane coil used in desalination
Figure()
Technologies for reject water (brine) management in industries:
With our increasing rates of population explosion and water exploitation, serious
environmental attention needs to be paid on the use and reuse of water. Water is the
key and most precious natural resource, no wonder it is called the elixir of life. With
the increasing water scarcity, skyrocketing competition occurs among various
sectors, such as industry, agriculture, and domestic sector.
In addition, raising public awareness on water conservation strategies from both the
state and central governments along with stringent environmental norms
significantly increased the monitoring of water use in industries at all possible
levels. The intensifying demand of potable water led to several significant
improvements in the application of membrane technology in water and wastewater
treatment. Considerable expansion in membrane technology happened over the last
three decades and it lowered the production costs.
This further extends the applicability of this desalination technology at grass roots
level. From smaller, pre-engineered industrial skidded designed membrane systems
to large flow, custom membrane systems are available for water and wastewater
treatment in present-day market to satisfy the need of various sectors. As a
consequence, the huge generation of reject water (saline effluent from desalination
plants or industry) is normally viewed as a severe environmental threat. The reject
water disposal is considered as a major challenge in the engineering design of any
desalination facility and often appears to be an afterthought in many desalination
texts.
The interplay of design objectives and regulatory restraints is complex yet
surprisingly synergistic when it comes to the issues of reject water discharge.
Essentially, membranes allow partial water to pass through while rejecting the rest.
Therefore, any feed stream sent to a membrane system can be classified into two
streams called permeate and concentrate. The part of the stream that can pass
through the membrane is called permeate (clean/product water). The part of the
stream that is rejected by the membrane is called the concentrate (retentate) .
In general, the common perception about the concentrate represents concentrated

slurry of undesirable contaminants in a wastewater or product clarification
application. However, in an optimistic way one can view the concentrate as the
desirable material in a product recovery or concentration context.
In general, the advanced treatment technology to generate the process water in

industries consists of MF and RO, followed by ultraviolet (UV) disinfection with
advanced oxidation (AO). While backwash waste produced from MF/UF facility
can be recycled back to the wastewater treatment facility, the concentrate (reject)
flow from the RO needs to be properly disposed. It is evident, therefore, that there
is an urgent need for the development of a new process for the management of
desalination brine that can be used by coastal as well as inland desalination plants.
Figure()
Evaluation of the Technologies:
Concentrate management alternatives that can be applicable at any industrial
facility can be categorized into three broad groups:
1.Wastewater Effluent Mixing.
2.Volume Reduction Processes.
2.1 Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR).
2.2 Vibratory Shear-Enhanced Process (VSEP).
2.3 Enhanced Membrane Systems (EMS).
3. Zero Liquid Discharge :

3.1 Mechanical Evaporation.
3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator.
3.3 Brine Crystallizer.
3.4 Evaporation Ponds.

1.Wastewater Effluent Mixing:
Blending RO concentrate with secondary treated effluent from a wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) can be practiced to mitigate the impact of the high total
dissolved solids (TDS) (or other solute) concentrate using the blending capacity of a
lower-TDS stream. This combined stream can then be further discharged in
accordance with existing permits or be applied to land. Implementation of this
technique for reject water disposal is simple because no new equipments are
needed. Only few pipelines have to be modified and so the implementation issues
are minimal. As long as the blended flow complies with the existing permit
requirements, a modified permit is not required at all.
2.Volume Reduction Processes:

The concentrate volume reduction processes such as Electrodialysis Reversal
(EDR), Vibratory Shear-Enhanced Processing (VSEP), and Enhanced Membrane
System (EMS) already exist in industries installed at developed countries.
2.1 Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR):

Electrodialysis (ED) is a process that uses an electrical current to remove salt ions
from a solution. It is based on the property that salts in solution are dissociated into
positively and negatively charged ions. The ions are separated from the solution by
passing a direct current between a cathode and an anode while passing water
containing the ions across alternating pairs of cation-transfer and anion-transfer
membranes. The result is the production of a demineralized product stream (from
which ions have migrated) and a concentrate stream (to which ions have migrated).
2.2 Vibratory Shear-Enhanced Process (VSEP):
Conventional RO systems are subject to scaling by sparingly soluble salts and high
concentrations of dissolved organic and colloidal matter. VSEP, a patented process
of New Logic, was developed to reduce polarization of suspended colloids and
sparingly soluble salts on the membrane surface by introducing shear to the
membrane surface through vibration. Shear waves produced on the membrane
surface keep the colloidal material in suspension, thereby minimizing fouling and
prevent precipitating salts from accumulating on the membrane surface as scales.
As a result, high throughput and water recoveries above that of a conventional
membrane system can be achieved.
VSEP employs torsional oscillation at a rate of 50 times per second (50 hertz) at the
membrane surface to inhibit diffusion polarization of suspended colloids. The
suspended colloids are helped in suspension, where a tangential cross flow washes
them away. The VSEP system consists of four components: a driving system that
generates vibration, a membrane module, a torsion spring that transfers vibration to
the membrane module, and a system that controls vibration. The vibration imparts a
shear to the surface of the membrane to mitigate fouling and scaling that would
occur in a conventional RO system. The membrane module houses a stack of flat
membrane sheets (filter pack) in a plate- and frame-type configuration.
Unlike conventional RO systems, VSEP is not limited by the solubility of minerals

or the presence of suspended solids. It can be used in the same applications as
crystallizers or brine concentrators and is capable of high recoveries (up to 90%).
The VSEP system can be configured employing either RO or NF membranes in a
single-stage or multiple-stage arrangement. The configuration depends on the
quality of the wastewater to be treated; water quality goals for the VSEP permeate,
and target water recovery. VSEP outperforms conventional separation systems due
to high filtration rates, fouling resistance, high solids, high efficiency, engineered
dependability, compact design, convenient testing, and low cost.
2.3 Enhanced Membrane Systems (EMS):
EMS refers to the use of a nonconventional RO system to permit operation at higher
recovery and at higher flux. One of the types of EMS is the patented High-
Efficiency Reverse Osmosis (HERO™) system. This process uses ion-exchange
softening to pretreat the conventional RO concentrate to reduce its scaling potential,
followed by the high-pH operation of a three-stage RO system using standard spiral
wound RO elements. Caustic is added to raise the pH to approximately 11 to retard
silica scaling and biofouling. Historically, the HERO™ process has been applied
for industrial use, for example, to treat cooling tower blow down as a part of a zero
liquid discharge treatment system.
EMS is a relatively new type of membrane system and will require approximately 6
months of pilot testing before implementation. Pilot testing could be complex
because a mainstream RO pilot of sufficient capacity would be required to generate
the concentrate as feed to the EMS pilot. One of the major drawbacks of the EMS is
the complexity of the process (i.e. it requires chemical addition for softening, ion
exchange, pH adjustment, and an RO system). Although softening, ion exchange,
and RO are all proven technologies for drinking water applications, the combination
of these technologies in the EMS requires a skilled staff to operate the facility.
Capital and O&M costs are relatively high due to high energy and chemical
consumption.
The product water quality is projected to be similar to VSEP permeate water quality
because each technology uses RO membranes. Some of the EMS product water
could potentially be blended with the RO permeate if it satisfies the Indian General
Standards for Discharge of Effluents to surface water.
3. Zero Liquid Discharge Technologies:
Processes capable of reducing the concentrate, either directly from the conventional
RO or the volume-reducing processes to zero liquid discharge (ZLD), (i.e.
sufficiently dry salt or other solid to be landfilled) were evaluated as a means for
final concentrate disposal. Specifically, the analysis focused on mechanical
evaporation, solar evaporation (evaporation ponds), and constructed wetlands. ZLD
processes are considered in conjunction with wastewater effluent mixing and
volume reduction technologies, where applicable.
3.1 Mechanical Evaporation:

Mechanical evaporation can process concentrate by converting the water
component into condensable water vapor, leaving behind a wet salt to be landfilled.
Many different options for mechanical evaporation equipment exist. The most
common combination of technologies used for this purpose is a vertical tube falling
film brine concentrator followed by a forced-circulation crystallizer. This
arrangement of evaporation equipment is typically the most economical and,
therefore, selected for use as one ZLD alternative for RO concentrate treatment.
3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator:

High TDS and saturation of low-solubility scaling salts such as calcium sulfate
(CaSO4) and silica (SiO2) limit the percentage of water that can be recovered in a
conventional evaporator system. The brine concentrator uses a unique process
called seeded slurry evaporation to overcome the limitation imposed on
conventional evaporators by the saturation limits of low-solubility scaling
compounds. The seeded slurry process involves establishing and maintaining slurry
of CaSO4seed crystals in the circulating brine in the evaporator.
With careful thermal and mechanical design, CaSO4 and SiO2 can precipitate
preferentially on the recirculating seed crystals instead on the tubes. The ultimate
concentration achievable in the brine concentrator is limited by the boiling point
elevation of the brine, the relative concentrations of sulfate and chloride (e.g. the
double salt, CaSO4•Na2SO4 [glauberite], does not form), and the solubility of the
sodium salts. The brine discharged from the brine concentrator is further
concentrated in the crystallizer.
3.3 Brine Crystallizer:

The crystallizer is a forced-circulation-type evaporator, which is specially designed
to precipitate, grow, and handle crystals in the concentrate as water is continuously
evaporated. Recirculated concentrate is pumped through the forced-circulation heat
exchanger, where it is heated above its normal boiling temperature with steam. It
requires 65–80 kWh of power per 1000 liters of crystallizer feed. Boiling of the
concentrate in the heat exchanger is suppressed due to sufficient static head. The
heated concentrate then enters a flash tank operating at a slightly lower pressure,
causing flash evaporation of water and crystallization of salts in the brine.
High recirculation rates are used to keep the velocity on the heated surface high,
avoiding the formation of scale on the heat transfer surface and increasing heat
transfer efficiency. The slurry produced in the crystallizer is dewatered in the belt
filter and the liquid portion is returned to the crystallizer for further concentration.
When the salt cake accumulates on the belt filter to a predetermined level, an
automatic sequence is initiated which advances the belt and dumps the salt cake into
a hopper for disposal.
3.4 Evaporation Ponds:
Evaporation ponds rely on solar energy to evaporate water from the RO concentrate
stream, leaving behind precipitated salts—which are ultimately landfilled.
Evaporation ponds are most effective in arid and semiarid climates having high net
evaporation rates. High net evaporation rates decrease the pond area required
because evaporation occurs in less time. One major advantage of evaporation ponds
is that the practicality of using evaporation ponds is not limited by RO concentrate
quality.
In the most common case, RO concentrate is conveyed to the evaporation ponds

where it is spread out over a large area and allowed to evaporate. For evaporation
ponds systems, multiple ponds are constructed so that some ponds can be taken
offline for periodic maintenance. Periodic maintenance includes allowing the
evaporation pond to set idle to firm the consistency of the precipitated salts,
cleaning the ponds by removing and transporting the precipitated salts to a landfill,
and inspecting the protective lining system.
Factors affecting the feasibility of implementing evaporation ponds for RO

concentrate disposal include membrane concentrate flow rate, geographical
location, and site location. The RO concentrate flow rate is the primary factor
affecting the area required for the evaporation ponds. The greater the flow of RO
concentrates, the larger the area required for evaporation ponds.
However, the required area for evaporation ponds will be high, if no volume
reduction occurred before the evaporation ponds. Implementation of such a large
pond area is neither feasible nor economically attractive in many instances. A
hybrid method, incorporating volume reduction technologies (e.g. VSEP, EMS, and
mechanical evaporation), should be used to reduce the evaporation pond area. A
major advantage for constructing evaporation ponds in India is the higher
evaporation rates due to the solar energy available throughout the year.
Chapter Two:
Litreture Survey
Evaluation of the Technologies for reject water (brine) management
in industries:
1.Wastewater Effluent Mixing.
2.Volume Reduction Processes.

3.1 Mechanical Evaporation.
3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator.
3.3 Brine Crystallizer.
3.4 Evaporation Ponds.

Wastewater effluent mixing involves blending RO concentrate with treated
wastewater effluent from a wastewater treatment plant to take advantage of the
blending capacity of a lower-TDS stream to mitigate the 4 impact of the high TDS
(or other solute) concentrate. The combined stream can then be discharged in
accordance with existing permits or be applied to land.
Many ancient cities had drainage systems, but they were primarily intended to carry
rainwater away from roofs and pavements. A notable example is the drainage
system of ancient Rome. It included many surface conduits that were connected to a
large vaulted channel called the Cloaca Maxima (“Great Sewer”), which carried
drainage water to the Tiber River. Built of stone and on a grand scale, the Cloaca
Maxima is one of the oldest existing monuments of Roman engineering.
It used to be said that “the solution to pollution is dilution.” When small amounts of
sewage are discharged into a flowing body of water, a natural process of stream
self-purification occurs. Densely populated communities generate such large
quantities of sewage, however, that dilution alone does not prevent pollution. This
makes it necessary to treat or purify wastewater to some degree before disposal.
Cloaca MaximaThe outlet of the Cloaca Maxima into the Tiber River, Rome, Italy.Lalupa
Figure()
The construction of centralized sewage treatment plants began in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, principally in the United Kingdom and the United States.
Instead of discharging sewage directly into a nearby body of water, it was first
passed through a combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes that
removed some or most of the pollutants. Also beginning in the 1900s, new sewage-
collection systems were designed to separate storm water from domestic
wastewater, so that treatment plants did not become overloaded during periods of
wet weather.
After the middle of the 20th century, increasing public concern for environmental
quality led to broader and more stringent regulation of wastewater disposal
practices. Higher levels of treatment were required. For example, pretreatment of
industrial wastewater, with the aim of preventing toxic chemicals from interfering
with the biological processes used at sewage treatment plants, often became a
necessity. In fact, wastewater treatment technology advanced to the point where it
became possible to remove virtually all pollutants from sewage. This was so
expensive, however, that such high levels of treatment were not usually justified.
Wastewater treatment plants became large, complex facilities that required

considerable amounts of energy for their operation. After the rise of oil prices in the
1970s, concern for energy conservation became a more important factor in the
design of new pollution control systems. Consequently, land disposal and
subsurface disposal of sewage began to receive increased attention where feasible.
Such “low-tech” pollution control methods not only might help to conserve energy
but also might serve to recycle nutrients and replenish groundwater supplies.

from a solution and is based on the property that salts in solution are dissociated
into positively and negatively charged ions. The ions are 5 separated from solution
by passing a direct current between a cathode and anode while passing water
membranes . The result is the production of a demineralized product stream (from
EDR is a variant of ED in which the cathode and anode positions s are alternated
several times per hour. (polarity reversal) Polarity reversal assists in control of
membrane fouling, allows operation at higher feedwater recovery with less scale
control chemicals. It should be noted that, unlike other membrane processes used in
drinking water and reuse, water does not flow through the EDR membranes, only
ions. Consequently, particulates and poorly-ionized solutes are not removed and no
pathogen removal credits are given to ED/EDR under the Surface Water Treatment
Rule.
In 1967 Preceding them membranes manufactured by T.R.E. Kressman were in fact

a modified natural product—impregnated parchment membranes. Major
electrodialysis' shortcomings such as membrane fouling and scaling were mostly
overcome with electrodialysis reversal (EDR) commercial introduction by Ionics .
(33)
In 1911, 1939 The Theory of electrodialysis was created much earlier than the first
ion-selective membranes were manufac-tured. Then the idea of the first multicell
electrodialyzer was developed in1939 .Only in 1950 the first synthetic ion-
exchange membranes were produced by T.R.E. Kressman made his membrane at
the same year . However his membranes were not synthetic but a modified natural
product impregnated parchment membranes. So, electrodialysis technology in the
form known today was born in 1950.(34)
In 1952 year, Ionics (USA) started manufacturing commercial . In 1954 The

company commissioned first commercial desalination installation for Aramco. One
year prior to that pilot electrodialysis installation was commissioned in Welcome
(South Africa). However this one employed T.R.E. Kressman’s impregnated
parchment membranes. These membranes turned out to be short-lived and has not
been used any further. Since that Ionics has been maintaining the world leading
position in electrodialysis stack manufacturing for water desalting.(35)
In 1965 New break-through in ED progress was associated with development of

apparatuses with ion exchange resin beads filling desalting compartment .Later this
idea transformed into technology called electro-deionization (EDI). V.D.
Grebenyuk and N.P. Gnusin discovered mechanism of DC transfer through IX res-
ins mixed bed and built first EDI system for ultrapure.(37)
In 1967 Major electrodialysis' shortcomings such as membrane fouling and scaling

were mostly overcome with electrodialysis reversal (EDR) commercial introduction
by Ionics. A special four-way valve simplifies hydraulic reversal process,
streamlines process flow and control, and reduces cost of hydraulics, supports, and
controls. The spacer has long tortuous flow path and at 20–40 cm/s optimizes
turbulence promotion and pressure drop. Utilizable area is only 64%. Now high
performance spacer Mark IV is available. This one already is installed for treating
over 38000 m3/day of water. The spacer has short, wide flow path at 6–12 cm/s
optimized performance and 74% utilizable area.(36)
In 1974water production And small-scale manufacturing of those apparatuses
began. First large-scale commercial EDI systems (270 m3/day) were employed only
in 1991 (Ionics)]. There are number of companies offering commercial EDI on the
market: Ionics, E-Cell, Electropure, USFilter, etc. (38)
In 1995 Roaring advances of pressure-driven membrane technologies simplify

pretreatment for electrodialysis. Usually ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis (RO)
used in front of EDI in water purification chain .(39)

Is a membrane separation technology platform invented in 1987 and patented in
1989 by Dr. J. Brad Culkin. VSEP’s vibration system was designed to prevent
membrane fouling, or the build-up of solid particles on the surface of the
membrane. VSEP systems have been applied in a variety of industrial
environments.
In 1985 and 1986 Dr. Culkin spent his early professional career with Dorr–Oliver,
Inc., a pioneering company in the area of separations. Culkin contributed to six
Dorr–Oliver patent applications. After earning his PhD in chemical engineering
from Northwestern University.
While at Dorr–Oliver, Dr. Culkin was exposed to the advantages of membrane
separation technology as well as its failings. The membrane’s Achilles Heel, Culkin
decided, was fouling.
Concurrent with his membrane work, Culkin was helping to develop a mechanically
resonating loudspeaker with the founders of Velodyne Acoustics. Culkin married
these two areas of expertise and struck out to overcome membrane fouling through
the use of vibration.
The first VSEP prototype Culkin developed was a literal combination of
loudspeaker and membrane technology as the photo shows below.
A VSEP filter uses oscillatory vibration to create high shear at the surface of the
filter membrane. This high shear force significantly improves the filter’s resistance
to fouling thereby enabling high throughputs and minimizing reject volumes. VSEP
feed stream are split into two products—a permeate stream with little or no solids
and a concentrate stream with a solids concentration much higher than that of the
original feed stream.
In 2009 A VSEP system was recognized as part of the Water Reuse Foundation’s
Desalination Project of the Year. The system was installed to minimize the brine
from an electrodialysis reversal (EDR) system.
Figure()

EMS refers to the use of a non-conventional RO system to permit operation at
higher recovery and at higher flux. One type of EMS is the patented High-
softening to pretreat the conventional RO concentrate to reduce it’s scaling
potential, followed by the high-pH operation of a three-stage RO system using
standard spiral wound RO elements. Caustic is added to raise the pH to
approximately 11 to retard silica scaling and biofouling. Historically, the HERO
process has been applied for industrial use, for example, to treat cooling tower
blowdown as part of a zero liquid discharge treatment system.
ZLD means Zero or No discharge of wastewater or any liquid effluent from a
factory to the outside surroundings. ZLD sector was apparently born in 1970s in
USA, driven by the regulator Tight federal regulations on salt discharge to surface
waters introduced, especially, due to salinity problems in the Colorado River.
Regulations were mainly concerned with power plant discharges from cooling
tower blowdowns and scrubbers (in the wake of previously introduced regulations
on flu gas discharges) . IN USA the three major ZLD providers are: Aquatec, GE
Power and Water, and HPD, a subsidiary of Veolia Water Treatment &
Technologies.
Clean Water Act 1974, revised 1977, 1982 First ZLDs installed were 500‐2,000
GPM units based on evaporation/crystallization .Regulations are expected to keep
tightening . new EPA’s guidelines (ELG) expected in 2017 and 2022 on various
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 3 types of discharges (many have to be ZLD).
In 2007 , The recent boom of the coal-to-chemicals industry in China generates

another promising market for ZLD application. coalto- chemicals industry, utilizing
coal to produce raw materials for chemical production, consume a considerable
amount of freshwater but are often located in water-stressed areas, such as Inner
Mongolia where ample coal reserves and environmentally sensitive grassland
coexist. As a consequence, ZLD is mandatory at coal-to-chemicals plants in those
areas to preserve both local water resources and ecosystems .(36) Several ZLD
facilities are already installed or in the stage of design/construction at Chinese coal-
to-chemicals plants, with a wide range of feed water salinities (2,000-16,000 mg/L
of total dissolved salts, TDS) and treatment capacity (110-2300 m3/hour) . In
addition, greater public awareness of water pollution may facilitate ZLD
installations in China.
Among the 82 ZLD plants listed in a survey In 2008, of High-Recovery and Zero
Liquid Discharge Technologies for Water Utilities . more than 60 plants were
associated with the power industry; the rest were distributed across areas such as
electronics, fertilizer, mining, and chemical industries.(37)
ZLD was successfully introduced in 2008 by using GEA spray drying technology to
evaporate the wet FGD effluent on two new 111,000 Nm3/h lines. Subsequently,
two older 120,000 Nm3/h lines were refurbished to the same system. Additionally,
the two further lines have been equipped with brine concentrator systems, including
GEA evaporators and crystallizers.(38)
In April 2009, US Water Services completed a complex water treatment system in

Galva combining both high efficiency reverse osmosis with
evaporation/crystallization technology for the first time ever in an ethanol facility in
order to achieve Zero Liquid Discharge. This particular facility integrated four
major processes for the water to travel through. The first process is dual softening,
consisting of a strong acid cation cycle and a weak acid cation. The second process
is a decarbonator which greatly reduces carbon dioxide.(39)
In February 2010,Facing a situation similar to that in China, India is taking

aggressive actions to curb severe water pollution, including the holy river Ganga.
The recent three-year target set by the Indian government, known as the “Clean
Ganga” project, imposes stricter regulations on wastewater discharge and
compelling high-polluting industries to move towards ZLD .(40)
In 2014 , described that Rapid economic development and urbanization have led to
rising water consumption and rampant pollution in China. In response to this great
challenge, China recently announced a new Action Plan to tackle water pollution,
aiming to largely improve the quality of local water resources and ecosystems by
2020 . This plan, enforced by the central government, emphasizes rigorous control
of pollutant discharge and promotes water recycling, thereby providing regulatory
support for ZLD installation.(41)
The concept of ZLD has been successfully implemented in Tirupur and
subsequently in many parts of India and even at the Common Effluent Treatment
Plants (CETPs) set up by the government for industrial clusters. the Tirupur ZLD
success story- which is the first of its kind in the world- the Indian government has
initiated a Draft regulation on 22nd October 2015, which will make ZLD mandatory
for textile units having wastewater discharge of more than 25 KLD (Kilolitres per
day), including re-use of the treated water back in process. No groundwater
extraction will be allowed by industry except for make- up water and drinking
purposes.The Bangladesh government has also announced in September 2015 that
it is keen to implement Zero Liquid Discharge system in another four years in their
country.(42)
In 9 septamber 2015, , the Indian government issued a draft policy that requires all
textile plants generating more than 25 m3 wastewater per day to install ZLD
facilities . Dyeing plants in the city of Tirupur had already implemented ZLD in
2008, which recovered not only water but also valuable salts from textile
wastewater for direct reuse in the dyeing process. According to a recent technical
report, the ZLD market in India is valued at $39 million in 2012 and is expected to
grow continuously at a rate of 7% from 2012 to 2017. In India, textile, brewery,
power, and petrochemical industries are the major application areas for ZLD
installations (43)
In 17 November 2015 , GEA introduced a new evaporation/solidification

technology for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) to meet the recently released U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines governing wastewater
discharge from steam electric and coal-fired power plants. GE is showcasing its
evaporation technologies, chemical solutions and biological treatments to meet the
new EPA effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) at the International Water
Conference, taking place November 16-19, 2015, in Orlando.(44)
In 6 June 2016 , Aquatech secures order for FGD waste water treatment ZLD. US
Water Services was the lead build firm on this project using reverse osmosis
systems combined with an evaporator and crystallizer to achieve zero liquid
discharge.A high efficiency reverse osmosis unit was put in place as part of the
third process, enabling water recoveries of 95-97% to be achieved, thus greatly
reducing discharge volumes. The last process is evaporation and crystallization,
where zero liquid discharge results can be achieved by evaporating down the waste
stream volume by 80-90%. The remainder is then crystallized to a land fillable
solid, in this case a salt cake, which is non-hazardous to the environment.(45)
In 2016 , deascribed As in US, the power industry is an important contributor to the

Chinese ZLD market. Although coal-fired power plants provide more than 70% of
the total electricity generated in China , 65- 84% of water-intensive thermal power
plants operated by the five largest state-owned companies are located in regions that
suffer water scarcity. This sharp conflict between energy demand and water
deficiency makes ZLD one of the few sustainable solutions at the energy-water
nexus in China. However, no data is available on the overall ZLD installation in
Chinese power industry.(46)
Zero Liquid Discharge Technologies:

3.1 Mechanical Evaporation
3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator
3.3 Brine Crystallizer
3.4 Evaporation Ponds
The treatment of brine reject by mechanical evaporation is a costly process. In
plants where the principle of zero-liquid discharge is practiced, mechanical
evaporators are in use. The overall cost is high due to the high energy consumption
and cost required for brine or final salt disposal.
The mechanical evaporation process is driven by the heat transfer from condensing
steam to the lower temperature membrane reject across a metallic heat transfer
surface. As a result, the water is evaporated and the reject salt concentration is
increased. The vapor is then condensed to a liquid distillate for reuse. Evaporators
are classified according to the arrangement of heat transfer surface and the method
used to transfer heat to the feed solution.
The common types of evaporators include Single effect, multiple effect, vapor
compression, vertical tube falling film, horizontal tube spray film, forced
circulation. The most frequent combination of evaporators aiming to achieve full
evaporation of brine reject streams is the vertical tube falling film for vapour
compression evaporation followed by a crystallization or landfill step.
3.2 Brine Concentrators :

In 2008 , Eastern Municipal Water District Carollo Engineers , brine
concentrators are mechanical evaporators being used in the power industry to
promote concentration of cooling tower before the final disposal. The majority of
concentrators operate on single-effect evaporators, which use steam to heat brine
solutions thus promoting water evaporation during the operation of an electrically
powered vapor compressor. The released heat from condensing steam is transferred
via a heat exchanger to the brine solution which is boiled. The overall efficiency of
the process can be enhanced by multiple stages throughout brine concentrators’
operation.
The major advantage of brine concentrators includes the production of high-purity
distilled water with a monetary value, also the reduction of brine solutions to highly
concentrated levels. At recoveries of 90 to 98%, the level of TDS may be as high as
250,000 mg/l. The reject brine tends to be very corrosive and therefore the
evaporators have to be constructed of durable and high quality materials such as
stainless steel and titanium.
These materials are characterized by high cost, increasing the capital expenditure of
concentrators Capacities of commercially available brine concentrators range from
10 to 700 gallons per minute (gpm) with estimated energy consumption of
approximately 90 kilowatt hours per 1,000 gallons (kWh / 1,000 gal). The brine
stream may be discharged to an evaporation pond. (47)
3.3 Brine Crystallizers:

In 2001 , The latest years, the need to concentrate wastewater so as to be reduced to
a transportable and manageable solid form has been increased. For many years
crystallizer (XLZR) technology has been used to concentrate feed streams
especially brine reject from desalination plants. Crystallizer technology is the most
viable option in areas where the construction cost of solar evaporation ponds is
high, solar evaporation rates are low and the deep well injection treatment is costly
or unfeasible.
The crystallizer converts the waste reject to clean water that is proper for reuse in
the plant and the solids to a suitable form to be disposed in landfills. The capacity of
a typical crystallizer for brine disposal ranges from about 2 to 50 gpm. These units
consist of vertical cylindrical vessels with heat input from vapor compressors or an
available steam supply.
For small systems in the range of 2 to 6 gpm, the steam-driven crystallizers are
more economical. For larger systems, the heat of evaporation is supplied from
electrically driven vapor compressors.
In the case of RO concentrate disposal, crystallizers are normally operated in
conjunction with a brine concentrator evaporator so as to reduce the blowdown of
brine concentrator to a transportable solid resulting in a Zero Liquid Discharge
Deliverable .Crystallizers can be used to concentrate RO reject directly, while the
corresponding capital cost and energy usage are quite higher than those of a brine
concentrator of equivalent capacity .(48)

Due to the impacts on wildlife, evaporation ponds have been a major concern to
state officials. In 1993, the Central Valley adopted waste discharge requirements
for evaporation ponds.
In 1993 , The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and evaporation pond
operators have used the Tulare Lake Basin as a testing ground for new methods to
avoid and mitigate the impacts of agricultural drainage. Resulting guidelines call for
new nesting habitat to compensate for losses of embryos and young birds.
Meanwhile, the Central Valley Regional Board has required pond operators to
modify evaporation ponds to avoid, minimize and mitigate wildlife impacts at
evaporation ponds. However, a short supply of suitable water for new wetland
habitat remains a problem, and no accelerated-rate evaporation systems have been
developed.
Deterrent programs have been implemented but with mixed success. Some
programs, such as firing blank guns to discourage birds from nesting, have had
mixed success. The most successful programs have complete enclosure of pond or a
mix of deterrents.(49)
Evaporation pond technology is widely practiced and to a lesser extent in Australia
where the regions are arid. This technology is probably the most widespread
method of brine disposal from inland-based desalination facilities.
In regions with low rainfall and where climatic conditions are favorable for steady
and relatively rapid evaporation rates, evaporation pond technology becomes more
effective. Moreover, in locations where the cost of adjacent level land is relatively
low the use of desalination plants is facilitated. The common practices of brine
disposal in Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) range from of evaporation
ponds to the disposal in shoreline, wadi beds and ocean.
In 2000 , Ahmed et al , provide information and quantitative data being gathered

through field visits to 10 desalination plants in the Sultanate of Oman and 8 plants
in UAE also through questionnaire surveys being conducted. The studied reverse
osmosis plants in Oman utilize brackish groundwater as feedwater and the applied
disposal methods are mainly land based. On the other hand, in the plants located in
UAE the brine is disposed into the sea.
The remarks arising from site visits to evaporation ponds concern leakage issues
from the ponds and holes in the liners. According to construction cost data of brine
disposal into evaporation ponds, the unit cost of construction is reduced as the pond
size increases. There are several influencing factors being involved in the total cost
of an evaporation pond. These factors include the remoteness of the plant location,
the availability of local construction materials and labor. (50)
In 2007, desalination plants becoming zero effluent, there is no need for the
construction of a metallic noncorrosive pipe and diffuser that discharges the effluent
brine deep in the sea. A survey was carried out evaluating the potential of
transferring brine to ponds, in order to avoid the disposal into the sea.
Considering the fact that the construction of desalination infrastructure projects is
restricted due to social reactions surrounding the potential environmental impacts of
desalination plants, also the fact that water continues to be transported by ships, the
cost of potable water is very high and burdens the State.
It is estimated that the 25.5 million € that the Greek government has spent in three
years for transporting water could be used for the construction of 15 seawater
desalination units with a capacity of 30,000 m3 per day in total, with an indicative
water production cost of 0.4 €/m3
Additionally, local communities suffer from the consequences of the unreliability of
water transport. The most important factor in assessing the feasibility of operating a
zero discharge seawater desalination plant system is cost. In this case, the largest
cost is incurred in transporting the brine from desalination plants to evaporation
ponds.(51)
Evaporation ponds, commonly known as solar saltworks, natural and artificial have
existed in Greece for a long time and are considered important wetland ecosystems.
In 2010 , According to a recent study conducted in Greece, it was investigated the
option of directing the desalination effluent to evaporation ponds for salt production
aiming at achieving the principle of zero liquid discharge. (52)
Chapter three:
Theoritical Part
Reverse Osmosis:
Reverse Osmosis is a technology that is used to remove a large majority of
contaminants from water by pushing the water under pressure through a semi-
permeable membrane.
Osmosis:
Osmosis is a naturally occurring phenomenon and one of the most important
processes in nature. It is a process where a weaker saline solution will tend to
migrate to a strong saline solution. Examples of osmosis are when plant roots
absorb water from the soil and our kidneys absorb water from our blood.
Below is a diagram which shows how osmosis works. A solution that is less
concentrated will have a natural tendency to migrate to a solution with a higher
concentration. For example, if you had a container full of water with a low salt
concentration and another container full of water with a high salt concentration
and they were separated by a semi-permeable membrane, then the water with
the lower salt concentration would begin to migrate towards the water container
with the higher salt concentration.
A semi-permeable membrane is a membrane that will allow some atoms or

molecules to pass but not others. A simple example is a screen door. It allows
air molecules to pass through but not pests or anything larger than the holes in
the screen door. Another example is Gore-tex clothing fabric that contains an
extremely thin plastic film into which billions of small pores have been cut.
The pores are big enough to let water vapor through, but small enough to
prevent liquid water from passing.
Figure()
Reverse Osmosis is the process of Osmosis in reverse. Where as Osmosis
occurs naturally without energy required, to reverse the process of osmosis you
need to apply energy to the more saline solution. A reverse osmosis membrane
is a semi-permeable membrane that allows the passage of water molecules but
not the majority of dissolved salts, organics, bacteria and pyrogens. However,
you need to 'push' the water through the reverse osmosis membrane by applying
pressure that is greater than the naturally occurring osmotic pressure in order to
desalinate (demineralize or deionize) water in the process, allowing pure water
through while holding back a majority of contaminants.
Below is a diagram outlining the process of Reverse Osmosis. When pressure is

applied to the concentrated solution, the water molecules are forced through the
semi-permeable membrane and the contaminants are not allowed through.
Figure()
Reverse Osmosis works by using a high pressure pump to increase the pressure
on the salt side of the RO and force the water across the semi-permeable RO
membrane, leaving almost all (around 95% to 99%) of dissolved salts behind in
the reject stream. The amount of pressure required depends on the salt
concentration of the feed water. The more concentrated the feed water, the
more pressure is required to overcome the osmotic pressure.
The desalinated water that is demineralized or deionized, is called permeate (or

product) water. The water stream that carries the concentrated contaminants
that did not pass through the RO membrane is called the reject (or concentrate)
stream.
figure.()
As the feed water enters the RO membrane under pressure (enough pressure to
overcome osmotic pressure) the water molecules pass through the semi-
permeable membrane and the salts and other contaminants are not allowed to
pass and are discharged through the reject stream (also known as the
concentrate or brine stream), which goes to drain or can be fed back into the
feed water supply in some circumstances to be recycled through the RO system
to save water. The water that makes it through the RO membrane is called
permeate or product water and usually has around 95% to 99% of the dissolved
salts removed from it.
It is important to understand that an RO system employs cross filtration rather

than standard filtration where the contaminants are collected within the filter
media. With cross filtration, the solution passes through the filter, or crosses
the filter, with two outlets: the filtered water goes one way and the
contaminated water goes another way. To avoid buildup of contaminants, cross
flow filtration allows water to sweep away contaminant build up and also allow
enough turbulence to keep the membrane surface clean.
Types of RO system :
(1) one stage Ro system:
In a one stage RO system, the feed water enters the RO system as one stream and
exits the RO as either concentrate or permeate water.
Figue()
(2) two stage Ro system:

In a two-stage system the concentrate (or reject) from the first stage then becomes
the feed water to the second stage. The permeate water is collected from the first
stage is combined with permeate water from the second stage. Additional stages
increase the recovery from the system.
In a Reverse Osmosis System an array describes the physical arrangement of the

pressure vessels in a 2 stage system. Pressure vessels contain RO membranes
(usually from 1 to 6 RO membranes are in a pressure vessel). Each stage can have a
certain amount of pressure vessels with RO membranes. The reject of each stage
then becomes the feed stream for the next successive stage. The 2 stage RO system
displayed on the previous page is a 2:1 array which means that the concentrate (or
reject) of the first 2 RO vessels is fed to the next 1 vessel.
Figure()
Advantages of RO Process:
Following are the advantages of the RO process that make it attractive for dilute
aqueous wastewater treatment include:
(1) RO systems are simple to design and operate, have low maintenance
requirements, and are modular in nature, making expansion of the systems easy.
(2) Both inorganic and organic pollutants can be removed simultaneously by RO
membrane Processes.
(3) RO systems allow recovery/recycle of waste process streams with no effect on
the material being Recovered.
(4) RO systems require less energy as compared to other technology.
(5) RO processes can considerably reduce the volume of waste streams so that these
can be treated more efficiently and cost effectively by other processes such as
incineration .
(6) The RO plant is normally operated at ambient temperature which reduces the
scale formation and corrosion problems, because of antiscalent and biodispersent
use, which will reduce maintenancecost.
(7) The modular structure of the RO process increases flexibility in building
desalination plants within a wide range of capacities.
(8) The specific energy requirement is significantly low 3- 9.4 kW h/m3 product.
(9) The process is electrically driven hence it is readily adaptable to powering by
solar panels.
In addition, RO systems can replace or be used in conjunction with others treatment
processes such as oxidation, adsorption, stripping, or biological treatment (as well
as many others) to produce high quality product water that can be reused or
discharged.
Disadvantages of RO Process:
(1) The applied pressure must exceed the osmotic pressure to obtain product flow
and to separate the solute from the solvent. The maximum feed pressure for
seawater devices varies from 800 - 1000 psig, while the limit for brackish water
varies from 400 - 600 psig. Due to the high pressure requirement (about 200 psig or
more above the osmotic pressure) RO is usually not applicable for concentrated
solutions.
(2) Because all RO membranes and devices are susceptible to fouling, the RO
process usually cannot be applied without pretreatment.
(3) RO feed streams must be compatible with the membrane and other materials of
construction used in the devices. If the feed stream contains incompatible
compounds, these must be removed in pretreatment, or another compatible device
and/or membrane must be considered
Types Of R.O. Membranes:

A reverse osmosis membrane must be freely permeable to water, highly
impermeable to solutes, and able to withstand high operating pressures.
It should ideally be tolerant of wide ranges of pH and temperature and should be
resistant to attack by chemicals like free chlorine and by bacteria.
Ideally, it should also be resistant to scaling and fouling by contaminants in the feed
water.
There are three major types of reverse osmosis membranes:-
(1) Cellulosic
(2) Fully aromatic polyamide
(3) Thin film composite
The pore size for R.O membrane is around 0.0001 microns
(1) Cellulosic Membranes:-
 Cellulose acetate (CA)membranes are inexpensive and easy to manufacture but

suffer from several limitations.
 Their asymmetric structure makes them susceptible to compaction under high
operating pressures, especially at elevated temperatures.
 Cellulose acetate membranes are susceptible to hydrolysis(reaction with water)
and can only be used over a limited pH range (low pH 3 to 5 and high pH 6 to 8,
depending on the manufacturers).
 They also undergo degradation at temperatures above 35°C and attack by
bacteria.
 Cellulose acetate(CA) membranes have a high water permeability but reject low
molecular weight contaminants poorly.
Figure()
(2)Aromatic polyamide membranes:
 Polyamide membranes have better resistance to hydrolysis and biological attack

than cellulosic membranes.
 They have better salt rejection characteristics than cellulosic membranes.
 They can be operated over a pH range of 4 to 11,extreme use of this range can
cause irreversible membrane degradation.
 They can withstand higher temperatures than cellulosic membranes. as well as
better rejection of water soluble organics.
Figure()
(3) Thin film composites:
 These membranes are made by forming a thin, solute rejecting surface film on
top of a porous substructure.
 In the thin film composites the water flux and solute rejection characteristics are
predominantly determined by the thin surface layer, whose thickness ranges from
0.01 to 0.1 micrometers.
Figure()
Factors Affecting RO performance:
Reverse osmosis (RO) technology can be a complicated subject, particularly
without an understanding of the specific terminology that describes various aspects
of RO system operation and the relationships between these operating variables.
This bulletin defines some of these key terms and provides a brief overview of the
factors that affect the performance of RO membranes, including pressure,
temperature, feedwater salt concentration, permeate recovery, and system pH.
(1) Effect of pressure:

Feedwater pressure affects both the water flux and salt rejection of RO membranes.
Osmosis is the flow of water across a membrane from the dilute side toward the
concentrated solution side. Reverse osmosis technology involves application of
pressure to the feedwater stream to overcome the natural osmotic pressure. Pressure
in excess of the osmotic pressure is applied to the concentrated solution and the
flow of water is reversed. A portion of the feedwater (concentrated solution) is
forced through the membrane to emerge as purified product water of the dilute
solution side .
As shown , water flux across the membrane increases in direct relationship to

increases in feedwater pressure. Increased feedwater pressure also results in
increased salt rejection but, the relationship is less direct than for water flux.
Figure () - Effect of Feedwater Pressure on Flux and Salt Rejection

Because RO membranes are imperfect barriers to dissolved salts in feedwater, there
is always some salt passage through the membrane. As feedwater pressure is
increased, this salt passage is increasingly overcome as water is pushed through the
membrane at a faster rate than salt can be transported.
However, there is an upper limit to the amount of salt that can be excluded via
increasing feedwater pressure. As the plateau in the salt rejection curve indicates,
above a certain pressure level, salt rejection no longer increases and some salt flow
remains coupled with water flowing through the membrane.
(2) Effect of temperature:

As Figure () demonstrates, membrane productivity is very sensitive to changes in
feedwater temperature. As water temperature increases, water flux increases almost
linearly, due primarily to the higher diffusion rate of water through the membrane.
Increased feedwater temperature also results in lower salt rejection or higher salt
passage. This is due to a higher diffusion rate for salt through the membrane.
The ability of a membrane to tolerate elevated temperatures increases operating

latitude and is also important during cleaning operations because it permits use of
stronger, faster cleaning processes. This is illustrated by the comparison of the pH
and temperature ranges of thin-film composite (TF) membrane and a cellulose
acetate (CA) membrane.
Figure () - Effect of Feedwater Temperature on Flux and Salt Rejection

(3) Effect of salt concentration:
Osmotic pressure is a function of the type and concentration of salts or organics
contained in feedwater. As salt concentration increases, so does osmotic pressure.
The amount of feedwater driving pressure necessary to reverse the natural direction
of osmotic flow is, therefore, largely determined by the level of salts in the
feedwater.
Figure () demonstrates that, if feed pressure remains constant, higher salt

concentration results in lower membrane water flux. The increasing osmotic
pressure offsets the feedwater driving pressure. Also illustrated in Figure 5 is the
increase in salt passage through the membrane (decrease in rejection) as the water
flux declines.
Figure () - Effect of Increasing Salt Concentration on Flux and Salt Rejection

(4) Effect of recovery:
As shown in Figure (), reverse osmosis occurs when the natural osmotic flow
between a dilute solution and a concentrated solution is reversed through
application of feedwater pressure. If percentage recovery is increased (and
feedwater pressure remains constant), the salts in the residual feed become more
concentrated and the natural osmotic pressure will increase until it is as high as the
applied feed pressure. This can negate the driving effect of feed pressure, slowing
or halting the reverse osmosis process and causing permeate flux and salt rejection
to decrease and even stop .
The maximum percent recovery possible in any RO system usually depends not on
a limiting osmotic pressure, but on the concentration of salts present in the
feedwater and their tendency to precipitate on the membrane surface as mineral
scale. The most common sparingly soluble salts are calcium carbonate (limestone),
calcium sulfate (gypsum), and silica. Chemical treatment of feedwater can be used
to inhibit mineral scaling.
Figure () - Effect of Increased Recovery on Flux and Salt Rejection

(5) Effect of pH:
The pH tolerance of various types of RO membranes can vary widely. Thin-film

composite (TF)membranes are typically stable over a broader pH range than
cellulose acetate (CA) membranes and, therefore, offer greater operating latitude .
Membrane salt rejection performance depends on pH. Water flux may also be
affected. Figure 7 shows that water flux and salt rejection for Thin Film membranes
are essentially stable over a broad pH range. As illustrated in Figure (), the stability
of TF membrane over a broad pH range permits stronger, faster, and more effective
cleaning procedures to be used compared to CA membranes.
Figure () - Effect of Feedwater pH on Water Flux and Salt Rejection

Reverse Osmosis Design Calculations:
There are a handful of calculations that are used to judge the performance of an RO
system and also for design considerations. An RO system has instrumentation that
displays quality, flow, pressure and sometimes other data like temperature or hours
of operation. In order to accurately measure the performance of an RO system you
need the following operation parameters at a minimum:
 Feed pressure
 Permeate pressure
 Concentrate pressure
 Feed conductivity
 Permeate conductivity
 Feed flow
 Permeate flow
 Temperature
SALT REJECTION %
This equation tells you how effective the RO membranes are removing
contaminants. It does not tell you how each individual membrane is performing, but
rather how the system overall on average is performing. A well-designed RO
system with properly functioning RO membranes will reject 95% to 99% of most
feed water contaminants (that are of a certain size and charge). You can determine
how effective the RO membranes are removing contaminants by using the
following equation:
Salt Rejection % =
Conductivity of Feed Water – Conductivity of Permeate Water × 100
Conductivity of Feed The higher the salt rejection, the better the system is
performing. A low salt rejection can mean that the membranes require cleaning or
replacement.
SALT PASSAGE %:
This is simply the inverse of salt rejection described in the previous equation. This
is the amount of salts expressed as a percentage that are passing through the RO
system. The lower the salt passage, the better the system is performing. A high salt
passage can mean that the membranes require cleaning or replacement.
Salt Passage % =
(1 – Salt Rejection %)
RECOVERY %:
Percent Recovery is the amount of water that is being 'recovered' as good permeate
water. Another way to think of Percent Recovery is the amount of water that is not
sent to drain as concentrate, but rather collected as permeate or product water. The
higher the recovery % means that you are sending less water to drain as concentrate
and saving more permeate water. However, if the recovery % is too high for the RO
design then it can lead to larger problems due to scaling and fouling.
The % Recovery for an RO system is established with the help of design software
taking into consideration numerous factors such as feed water chemistry and RO
pre-treatment before the RO system. Therefore, the proper % Recovery at which an
RO should operate at depends on what it was designed for. By calculating the %
Recovery you can quickly determine if the system is operating outside of the
intended design. The calculation for % Recovery is below:
% Recovery =
Permeate Flow Rate (gpm) / Feed Flow Rate (gpm) × 100
For example, if the recovery rate is 75% then this means that for every 100 gallons
of feed water that enter the RO system, you are recovering 75 gallons as usable
permeate water and 25 gallons are going to drain as concentrate. Industrial RO
systems typically run anywhere from 50% to 85% recovery depending the feed
water characteristics and other design considerations
CONCENTRATION FACTOR:
The concentration factor is related to the RO system recovery and is an important
equation for RO system design. The more water you recover as permeate (the
higher the % recovery), the more concentrated salts and contaminants you collect in
the concentrate stream. This can lead to higher potential for scaling on the surface
of the RO membrane when the concentration factor is too high for the system
design and feed water composition.
Concentration Factor =
1/1 – Recovery %
The concept is no different than that of a boiler or cooling tower. They both have
purified water exiting the system (steam) and end up leaving a concentrated
solution behind. As the degree of concentration increases, the solubility limits may
be exceeded and precipitate on the surface of the equipment as scale.
FLUX:
Gfd =
(gpm of permeate × 1,440 min/day)/ (of RO elements in system × square footage of
each RO element)
Feed Water Source Gfd

Sewage Effluent 5-10
Sea Water 8-12
Brackish Surface Water 10-14
Brackish Well Water 14-18
RO Permeate Water 20-30
Evaluation of the Technologies for reject water (brine) management
in industries:
Concentrate management alternatives that can be applicable at any industrial
facility can be categorized into three broad groups:
I. Wastewater Effluent Mixing
II. Volume Reduction Processes.
III. Zero Liquid Discharge Technologies.

Blending RO concentrate with secondary treated effluent from a wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) can be practiced to mitigate the impact of the high total
dissolved solids (TDS) (or other solute) concentrate using the blending capacity of a
lower-TDS stream. This combined stream can then be further discharged in
accordance with existing permits or be applied to land. Implementation of this
technique for reject water disposal is simple because no new equipments are
needed. Only few pipelines have to be modified and so the implementation issues
are minimal. As long as the blended flow complies with the existing permit
requirements, a modified permit is not required at all.

The concentrate volume reduction processes such as Electrodialysis Reversal
(EDR), Vibratory Shear-Enhanced Processing (VSEP), and Enhanced Membrane
System (EMS) already exist in industries installed at developed countries.
from a solution. It is based on the property that salts in solution are dissociated into
positively and negatively charged ions. The ions are separated from the solution by
passing a direct current between a cathode and an anode while passing water
membranes. The result is the production of a demineralized product stream (from
EDR is a variant of ED in which the cathode and anode positions are alternated
several times per hour (polarity reversal). Polarity reversal assists in control of
membrane fouling and allows operation at higher feedwater recovery with less scale
control chemicals. It should be noted that, unlike other membrane processes used in
drinking water and reuse, water does not flow through the EDR membranes, only
ions. Consequently, particulates and poorly ionized solutes are not removed and no
pathogen removal credits are given to ED/EDR under the Surface Water Treatment
Rule.
Figure()
Conventional RO systems are subject to scaling by sparingly soluble salts and high
concentrations of dissolved organic and colloidal matter. VSEP, a patented process
of New Logic, was developed to reduce polarization of suspended colloids and
sparingly soluble salts on the membrane surface by introducing shear to the
membrane surface through vibration. Shear waves produced on the membrane
surface keep the colloidal material in suspension, thereby minimizing fouling and
prevent precipitating salts from accumulating on the membrane surface as scales.
As a result, high throughput and water recoveries above that of a conventional
membrane system can be achieved.
VSEP employs torsional oscillation at a rate of 50 times per second (50 hertz) at the
membrane surface to inhibit diffusion polarization of suspended colloids. The
suspended colloids are helped in suspension, where a tangential cross flow washes
them away. The VSEP system consists of four components: a driving system that
generates vibration, a membrane module, a torsion spring that transfers vibration to
the membrane module, and a system that controls vibration. The vibration imparts a
shear to the surface of the membrane to mitigate fouling and scaling that would
occur in a conventional RO system. The membrane module houses a stack of flat
membrane sheets (filter pack) in a plate- and frame-type configuration.
Figure()
Unlike conventional RO systems, VSEP is not limited by the solubility of minerals
or the presence of suspended solids. It can be used in the same applications as
crystallizers or brine concentrators and is capable of high recoveries (up to 90%).
The VSEP system can be configured employing either RO or NF membranes in a
single-stage or multiple-stage arrangement. The configuration depends on the
quality of the wastewater to be treated; water quality goals for the VSEP permeate,
and target water recovery. VSEP outperforms conventional separation systems due
to high filtration rates, fouling resistance, high solids, high efficiency, engineered
dependability, compact design, convenient testing, and low cost.

EMS refers to the use of a nonconventional RO system to permit operation at higher
recovery and at higher flux. One of the types of EMS is the patented High-
softening to pretreat the conventional RO concentrate to reduce its scaling potential,
followed by the high-pH operation of a three-stage RO system using standard spiral
wound RO elements. Caustic is added to raise the pH to approximately 11 to retard
silica scaling and biofouling. Historically, the HERO™ process has been applied
for industrial use, for example, to treat cooling tower blow down as a part of a zero
liquid discharge treatment system.
EMS is a relatively new type of membrane system and will require approximately 6
months of pilot testing before implementation. Pilot testing could be complex
because a mainstream RO pilot of sufficient capacity would be required to generate
the concentrate as feed to the EMS pilot. One of the major drawbacks of the EMS is
the complexity of the process (i.e. it requires chemical addition for softening, ion
exchange, pH adjustment, and an RO system). Although softening, ion exchange,
and RO are all proven technologies for drinking water applications, the combination
of these technologies in the EMS requires a skilled staff to operate the facility.
Capital and O&M costs are relatively high due to high energy and chemical
consumption.
The product water quality is projected to be similar to VSEP permeate water quality
because each technology uses RO membranes. Some of the EMS product water
could potentially be blended with the RO permeate if it satisfies the Indian General
Standards for Discharge of Effluents to surface water.
Advantages associated with EMS include:

• Applicable to concentrate flows with high silica content.
• Relatively small foot-print .
• Higher recovery achievable than with conventional RO because feed hardness is
removed.
• Small aesthetic profile (no tall stacks).
Disadvantages associated with EMS include:

• Inefficiency due to TDS limitations.
• High capital and O&M costs.
• Highly skilled operations staff required.
• Complex process control system runs the IX, pH adjustment, and RO systems.
• Produces two concentrated waste streams, IX regenerate, and HERO reject .
• Waste streams form voluminous precipitate when combined.
3. Zero Liquid Discharge Technologies:
Processes capable of reducing the concentrate, either directly from the conventional
RO or the volume-reducing processes to zero liquid discharge (ZLD), (i.e.
sufficiently dry salt or other solid to be landfilled) were evaluated as a means for
final concentrate disposal. Specifically, the analysis focused on mechanical
evaporation, solar evaporation (evaporation ponds), and constructed wetlands. ZLD
processes are considered in conjunction with wastewater effluent mixing and
volume reduction technologies, where applicable.

Mechanical evaporation can process concentrate by converting the water
component into condensable water vapor, leaving behind a wet salt to be landfilled.
Many different options for mechanical evaporation equipment exist. The most
common combination of technologies used for this purpose is a vertical tube falling
film brine concentrator followed by a forced-circulation crystallizer. This
arrangement of evaporation equipment is typically the most economical and,
therefore, selected for use as one ZLD alternative for RO concentrate treatment.
3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator:

High TDS and saturation of low-solubility scaling salts such as calcium sulfate
(CaSO4) and silica (SiO2) limit the percentage of water that can be recovered in a
conventional evaporator system. The brine concentrator uses a unique process
called seeded slurry evaporation to overcome the limitation imposed on
conventional evaporators by the saturation limits of low-solubility scaling
compounds. The seeded slurry process involves establishing and maintaining slurry
of CaSO4seed crystals in the circulating brine in the evaporator.
With careful thermal and mechanical design, CaSO4 and SiO2 can precipitate
preferentially on the recirculating seed crystals instead on the tubes. The ultimate
concentration achievable in the brine concentrator is limited by the boiling point
elevation of the brine, the relative concentrations of sulfate and chloride (e.g. the
double salt, CaSO4•Na2SO4 [glauberite], does not form), and the solubility of the
sodium salts. The brine discharged from the brine concentrator is further
concentrated in the crystallizer.
Figure()
Advantages associated with mechanical evaporators include:

• Proven technology for brine concentrate volume reduction in industrial
applications.
• A small site footprint .
• Most organic and inorganic constituents removed and high-quality water
produced.
Disadvantages associated with mechanical evaporators include:
• High capital and O&M costs due to mechanical complexity and high energy
demands .
• Sound enclosures possibly needed .
• Aesthetics associated with tall tower profile .
• Not feasible for projects with specific height limits (i.e., 50 ft or less).
3.3 Brine Crystallizer:
The crystallizer is a forced-circulation-type evaporator, which is specially designed
to precipitate, grow, and handle crystals in the concentrate as water is continuously
evaporated. Recirculated concentrate is pumped through the forced-circulation heat
exchanger, where it is heated above its normal boiling temperature with steam. It
requires 65–80 kWh of power per 1000 liters of crystallizer feed. Boiling of the
concentrate in the heat exchanger is suppressed due to sufficient static head. The
heated concentrate then enters a flash tank operating at a slightly lower pressure,
causing flash evaporation of water and crystallization of salts in the brine.
High recirculation rates are used to keep the velocity on the heated surface high,
avoiding the formation of scale on the heat transfer surface and increasing heat
transfer efficiency. The slurry produced in the crystallizer is dewatered in the belt
filter and the liquid portion is returned to the crystallizer for further concentration.
When the salt cake accumulates on the belt filter to a predetermined level, an
automatic sequence is initiated which advances the belt and dumps the salt cake into
a hopper for disposal.
The primary obstacle in implementing mechanical evaporation for the disposal of

RO concentrate is the size and complexity of the equipment. For example, a falling
film brine concentrator for a 0.6 million liters-per-day (MLD) concentrate stream is
approximately 25 meters in height. In addition, evaporators and crystallizers are
relatively complex to operate and energy intensive compared with other ZLD
methods.
Reliance on mechanical compressors results in lower reliability than other ZLD
methods that are less mechanically intensive. Permit requirements for operation of
volume reduction process equipment for membrane concentrate disposal are similar
to other wastewater treatment processes. Implementation of a mechanical
evaporator could require a variance due to the aesthetic impacts of the tower profile
on the surrounding vistas.
Figure()
Advantages associated with brine crystallizer include :

• Minimization of the waste volume to be managed.
• Significant reduction in waste management costs.
• Possibility of implementation of a zero discharge system.
• Fulfillment of the current regulations on discharge of effluents.
• Reduction of the need to store large volumes of waste.
• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when transporting the waste.
• Absence of reagents (except for antifoam in some cases).
Disadvantages associated with brine crystallizer include:
• High capital and O&M costs (primarily energy costs).
• May require frequent cleaning when used for complex salt waste streams.
• Mechanically complex.
• Potential aesthetic issues associated with vertical profile.
Evaporation ponds rely on solar energy to evaporate water from the RO concentrate
stream, leaving behind precipitated salts—which are ultimately landfilled.
Evaporation ponds are most effective in arid and semiarid climates having high net
evaporation rates. High net evaporation rates decrease the pond area required
because evaporation occurs in less time. One major advantage of evaporation ponds
is that the practicality of using evaporation ponds is not limited by RO concentrate
quality.
In the most common case, RO concentrate is conveyed to the evaporation ponds

where it is spread out over a large area and allowed to evaporate. For evaporation
ponds systems, multiple ponds are constructed so that some ponds can be taken
offline for periodic maintenance. Periodic maintenance includes allowing the
evaporation pond to set idle to firm the consistency of the precipitated salts,
cleaning the ponds by removing and transporting the precipitated salts to a landfill,
and inspecting the protective lining system.
Factors affecting the feasibility of implementing evaporation ponds for RO

concentrate disposal include membrane concentrate flow rate, geographical
location, and site location. The RO concentrate flow rate is the primary factor
affecting the area required for the evaporation ponds. The greater the flow of RO
concentrates, the larger the area required for evaporation ponds. An estimate of the
pond area required should take into account the reduced evaporation rate of a brine
solution compared to typical lower-TDS water. A general guideline is to apply a
factor of 0.7 to the evaporation rates. This reduces the evaporation rate by 30% to
account for the lower evaporation rate of the concentrate solution.
Evaporation ponds must be lined to prevent seepage into the groundwater if the
industry aimed to consider this as an injection well. However, installing a double
liner with leachate collection system is needed to make treated reject water as lower
concentrations of salt constituents than those found in the native groundwater.
Another major concern with installation of evaporation ponds is the control of
habitat, including water fowl. Large evaporation ponds are attractive to many birds.
However, the required area for evaporation ponds will be high, if no volume
reduction occurred before the evaporation ponds. Implementation of such a large
pond area is neither feasible nor economically attractive in many instances. A
hybrid method, incorporating volume reduction technologies (e.g. VSEP, EMS, and
mechanical evaporation), should be used to reduce the evaporation pond area. A
major advantage for constructing evaporation ponds in India is the higher
evaporation rates due to the solar energy available throughout the year.
Advantages associated with evaporation ponds include:
• Proven in industrial and wastewater applications.
• Simple, low-technology solution.
• Insensitive to energy costs (not withstanding cost of conveyance to ponds).
Disadvantages associated with evaporation ponds include:

• Implementation of evaporation ponds is sensitive to land costs.
• Liners are required to prevent seepage.
• Evaporation ponds are sensitive to climate (that is, they are most effective in arid
climates with high evaporation rates).
• Potential regulatory and environmental/habitat issues exist due to accumulation
and concentration of micropollutants.
• Residuals have to be disposed of in landfills during periodic maintenance.
Chapter four :
Experimental Part
Apparatus:
Results:
Conclusion:
Reference:

Theortical Part

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theortical Part

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter One :

The process is similar to other membrane technology applications. However, key

A semipermeable membrane coil used in desalination

In general, the common perception about the concentrate represents concentrated

In general, the advanced treatment technology to generate the process water in

2.2 Vibratory Shear-Enhanced Process (VSEP).

2.3 Enhanced Membrane Systems (EMS).

3. Zero Liquid Discharge :

3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator.

3.3 Brine Crystallizer.

3.4 Evaporation Ponds.

2.Volume Reduction Processes:

2.1 Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR):

Unlike conventional RO systems, VSEP is not limited by the solubility of minerals

3.1 Mechanical Evaporation:

3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator:

3.3 Brine Crystallizer:

In the most common case, RO concentrate is conveyed to the evaporation ponds

Factors affecting the feasibility of implementing evaporation ponds for RO

2.2 Vibratory Shear-Enhanced Process (VSEP).

2.3 Enhanced Membrane Systems (EMS).

3. Zero Liquid Discharge :

3.2 Vertical Tube Falling Film Brine Concentrator.

3.3 Brine Crystallizer.

3.4 Evaporation Ponds.

Wastewater treatment plants became large, complex facilities that required

2.1 Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR):

In 1967 Preceding them membranes manufactured by T.R.E. Kressman were in fact

In 1952 year, Ionics (USA) started manufacturing commercial . In 1954 The

In 1965 New break-through in ED progress was associated with development of

In 1967 Major electrodialysis' shortcomings such as membrane fouling and scaling

In 1995 Roaring advances of pressure-driven membrane technologies simplify

2.2 Vibratory Shear-Enhanced Process (VSEP):

2.3 Enhanced Membrane Systems (EMS):

In 2007 , The recent boom of the coal-to-chemicals industry in China generates

In April 2009, US Water Services completed a complex water treatment system in

In February 2010,Facing a situation similar to that in China, India is taking

In 17 November 2015 , GEA introduced a new evaporation/solidification

In 2016 , deascribed As in US, the power industry is an important contributor to the

Zero Liquid Discharge Technologies:

3.2 Brine Concentrators :

3.3 Brine Crystallizers:

3.4 Evaporation Ponds:

In 2000 , Ahmed et al , provide information and quantitative data being gathered

A semi-permeable membrane is a membrane that will allow some atoms or

Below is a diagram outlining the process of Reverse Osmosis. When pressure is

The desalinated water that is demineralized or deionized, is called permeate (or

It is important to understand that an RO system employs cross filtration rather

(2) two stage Ro system:

In a Reverse Osmosis System an array describes the physical arrangement of the

Types Of R.O. Membranes:

(1) Cellulosic Membranes:-

 Cellulose acetate (CA)membranes are inexpensive and easy to manufacture but

 Polyamide membranes have better resistance to hydrolysis and biological attack

(3) Thin film composites:

(1) Effect of pressure:

As shown , water flux across the membrane increases in direct relationship to

Figure () - Effect of Feedwater Pressure on Flux and Salt Rejection

(2) Effect of temperature:

The ability of a membrane to tolerate elevated temperatures increases operating

Figure () - Effect of Feedwater Temperature on Flux and Salt Rejection

Figure () demonstrates that, if feed pressure remains constant, higher salt

Figure () - Effect of Increasing Salt Concentration on Flux and Salt Rejection

Figure () - Effect of Increased Recovery on Flux and Salt Rejection