Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of membrane and compound properties in affecting the rejection of pharmaceuticals by different RO/NF membranes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was conducted to assess the merits and limitations of various high-pressure membranes, tight nanofiltration (NF) membranes in particular, for the removal of trace organic compounds (TrOCs). The performance of a low-pressure reverse osmosis (LPRO) membrane (ESPA1), a tight NF membrane (NF90) and two loose NF membranes (HL and NF270) was compared for the rejection of 23 different pharmaceuticals (PhACs). Efforts were also devoted to understand the effect of adsorption on the rejection performance of each membrane. Difference in hydrogen bond formation potential (HFP) was taken into consideration. Results showed that NF90 performed similarly to ESPA1 with mean rejection higher than 95%. NF270 outperformed HL in terms of both water permeability and PhAC rejection higher than 90%. Electrostatic effects were more significant in PhAC rejection by loose NF membranes than tight NF and LPRO membranes. The adverse effect of adsorption on rejection by HL and ESPA1 was more substantial than NF270 and NF90, which could not be simply explained by the difference in membrane surface hydrophobicity, selective layer thickness or pore size. The HL membrane had a lower rejection of PhACs of higher hydrophobicity (log D>0) and higher HFP (>0.02). Nevertheless, the effects of PhAC hydrophobicity and HFP on rejection by ESPA1 could not be discerned. Poor rejection of certain PhACs could generally be explained by aspects of steric hindrance, electrostatic interactions and adsorption. High-pressure membranes like NF90 and NF270 have a high promise in TrOC removal from contaminated water.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benotti MJ, Trenholm R A, Vanderford B J, Holady J C, Stanford B D, Snyder S A. Pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds in U.S. drinking water. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, 43(3): 597–603

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jin X, Hu J. Role of water chemistry on estrone removal by nanofiltration with the presence of hydrophobic acids. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2015, 9(1): 164–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Geise G M, Paul D R, Freeman B D. Fundamental water and salt transport properties of polymeric materials. Progress in Polymer Science, 2014, 39(1): 1–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang X, Yang H, Li Z, Yang S, Xie Y. Pilot study for the treatment of sodium and fluoride-contaminated groundwater by using highpressure membrane systems. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2015, 9(1): 155–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Doederer K, Farré M J, Pidou M, Weinberg H S, Gernjak W. Rejection of disinfection by-products by RO and NF membranes: influence of solute properties and operational parameters. Journal of Membrane Science, 2014, 467(1): 195–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kimura K, Amy G, Drewes J E, Heberer T, Kim T U, Watanabe Y. Rejection of organic micropollutants (disinfection by-products, endocrine disrupting compounds, and pharmaceutically active compounds) by NF/RO membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2003, 227(1): 113–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Radjenovic J, Petrovic M, Ventura F, Barceló D. Rejection of pharmaceuticals in nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane drinking water treatment. Water Research, 2008, 42(14): 3601–3610

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Comerton A M, Andrews R C, Bagley D M, Hao C. The rejection of endocrine disrupting and pharmaceutically active compounds by NF and RO membranes as a function of compound and water matrix properties. Journal of Membrane Science, 2008, 313(1): 323–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellona C, Drewes J E, Xu P, Amy G. Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment: a literature review. Water Research, 2004, 38(12): 2795–2809

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kong F X, Yang H W, Wang X M, Xie Y F. Assessment of the hindered transport model in predicting the rejection of trace organic compounds by nanofiltration. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 498: 57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang X, Li B, Zhang T, Li X Y. Performance of nanofiltration membrane in rejecting trace organic compounds: experiment and model prediction. Desalination, 2015, 370: 7–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dong L, Huang X,Wang Z, Yang Z,Wang X, Tang C Y. A thin-film nanocomposite nanofiltration membrane prepared on a support with in situ embedded zeolite nanoparticles. Separation and Purification Technology, 2016, 166: 230–239

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Verliefde A R D, Cornelissen E R, Heijman S G J, Hoek E M V, Amy G L, Van der Bruggen B, Van Dijkt J C. Influence of solutemembrane affinity on rejection of uncharged organic solutes by nanofiltration membranes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, 43(7): 2400–2406

