Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 490–498 | Cite as

On the fouling mechanism of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane in the treatment of coal gasification wastewater

Research Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Membrane fouling has been investigated by using a polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane with the molecular weight cutoff of 20 kDa to treat crushed coal pressurized gasification wastewater. Under the conditions of different feed pressures, the permeate flux declines and rejection coefficients of pollutants referring to three parameters (total organic carbon (TOC), chroma and turbidity) were studied. The membrane fouling mechanism was simulated with three classical membrane fouling models. The membrane image and pollutants were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and gas chromatography-mass spectrography (GC-MS). The results indicate that the permeate flux decreases with volume reduction factor before reaching a constant value. The rejection coefficients were also measured: fTOC = 70.5%, fC = 84.9% and fT = 91%. Further analysis shows that the higher the feed pressure is, the sooner the permeate flux reaches constant value and the more sharply the permeate flux declines. Constant flux indicates a nonlinear growth with feed pressure (PF): when PF equals 1.2 bar, the mark for the critical flux, slight membrane fouling occurs; when PF exceeds 1.2 bar, cake layer pollution aggravates. Also the rejection coefficients of global pollutant increases slightly with PF, suggesting the possibility of cake compression when PF exceeds 1.2 bar. Through regression analysis, the fouling of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane could be fitted very well by cake filtration model. The membrane pollutants were identified as phthalate esters and long-chain alkenes by GC-MS, and a certain amount of inorganic pollutants by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy.

Keywords

membrane fouling ultrafiltration membrane coal gasification wastewater rejection coefficient 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Li H Q, Han H J, Du M A, Wang W. Removal of phenols, thiocyanate and ammonium from coal gasification wastewater using moving bed biofilm reactor. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(7): 4667–4673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li H Q, Han H J, Du M A, Wang W. Inhibition and recovery of nitrification in treating real coal gasification wastewater with moving bed biofilm reactor. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2011, 23(4): 568–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu D M, Liu Z H L, Li Y Y. Distribution and occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from coal combustion and coking and its impact on the environment. Energy Procedia, 2011, 5(5): 734–741Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burmistrz P, Burmistrz M. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in coke plant wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 2013, 68(11): 2414–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang W, Wei C, Yan B, Feng C, Zhao G, Lin C, Yuan M, Wu C, Ren Y, Hu Y. Identification and removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in wastewater treatment processes from coke production plants. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2013, 20(9): 6418–6432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luthy R G, Stamoudis V C, Campbell J R, Harrison W. Removal of organic contaminants from coal conversion process condensates. Water Pollution Control Federation, 1983, 55(2): 196–207Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Qian Y, Wen Y, Zhang H. Efficiency of pre-treatment methods in the activated sludge removal of refractory compounds in coke-plant wastewater. Water Research, 1994, 28(3): 701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang M, Tay J H, Qian Y, Gu X S. Coke plant wastewater treatment by fixed biofilm system for COD and NH3-N removal. Water Research, 1998, 32(2): 519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu H Q, Gu G W, Song L P. The effect of fill mode on the performance of sequencing-batch reactors treating various wastewaters. Bioresource Technology, 1996, 58(1): 46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu H Q, Yang C Y, Zhang H. The study on PAC leading in UF removing NOM of water. Membrane Science and Technology, 2009, 29(6): 85–89 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee M W, Park J M. Biological nitrogen removal from coke plant wastewater with external carbon addition. Water Environment Research, 1998, 70(5): 1090–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Y M, Gua G W, Zhao J F, Yu H Q, Qiu Y L, Peng Y Z. Treatment of coke-plant wastewater by biofilm systems for removal of organic compounds and nitrogen. Chemosphere, 2003, 52(6): 997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marañón E, Vázquez I, Rodríguez J, Castrillón L, Fernández Y, López H. Treatment of coke wastewater in a sequential batch reactor (SBR) at pilot plant scale. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(10): 4192–4198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giménez J B, Robles A, Carretero L, Duran F, Ruano M V, Gatti M N, Ribes J, Ferrer J, Seco A. Experimental study of the anaerobic urban wastewater treatment in a submerged hollow-fibre membrane bioreactor at pilot scale. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(19): 8799–8806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahmad A L, Sarif M, Ismail S. Development of an integrally skinned ultrafiltration membrane for wastewater treatment: Effect of different formulations of PSf/NMP/PVP on flux and rejection. Desalination, 2005, 179(1-3): 257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wintgens T, Melin T, Schäfer A I, Muston M, Bixio D, Thoeye C. The role of membrane processes in municipal wastewater reclamation and reuse. Desalination, 2005, 178(1-3): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ajmani G S, Goodwin D, Marsh K, Marsh K, Fairbrother D H, Schwab K J, Jacangelo J G, Huang H O. Modification of low pressure membranes with carbon nanotube layers for fouling control. Water Research, 2012, 46(17): 5645–5654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tian J Y, Ernst M, Cui F Y, Jekel M. Correlations of relevant membrane foulants with UF membrane fouling in different waters. Water Research, 2013, 47(3): 1218–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mallevialle J, Odendaal P E, Wiesner M R. Water Treatment Membrane Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, 31–32Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bruggen B V, Lejon L, Vandecasteele C. Reuse, treatment and discharge of the concentrate pressure-driven membrane processes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2003, 37(17): 3733–3738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Magara Y, Kunikane S, Itoh M. Advanced membrane technology for application to water treatment. Water Science and Technology, 1998, 37(10): 91–99Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wen X, Zhou Z, Wei G, Zhang N. Experimental study on advanced treating process of coking wastewater by UF and RO. Technology of Water Treatment, 2010, 36(3): 93–96Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ma M, Jing D. Research on immersed UF-RO combined technological processes of recycling coal-gasification wastewater. Journal of Tianjin Institute of Urban Construction, 2009, 15(4): 280–284Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karakulski K, Morawski W A, Grzechulska J. Purification of bilge water by hybrid ultrafiltration and photocatalytic processes. Separation and Purification Technology, 1998, 14(1-3): 163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luo M, Wang Z S. Studies on the dentification and mechanism of the nanofiltration membrane fouling. Technology of Water Treatment, 1998, 24(6): 318–323 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu H Q, Yang C Y, Zhang H. The study on PAC leading in UF removing NOM of water. Membrane Science and Technology, 2009, 29(6): 85–89 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yiantsios S G, Karabelas A J. An experimental study of humid acid and powdered activated carbon deposition on UF membranes and their removal by back washing. Desalination, 2001, 140(2): 195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    MEP. Determination Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2003: 1–213 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hermia J. Constant pressure blocking filtration laws—application to power-law non-newtonian fluids. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 1982, 60: 183–187Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gonsalves V E. Recueil Des Travaux Chimiques Des Pays-Bas. Journal of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society, 1950, 69: 873Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Field R W, Wu D, Howell J A, Gupta B B. Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 1995, 100(3): 259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Defrance L, Jaffrin M Y. Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux: Application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 1999, 152(2): 203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Choo K H, Lee C H. Membrane fouling mechanisms in the membrane-coupled anaerobic bioreactor. Water Research, 1996, 30(8): 1771–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benítez F J, Acero J L, Leal A I. Treatment of wastewaters from the cork process industry by using ultrafiltration membranes. Desalination, 2008, 229(1-3): 156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pillay V L, Buckley C A. Cake formation in cross-flow microfiltration systems. Water Science and Technology, 1992, 25(10): 149–162Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Benítez F J, Acero J L, Leal A I. Application of microfiltration and ultrafiltration processes to cork processing wastewaters and assessment of the membrane fouling. Separation and Purification Technology, 2006, 50(3): 354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xu H, Chen W, Sun M. Effect of two pretreatment techniques on preventing membrane fouling. Journal of Civil. Architectural & Environmental Engineering, 2012, 34(1): 108–112 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lai P, Zhao H, Ye Z, Ni J. Assessing the effectiveness of treating coking effluents using anaerobic and aerobic biofilms. Process Biochemistry, 2008, 43(3): 229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang W, Han H J, Yuan M, Li H, Fang F, Wang K. Treatment of coal gasification of wastewater by a two continuous UASB system with step-feed for COD and phenols removal. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(9): 5454–5460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.College of Architectural EngineeringNorth China University of TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations