Advertisement

Role of organic fouling layer on the rejection of trace organic solutes by nanofiltration: mechanisms and implications

  • Zhendong Gan
  • Xing Du
  • Xuewu Zhu
  • Xiaoxiang Cheng
  • Guibai Li
  • Heng Liang
Appropriate Technologies to Combat Water Pollution
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

To investigate how the organic fouling layers on nanofiltration (NF) membrane surface and the strong matrix effect (particularly by Ca2+) influence the rejection of trace organic compounds (TOrCs), filtration experiments with two TOrCs, bisphenol A (BPA) and sulfamethazine (SMT), were carried out with virgin and organic-fouled NF membrane. Organic fouling layer on the membrane was induced by sodium alginate (SA) at different concentrations of Ca2+. The results indicated that NF membrane maintained consistently rejection of TOrCs with little influence by membrane fouling at lower Ca2+ concentration. In contrast, organic fouling caused at higher concentration of Ca2+ observably restrained the rejections of both BPA and SMT. Furthermore, based on the cake-enhanced concentration polarization (CECP) model, the rejection of TOrCs was divided to the real rejection and the mass transfer coefficient. Moreover, it was found that the decrease in rejection resulted by organic fouling was due to the real rejection that was restrained by fouling layer with irregular impact on the mass transfer coefficient. Although the mechanism of trace compounds rejection was complex, the controlling factors varied among foulants. Nevertheless, the steric effect of the cake layer played an important role in determining solute rejection by organic-fouled NF membrane.

Keywords

Nanofiltration membrane Organic fouling Trace organics Cake-enhanced concentration polarization model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was jointly supported by the National Science Foundation for the Outstanding Youngster Fund (51522804), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51778170), and the Nanqi Ren Studio, Academy of Environment & Ecology, Harbin Institute of Technology (HSCJ201701).

References

  1. Ahmad A, Lau K, Bakar MA (2005) Impact of different spacer filament geometries on concentration polarization control in narrow membrane channel. J Membr Sci 262:138–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoustin E, Schäfer AI, Fane AG, Waite TD (2001) Ultrafiltration of natural organic matter. Sep Purif Technol 22-23:63–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5866(00)00143-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellona C, Drewes JE, Xu P, Amy G (2004) Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment—a literature review. Water Res 38:2795–2809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Childress AE, Elimelech M (2000) Relating nanofiltration membrane performance to membrane charge (electrokinetic) characteristics. Environ Sci Technol 34:3710–3716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Comerton AM, Andrews RC, Bagley DM (2009) The influence of natural organic matter and cations on the rejection of endocrine disrupting and pharmaceutically active compounds by nanofiltration. Water Res 43:613–622.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Contreras AE, Kim A, Li Q (2009) Combined fouling of nanofiltration membranes: mechanisms and effect of organic matter. J Membr Sci 327:87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.11.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornelissen ER, Verdouw J, Gijsbertsen-Abrahamse AJ, Hofman JA (2005) A nanofiltration retention model for trace contaminants in drinking water sources. Desalination 178:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa AR, de Pinho MN, Elimelech M (2006) Mechanisms of colloidal natural organic matter fouling in ultrafiltration. J Membr Sci 281:716–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drewes JE, Reinhard M, Fox P (2003) Comparing microfiltration-reverse osmosis and soil-aquifer treatment for indirect potable reuse of water. Water Res 37:3612–3621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hajibabania S, Verliefde A, McDonald JA, Khan SJ, Le-Clech P (2011) Fate of trace organic compounds during treatment by nanofiltration. J Membr Sci 373:130–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.02.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoek EM, Elimelech M (2003) Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: a new fouling mechanism for salt-rejecting membranes. Environ Sci Technol 37:5581–5588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiso Y, Sugiura Y, Kitao T, Nishimura K (2001) Effects of hydrophobicity and molecular size on rejection of aromatic pesticides with nanofiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 192:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD, Barber LB, Buxton HT (2002) Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999–2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Technol 36:1202–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee S, Cho J, Elimelech M (2004) Influence of colloidal fouling and feed water recovery on salt rejection of RO and NF membranes. Desalination 160:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee S, Ang WS, Elimelech M (2006) Fouling of reverse osmosis membranes by hydrophilic organic matter: implications for water reuse. Desalination 187:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li Q, Elimelech M (2004) Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes: measurements and mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 38:4683–4693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahlangu TO, Hoek E, Mamba BB, Verliefde A (2014) Influence of organic, colloidal and combined fouling on NF rejection of NaCl and carbamazepine: role of solute–foulant–membrane interactions and cake-enhanced concentration polarisation. J Membr Sci 471:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahlangu TO et al (2016) Role of permeate flux and specific membrane-foulant-solute affinity interactions in transport of trace organic solutes through fouled nanofiltration (NF) membranes. J Membr Sci 518:203–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2006) Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis. J Membr Sci 284:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miyabe K, Isogai R (2011) Estimation of molecular diffusivity in liquid phase systems by the Wilke–Chang equation. J Chromatogr A 1218:6639–6645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mo Y, Xiao K, Shen Y, Huang X (2011) A new perspective on the effect of complexation between calcium and alginate on fouling during nanofiltration. Sep Purif Technol 82:121–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2011.08.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mohammad AW, Teow YH, Ang WL, Chung YT, Oatley-Radcliffe DL, Hilal N (2015) Nanofiltration membranes review: recent advances and future prospects. Desalination 356:226–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ng HY, Elimelech M (2004) Influence of colloidal fouling on rejection of trace organic contaminants by reverse osmosis. J Membr Sci 244:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nghiem LD, Hawkes S (2007) Effects of membrane fouling on the nanofiltration of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs): mechanisms and role of membrane pore size. Sep Purif Technol 57:176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nyström M, Pihlajamäki A, Ehsani N (1994) Characterization of ultrafiltration membranes by simultaneous streaming potential and flux measurements. J Membr Sci 87:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plakas KV, Karabelas AJ (2012) Removal of pesticides from water by NF and RO membranes—a review. Desalination 287:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter MC (1972) Concentration polarization with membrane ultrafiltration. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 11:234–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadmani AHMA, Andrews RC, Bagley DM (2014) Nanofiltration of pharmaceutically active and endocrine disrupting compounds as a function of compound interactions with DOM fractions and cations in natural water. Sep Purif Technol 122:462–471.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schäfer A, Mastrup M, Jensen RL (2002) Particle interactions and removal of trace contaminants from water and wastewatersGoogle Scholar
  30. Schäfer A, Nghiem L, Waite T (2003) Removal of the natural hormone estrone from aqueous solutions using nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. Environ Sci Technol 37:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shan J, Hu J, Ong S (2009) Adsorption of neutral organic fractions in reclaimed water on RO/NF membrane. Sep Purif Technol 67:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snyder SA, Westerhoff P, Yoon Y, Sedlak DL (2003) Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disruptors in water: implications for the water industry. Environ Eng Sci 20:449–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verliefde AR et al (2009) Influence of membrane fouling by (pretreated) surface water on rejection of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) by nanofiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 330:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vogel D, Simon A, Alturki AA, Bilitewski B, Price WE, Nghiem LD (2010) Effects of fouling and scaling on the retention of trace organic contaminants by a nanofiltration membrane: the role of cake-enhanced concentration polarisation. Sep Purif Technol 73:256–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2010.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang L-F, He D-Q, Chen W, Yu H-Q (2015a) Probing the roles of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in humic acids-induced ultrafiltration membrane fouling using an integrated approach. Water Res 81:325–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang X-M, Li B, Zhang T, Li X-Y (2015b) Performance of nanofiltration membrane in rejecting trace organic compounds: experiment and model prediction. Desalination 370:7–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.05.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xu P, Drewes JE, Kim T-U, Bellona C, Amy G (2006) Effect of membrane fouling on transport of organic contaminants in NF/RO membrane applications. J Membr Sci 279:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang L, Zhou J, She Q, Wan MP, Wang R, Chang VWC, Tang CY (2017) Role of calcium ions on the removal of haloacetic acids from swimming pool water by nanofiltration: mechanisms and implications. Water Res.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.040
  39. Yangali-Quintanilla V, Sadmani A, McConville M, Kennedy M, Amy G (2009) Rejection of pharmaceutically active compounds and endocrine disrupting compounds by clean and fouled nanofiltration membranes. Water Res 43:2349–2362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.02.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao C, Zhang J, He G, Wang T, Hou D, Luan Z (2013) Perfluorooctane sulfonate removal by nanofiltration membrane the role of calcium ions. Chem Eng J 233:224–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.08.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhao C, Tang CY, Li P, Adrian P, Hu G (2016) Perfluorooctane sulfonate removal by nanofiltration membrane—the effect and interaction of magnesium ion/humic acid. J Membr Sci 503:31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.12.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhendong Gan
    • 1
  • Xing Du
    • 2
  • Xuewu Zhu
    • 1
  • Xiaoxiang Cheng
    • 3
  • Guibai Li
    • 1
  • Heng Liang
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment (SKLUWRE)Harbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinChina
  2. 2.School of Civil and Transportation EngineeringGuangdong University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.School of Municipal and Environmental EngineeringShandong Jianzhu UniversityJinanChina

Personalised recommendations