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mahlangu T, Schoutteten K, D’Haese A, Van den Bussche J, Vanhaecke L, Thwala J, Mamba B, Verliefde A. Role of permeate flux and specific membrane-foulant-solute affinity interactions (Δ Gslm) in transport of trace organic solutes through fouled nanofiltration (NF) membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2016, 518: 203–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Steinle-Darling E, Litwiller E, Reinhard M. Effects of sorption on the rejection of trace organic contaminants during nanofiltration. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(7): 2592–2598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Israelachvili J N. Intermolecular and Surface Forces. San Francisco: Academic Press, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nghiem L D, Schäfer A I. Adsorption and transport of trace contaminant estrone in NF/RO membranes. Environmental Engineering Science, 2002, 19(6): 441–451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schäfer A I, Akanyeti I, Semião A J C. Micropollutant sorption to membrane polymers: a review of mechanisms for estrogens. Advances in Colloid & Interface Science, 2011, 164(S1–2): 100–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nghiem L D, Schäfer A I, Elimelech M. Removal of natural hormones by nanofiltration membranes: measurement, modeling, and mechanisms. Environmental Science & Technology, 2004, 38 (6): 1888–1896

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Shah A D, Huang C H, Kim J H. Mechanisms of antibiotic removal by nanofiltration membranes: model development and application. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 389: 234–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolar D, Vukovic A, Ašperger D, Kosutic K. Effect of water matrices on removal of veterinary pharmaceuticals by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of Environmental Sciences-China, 2011, 23(8): 1299–1307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoek E M, Elimelech M. Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: a new fouling mechanism for salt-rejecting membranes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2003, 37(24): 5581–5588

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Plakas K, Karabelas A, Wintgens T, Melin T. A study of selected herbicides retention by nanofiltration membranes—the role of organic fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 284(1): 291–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Semião A J, Schäfer A I. Estrogenic micropollutant adsorption dynamics onto nanofiltration membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 381(1): 132–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kong F X, Yang H W, Wu Y Q, Wang X M, Xie Y F. Rejection of pharmaceuticals during forward osmosis and prediction by using the solution–diffusion model. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 476 (476): 410–420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bowen W R, Welfoot J S. Modelling the performance of membrane nanofiltration—critical assessment and model development. Chemical Engineering Science, 2002, 57(7): 1121–1137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim S D, Cho J, Kim I S, Vanderford B J, Snyder S A. Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors in South Korean surface, drinking, and waste waters. Water Research, 2007, 41(5): 1013–1021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ventresque C, Gisclon V, Bablon G, Chagneau G. An outstanding feat of modern technology: the Mery-sur-Oise Nanofiltration Treatment Plant (340,000 m3/d). Desalination, 2000, 131(1): 1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Freger V, Gilron J, Belfer S. TFC polyamide membranes modified by grafting of hydrophilic polymers: an FT-IR/AFM/TEM study. Journal of Membrane Science, 2002, 209(1): 283–292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Liang L, Zhang J, Feng P, Li C, Huang Y, Dong B, Li L, Guan X. Occurrence of bisphenol A in surface and drinking waters and its physicochemical removal technologies. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2015, 9(1): 16–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Redding A M, Cannon F S, Snyder S A, Vanderford B J. A QSARlike analysis of the adsorption of endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products on modified activated carbons. Water Research, 2009, 43(15): 3849–3861

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Nghiem L D, Schäfer A I, Elimelech M. Pharmaceutical retention mechanisms by nanofiltration membranes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2005, 39(19): 7698–7705

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Yangali-Quintanilla V, Sadmani A, McConville M, Kennedy M, Amy G. Rejection of pharmaceutically active compounds and endocrine disrupting compounds by clean and fouled nanofiltration membranes. Water Research, 2009, 43(9): 2349–2362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. SchäferA I, Waite T D, Fane A G. Nanofiltration: Principles and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005, 121–122

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tang C Y, Kwon Y N, Leckie J O. Effect of membrane chemistry and coating layer on physiochemical properties of thin film composite polyamide RO and NF membranes: I. FTIR and XPS characterization of polyamide and coating layer chemistry. Desalination, 2009, 242(1–3): 149–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the funding for this research provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51678331) and the special funding of State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, Tsinghua University (No. 15Y01ESPCT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

    Yang-ying Zhao, Zhi Wang, Hong-wei Yang, Xiao-mao Wang & Yuefeng F. Xie

  2. School of Chemical Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, 102249, China

    Fan-xin Kong

  3. Environmental Engineering Programs, The Pennsylvania State University, Middletown, PA, 17057, USA

    Yuefeng F. Xie

  4. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    T. David Waite

Authors
  1. Yang-ying Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fan-xin Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hong-wei Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiao-mao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuefeng F. Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. David Waite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-mao Wang.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Yy., Kong, Fx., Wang, Z. et al. Role of membrane and compound properties in affecting the rejection of pharmaceuticals by different RO/NF membranes. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 11, 20 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0975-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0975-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation