Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 17, pp 17472–17481 | Cite as

Comparing the performance of various nanofiltration membranes in advanced oxidation-nanofiltration treatment of reverse osmosis concentrates

  • Na Li
  • Xiaoyan Wang
  • Hui Zhang
  • Zijian Zhang
  • Jincheng DingEmail author
  • Jie LuEmail author
Research Article


Reverse osmosis (RO) technique plays an important role in the treatment of secondary biochemical effluent. However, the reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) with high salinity and organic pollutants generated from this process remains a challenge to be tackled. The O3-assisted UV-Fenton advanced oxidation process (AOP) as a pretreatment for the nanofiltration (NF) was used to treat the ROC of industrial wastewater. The optimal removal rates of COD and UV254 were 80.4 and 77.4%, respectively. In the NF process, four types of commercial NF membranes (NF90 (Dow, USA), DK (GE, USA), NT101, and NT103 (NADIR, Germany)) were used to treat the AOP effluent. The effects of operating pressure and feed temperature on ion rejection were investigated. The results show that NF90 and NT103 membranes had better rejections to monovalent ions, while DK and NT101 membranes could effectively separate monovalent and divalent ions and their ion rejections decreased with the increase of feed temperature. With the NF90 membrane, the highest TDS removal rate of 89.65% was obtained at the operating pressure of 1.2 MPa.


Reverse osmosis concentrates High salinity Advanced oxidation process Nanofiltration Ion rejection TDS 


Funding information

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China (Grant Nos. ZR2015EL044, ZR2013BL010) and SDUT & Zibo City Integration Development Project (Grant No. 2016ZBXC116).


  1. Al-Amoudi AS (2010) Factors affecting natural organic matter (NOM) and scaling fouling in NF membranes: a review. Desalination 259(1–3):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali ES, Alsaman AS, Harby K, Askalany AA, Diab MR, Ebrahim Yakoot SM (2017) Recycling brine water of reverse osmosis desalination employing adsorption desalination: a theoretical simulation. Desalination 408:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alotaibi S, Ibrahim OM, Luo S, Luo T (2017) Modeling of a continuous water desalination process using directional solvent extraction. Desalination 420:114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ang WL, Nordin D, Mohammad AW, Benamor A, Hilal N (2017) Effect of membrane performance including fouling on cost optimization in brackish water desalination process. Chem Eng Res Des 117:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. APHA (2005) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagastyo AY, Radjenovic J, Mu Y, Rozendal RA, Batstone DJ, Rabaey K (2011) Electrochemical oxidation of reverse osmosis concentrate on mixed metal oxide (MMO) titanium coated electrodes. Water Res 45(16):4951–4959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gao LX, Rahardianto A, Gu H, Christofides PD, Cohen Y (2016) Novel design and operational control of integrated ultrafiltration — reverse osmosis system with RO concentrate backwash. Desalination 382:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenlee LF, Testa F, Lawler DF, Freeman BD, Moulin P (2011) Effect of antiscalant degradation on salt precipitation and solid/liquid separation of RO concentrate. J Membr Sci 366(1–2):48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hilal N, Al-Zoubi H, Darwish NA, Mohamma AW, Abu Arabi M (2004) A comprehensive review of nanofiltration membranes: treatment, pretreatment, modelling, and atomic force microscopy. Desalination 170(3):281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hilal N, Kochkodan V, Al Abdulgader H, Mandale S, Al-Jlil SA (2015) A combined ion exchange–nanofiltration process for water desalination: I. sulphate–chloride ion-exchange in saline solutions. Desalination 363:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Istirokhatun T, Dewi MN, Ilma HI, Susanto H (2018) Separation of antiscalants from reverse osmosis concentrates using nanofiltration. Desalination 429:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaya C, Sert G, Kabay N, Arda M, Yüksel M, Egemen Ö (2015) Pre-treatment with nanofiltration (NF) in seawater desalination—preliminary integrated membrane tests in Urla, Turkey. Desalination 369:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Labban O, Liu C, Chong TH, Lienhard JH (2018) Relating transport modeling to nanofiltration membrane fabrication: navigating the permeability-selectivity trade-off in desalination pretreatment. J Membr Sci 554:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li C, Xia J, Zhu P, Ma L, Ding J, Lu J (2017) O3-assisted UV-Fenton treatment of refining reverse osmosis water: optimization of process conditions by response surface methodology. Desalin Water Treat 66:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu K, Roddick FA, Fan L (2012) Impact of salinity and pH on the UVC/H2O2 treatment of reverse osmosis concentrate produced from municipal wastewater reclamation. Water Res 46(10):3229–3239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu Y, Wang J, Sun X (2016) Energy-saving “NF/EDR” integrated membrane process for seawater desalination Part I. Seawater desalination by NF membrane with high desalination capacity. Desalination 397:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu J, Fan L, Roddick FA (2013) Potential of BAC combined with UVC/H2O2 for reducing organic matter from highly saline reverse osmosis concentrate produced from municipal wastewater reclamation. Chemosphere 93(4):683–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luo J, Ding L, Su Y, ShaopingWei WY (2010) Concentration polarization in concentrated saline solution during desalination of iron dextran by nanofiltration. J Membr Sci 363(1–2):170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Naidu G, Zhong X, Vigneswaran S (2018) Comparison of membrane distillation and freeze crystallizer as alternatives for reverse osmosis concentrate treatment. Desalination 427:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nanda D, Tung K-L, Hsiung C-C, Chuang C-J, Ruaan R-C, Chiang Y-C, Chen C-S, Wu T-H (2008) Effect of solution chemistry on water softening using charged nanofiltration membranes. Desalination 234(1–3):344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nativ P, Lahav O, Gendel Y (2018) Separation of divalent and monovalent ions using flow-electrode capacitive deionization with nanofiltration membranes. Desalination 425:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Qureshi BA, Zubair SM (2016) Exergetic efficiency of NF, RO and EDR desalination plants. Desalination 378:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saeki D, Karkhanechi H, Matsuura H, Matsuyama H (2016) Effect of operating conditions on biofouling in reverse osmosis membrane processes: bacterial adhesion, biofilm formation, and permeate flux decrease. Desalination 378:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Song Y, Xu J, Xu Y, Gao X, Gao C (2011) Performance of UF–NF integrated membrane process for seawater softening. Desalination 276(1–3):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tichonovas M, Krugly E, Jankunaite D, Racys V, Martuzevicius D (2017) Ozone-UV-catalysis oxidation process for wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:17584–17591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Umar M, Roddick F, Fan L (2014) Effect of coagulation on treatment of municipal wastewater reverse osmosis concentrate by UVC/H2O2. J Hazard Mater 266:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Umar M, Roddick FA, Fan L, Autin O, Jefferson B (2015) Treatment of municipal wastewater reverse osmosis concentrate using UVC-LED/H2O2 with and without coagulation pre-treatment. Chem Eng J 260:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Umar M, Roddick F, Fan L (2016) Impact of coagulation as a pre-treatment for UVC/H2O2-biological activated carbon treatment of a municipal wastewater reverse osmosis concentrate. Water Res 88:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wijmans JG, Baker RW (1995) The solution-diffusion model: a review. J Membr Sci 107:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu D, Gao A, Zhao H, Feng X (2018) Pervaporative desalination of high-salinity water. Chem Eng Res Des 136:154–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xia J, Zhang H, Ding S, Li C, Ding J, Lu J (2017) Promotion by humus-reducing bacteria for the degradation of UV254 absorbance in reverse-osmosis concentrates pretreated with O3-assisted UV-Fenton method. Environ Technol 39(17):2178–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yang L, She Q, Wan MP, Wang R, Chang VW, Tang CY (2017) Removal of haloacetic acids from swimming pool water by reverse osmosis and nanofiltration. Water Res 116:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu W, Liu T, Crawshaw J, Liu T, Graham N (2018) Ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membrane fouling by natural organic matter: mechanisms and mitigation by pre-ozonation and pH. Water Res 139:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang Y, Ghyselbrecht K, Meesschaert B, Pinoy L, Van der Bruggen B (2011) Electrodialysis on RO concentrate to improve water recovery in wastewater reclamation. J Membr Sci 378(1–2):101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang H, Bin L, Pan J, Qi Y, Shen J, Gao C, Van der Bruggen B (2017) Carboxyl-functionalized graphene oxide polyamide nanofiltration membrane for desalination of dye solutions containing monovalent salt. J Membr Sci 539:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao P, Gao B, Yue Q, Liu S, Shon HK (2016) Effect of high salinity on the performance of forward osmosis: water flux, membrane scaling and removal efficiency. Desalination 378:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou D, Zhu L, Fu Y, Zhu M, Xue L (2015) Development of lower cost seawater desalination processes using nanofiltration technologies — a review. Desalination 376:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Resources and Environmental EngineeringShandong University of TechnologyZiboChina
  2. 2.College of Chemistry and Chemical EngineeringShandong University of TechnologyZiboChina

Personalised recommendations