Advertisement

Nitrate removal from drinking water by PAN ultrafiltration assisted with cationic surfactants: evaluation of effective factors using response surface methodology

  • Abbas Bahrami Nekoo
  • Mehrdad KhamforoushEmail author
Original Research
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Polyacrylonitrile ultrafiltration membrane was used to remove nitrate from aqueous solution, assisted by variations in cationic surfactant type and structure [cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and hexadecyl trimethylammonium bromide (HTAB)]. This paper also studied the effects of membrane thickness (150, 200, 250 µm), nitrate concentration (40, 120, 200 ppm), and surfactant concentration (0.4, 5.2, 10 mM) on removal efficiency. To this end, the required experiments were designed through response surface methodology using design-expert 7.0.0 software. The results showed that CPC was generally more efficient than HTAB due to its hydrophilic head structure. Rejection was improved significantly by increasing surfactant concentration over critical micelle concentration (CMC), but a slight fall was observed for CPC at about 10 mM concentration of surfactant in all nitrate concentrations. The optimal condition was obtained at 8.18 mM CPC, 196.2 ppm nitrate and thickness of 160 µm, which resulted in rejection of 80.29% at 30th min of filtration with an average flux of 19.25 L/m2 h. Increasing pressure showed a positive effect on rejection. Also, modified PVP-optimal membranes (160 µm) associated with different polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) percentages by weight showed higher flux compared to an unmodified optimal membrane. Porosity and water content of optimal membrane were 49.9% and 82.56%, respectively, and surfactants rejection was always close to 100% over CMC.

Keywords

Ultrafiltration Surfactant Cetylpyridinium chloride Hexadecyl trimethylammonium bromide Nitrate removal Response surface methodology 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Mukherjee R, De S (2014) Adsorptive removal of nitrate from aqueous solution by polyacrylonitrile–alumina nanoparticle mixed matrix hollow-fiber membrane. J Membr Sci 466:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bensaadi S, Amara M, Arous O, Kerdjoudj H (2016) Transfer of nitrate ions using a polymeric-surfactant membrane. Desalin Water Treat 57:5981–5987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryan N, Grinsven H (2013) The role of nitrate in human health. Adv Agron 19:153–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pennington JA (1998) Dietary exposure models for nitrates and nitrites. Food Control 9:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fewtrell L (2004) Drinking-water nitrate, methemoglobinemia, and global burden of disease: a discussion. Environ Health Perspect 112:1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McAdam E, Judd S (2006) A review of membrane bioreactor potential for nitrate removal from drinking water. Desalination 196:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hekmatzadeh AA, Karimi-Jashni A, Talebbeydokhti N, Kløve B (2013) Adsorption kinetics of nitrate ions on ion exchange resin. Desalination 326:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nabid MR, Sedghi R, Sharifi R, Oskooie HA, Heravi MM (2013) Removal of toxic nitrate ions from drinking water using conducting polymer/MWCNTs nanocomposites. Iran Polym J 22:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holloway RW, Wait AS, da Silva AF, Herron J, Schutter MD, Lampi K, Cath TY (2015) Long-term pilot scale investigation of novel hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactors. Desalination 363:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khamforoush M, Pirouzram O, Hatami T (2015) The evaluation of thin film composite membrane composed of an electrospun polyacrylonitrile nanofibrous mid-layer for separating oil–water mixture. Desalination 359:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Etemadi H, Yegani R, Seyfollahi M, Rabiee M (2018) Synthesis, characterization, and anti-fouling properties of cellulose acetate/polyethylene glycol-grafted nanodiamond nanocomposite membranes for humic acid removal from contaminated water. Iran Polym J 27:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang H, Liang H, Qu F, Liu B, Yu H, Du X, Li G, Snyder SA (2017) Hydraulic backwashing for low-pressure membranes in drinking water treatment: a review. J Membr Sci 540:362–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scharnagl N, Buschatz H (2001) Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) membranes for ultra-and microfiltration. Desalination 139:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ngang H, Ahmad A, Low S, Ooi B (2012) Preparation of mixed-matrix membranes for micellar enhanced ultrafiltration based on response surface methodology. Desalination 293:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vinder A, Simonič M (2012) Removal of AOX from waste water with mixed surfactants by MEUF. Desalination 289:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Daniş Ü, Keskinler B (2009) Chromate removal from wastewater using micellar enhanced crossflow filtration: effect of transmembrane pressure and crossflow velocity. Desalination 249:1356–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aktaş N, Boyacı İH, Mutlu M, Tanyolaç A (2006) Optimization of lactose utilization in deproteinated whey by Kluyveromyces marxianus using response surface methodology (RSM). Bioresour Technol 97:2252–2259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bashir MJK, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS, Adlan MN (2010) Application of response surface methodology (RSM) for optimization of ammoniacal nitrogen removal from semi-aerobic landfill leachate using ion exchange resin. Desalination 254:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pakbaz M, Maghsoud Z (2017) Performance evaluation of polyvinylchloride/polyacrylonitrile ultrafiltration blend membrane. Iran Polym J 26:833–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fan G, Su Z, Lin R, Lin X, Xu R, Wei Chen (2016) Influence of membrane materials and operational modes on the performance of ultrafiltration modules for drinking water treatment. Polym Sci 2016:1–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nabid M, Sedghi R, Sharifi R, Abdi Oskooie H, Heravi M (2012) Removal of toxic nitrate ions from drinking water using conducting polymer/MWCNTs nanocomposites. Iran Polym J 22:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Warsinger DM, Chakraborty S, Tow EW, Plumlee MH, Bellona C, Loutatidou S, Karimi L, Mikelonis AM, Achilli A, Ghassemi A, Padhye LP, Snyder SA, Curcio S, Vecitis C, Arafat HA, Lienhard JH (2016) A review of polymeric membranes and processes for potable water reuse. Prog Polym Sci 10:209–237Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim BK, Baek K, Yang JW (2004) Simultaneous removal of nitrate and phosphate using cross-flow micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF). Water Sci Technol 50:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morel G, Ouazzani N, Graciaa A, Lachaise J (1997) Surfactant modified ultrafiltration for nitrate ion removal. J Membr Sci 134:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baek K, Yang JW (2004) Cross-flow micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for removal of nitrate and chromate: competitive binding. J Hazard Mater 108:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rahmanian B, Pakizeh M, Esfandyari M, Heshmatnezhad F, Maskooki A (2011) Fuzzy modeling and simulation for lead removal using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF). J Hazard Mater 192:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwarze M, Groß M, Moritz M, Buchner G, Kapitzki L, Chiappisi L, Gradzielski M (2015) Micellar enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) of metal cations with oleylethoxycarboxylate. J Membr Sci 478:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verma SP, Sarkar B (2017) Rhamnolipid based micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration for simultaneous removal of Cd (II) and phenolic compound from wastewater. Chem Eng J 319:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Armstrong FAJ (1963) Determination of nitrate in water byultraviolet spectrophotometry. Anal Chem 35:1292–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baek K, Yang JW (2004) Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration of chromate and nitrate: binding competition between chromate and nitrate. Desalination 167:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen Y, Zhang Y, Liu J, Zhang H, Wang K (2012) Preparation and antibacterial property of polyethersulfone ultrafiltration hybrid membrane containing halloysite nanotubes loaded with copper ions. Chem Eng J 210:298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vatanpour V, Madaeni SS, Rajabi L, Zinadini S, Derakhshan AA (2012) Boehmite nanoparticles as a new nanofiller for preparation of antifouling mixed matrix membranes. J Membr Sci 401:132–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baek K, Yang JW (2004) Simultaneous removal of chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrate, and chromate using micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration. Chemosphere 57:1091–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fillipi BR, Brant LW, Scamehorn JF, Christian SD (1999) Use of micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration at low surfactant concentrations and with anionic–nonionic surfactant mixtures. J Colloid Interface Sci 213:68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    El-Maksoud SA (2004) The effect of hexadecyl pyridinium bromide and hexadecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide on the behaviour of iron and copper in acidic solutions. J Electroanal Chem 565:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCloskey BD, Park HB, Ju H, Rowe BW, Miller DJ, Chun BJ, Kin K, Freeman BD (2010) Influence of polydopamine deposition conditions on pure water flux and foulant adhesion resistance of reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, and microfiltration membranes. Polymer 51:3472–3485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jung B (2004) Preparation of hydrophilic polyacrylonitrile blend membranes for ultrafiltration. J Membr Sci 229:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jung B, Yoon JK, Kim B, Rhee HW (2004) Effect of molecular weight of polymeric additives on formation, permeation properties and hypochlorite treatment of asymmetric polyacrylonitrile membranes. J Membr Sci 243:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of KurdistanSanandajIran

Personalised recommendations