Advertisement

Combined Macromolecular Adsorption and Coagulation for Improvement of Membrane Separation in Water Treatment

  • Mohammed Al-Abri
  • Chedly Tizaoui
  • Nidal Hilal
Chapter

Abstract

Fouling is the biggest obstacle facing the operation of RO desalination plants. Seawater contains many foulants that foul RO membranes, such as suspended particles, natural organic matter (NOM), microorganisms, and heavy metals. Different processes such as coagulation, flocculation, acid treatment, pH adjustment, addition of anti-scalant, and media filtration have been used as conventional pretreatment. Nowadays, membrane systems are utilized for pretreatment because of their feasibility, process reliability, plant availability, modularity, relative insensitivity in case of raw water, and lower operating costs.

Natural organic matter and heavy metals are present in all water sources. They are of particular concern in desalination due to their toxicity and due to their effects on RO membrane fouling. Natural organic matter is a complex mixture of compounds formed from the breakdown of plant and animal material in the environment. Natural organic matter contains humic substances (HS) among other constituents. Heavy metals usually exist as free ions, but they also have a tendency of binding with HS. Consequently, heavy metals retention by ultrafiltration (UF) membranes is possible even though heavy metals have molecular sizes lower than the pore sizes of the membranes because of HS-metal complex formation.

In this study, P005F UF membrane retention of humic substances, Cu and Zn, and its fouling is investigated with and without the aid of poly diallydimethylammonium chloride (PDADMAC) and copolymer of dimethyl aminoethyl acrylate (CoAA) polyelectrolyte coagulants. The conditions studied are salinity level, humic substances (HS) concentration, heavy metals concentration, and polyelectrolyte’s type and concentration.

Keywords

Humic Substance Heavy Metal Concentration Reverse Osmosis Natural Organic Matter Membrane Fouling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Nomenclature

Cp

Permeate concentration (mg/l)

Cb

Bulk concentration (mg/l)

Cw

Wall concentration (mg/l)

Rm

Hydraulic membrane resistance (m−1)

ΔP

Trans-membrane pressure (bar)

J0

Pure water flux (L/m2.s1)

Jv

Permeate flux (L/m2.s)

Ji

Pure water flux after 30 min backwash (L/m2.s)

k

Mass transfer coefficient (L/m2.s)

dh

Hydraulic diameter of the filtration channel (m)

D

Bulk diffusivity of solute (m2/s)

Rg

Gel layer resistance (m−1)

Cg

Gel concentration (mg/l)

Rc

Concentration polarization resistance (m−1)

Ra

Adsorption resistance (m−1)

Ra1

Weak adsorption resistance (m−1)

Ra2

Strong adsorption resistance (m−1)

η

Dynamic viscosity (kg/m/s) or (Pa.s)

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Middle East Desalination Research Center (MEDRC) for funding this work (project number 03-AS-02).

References

  1. 1.
    Ebensperger U, Isley P (2005) Review of the current state of desalination. Water Policy Working Paper, 2005–008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borsani R, Rebagliati S (2005) Fundamentals and costing of MSF desalination plants and comparison with other technologies. Des J 182:29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.03.007 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Semiat R (2000) Desalination: present and future. IWRA 25:54–65Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nicolaisen B (2003) Developments in membrane technology for water treatment. Des J 153:355–360. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02)01127-X Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghabayen S, McKee M, Kemblowski M (2004) Characterization of uncertainties in the operation and economics of the proposed seawater desalination plant in the Gaza Strip. Des J 161:191–201. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(04), 90054-9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sikora J, Hansson C, Ericsson B (1989) Pretreatment and desalination of mine drainage water in a pilot plant. Des J 75:363–373. doi: 10.1016/0011-9164(89), 85022-2Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Redondo J (2001) Brackish-, sea- and wastewater desalination. Des J 138:29–40. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(01), 00241-7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schaefer A, Schwicker U, Fischer M, Fane A, Waite T (2000) Microfiltration of colloids and natural organic matter. J Membr Sci 171:151–172. doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(99), 00286-0Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilkinson K, Negre J, Buffle J (1997) Coagulation of colloidal material in surface water: the role of natural organic matter. J Contaminant Hydrol 26:229–243. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7722(96)00071-X Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa A, De Pinho M (2002) The role of membrane morphology on ultrafiltration for natural organic matter removal. Des J 145:299–304. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(02), 00426-5Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu W, Chellam S, Clifford D (2004) Indirect evidence for deposit rearrangement during dead-end microfiltration of iron coagulated suspensions. J Membr Sci 239:243–254. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2004.03.039 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hong S, Elimelech M (1997) Chemical and physical aspects of natural organic matter (NOM) fouling of nanofiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 132:159–181. doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(97), 00060-4Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raspor B (1989) Adsorption of humic substances from seawater at differently charged surfaces. Sci Total Environ 81–82:319–328. doi: 10.1016/0048-9697(89), 90139-3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aiken G, McKnight D, Wershaw R, MacCarthy E (1985) Humic substances in soil, sediment, and water. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruohomaki K, Vaisanen P, Metsamuuronen S, Kulovaara M, Nystrom M (1998) Characterization and removal of humic substances in ultra- and nanofiltration. Des J 118:273–283. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(98), 00147-7Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Paolis F, Kukkonen J (1997) Binding of organic pollutants to humic and fulvic acids: influence of pH and the structure of humic material. Chemosphere J 34:1693–1704. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(97)00026-X Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amy G, Collins M, Kuo C, King P (1987) Comparing gel permeation chromatography and ultrafiltration for the molecular weight characterization of aquatic organic matter. AWWA 79:43–49Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rao L, Choppin G (1995) Thermodynamic study of the complexation of neptunium(V) with humic acids. Radiochim Acta 69:87–95Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aiken G, Malcolm R (1987) Molecular weights of aquatic fulvic acids by vapor pressure osmometry. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 51:2177–2184Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beckett R, Zhang J, Giddings J (1987) Determination of molecular weight distributions of fulvic and humic acids, using flow field-flow fractionation. Environ Sci Technol 21:289–295Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reid P, Wilkinson A, Tipping E, Jones M (1990) Determination of molecular weights of humic substances by analytical (UV scanning) ultracentrifugation. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 54:131–138Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pokrovsky O, Schott J (2002) Iron colloids/organic matter associated transport of major and trace elements in small boreal rivers and their estuaries (NW Russia). Chem Geol 190:141–179Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Munksgaard N, Parry D (2001) Trace metals, arsenic and lead isotopes in dissolved and particulate phases of North Australian coastal and estuarine seawater. Mar Chem 75:165–184Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gavriil A, Angelidis M (2005) Metal and organic carbon distribution in water column of a shallow enclosed Bay at the Aegean Sea Archipelago: Kalloni Bay, Island of Lesvos, Greece. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 64:200–210Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yates D, Joyce K, Heaney P (1998) Complexation of copper with polymeric silica in aqueous solution. Appl Geochem 13:235–241Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goosen M, Sablani S, Al-Hinai H, Al-Obeidani S, Al-Belushi R, Jackson D (2005) Fouling of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration membranes: a critical review. Sep Sci Tech 39:2261–2297Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abu Qdais H, Moussa H (2004) Removal of heavy metals from wastewater by membrane processes: a comparative study. Des J 164:105–110Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alpatova A, Verbych S, Bryk M, Nigmatullin R, Hilal N (2004) Ultrafiltration of water containing natural organic matter: heavy metal removing in the hybrid complexation–ultrafiltration process. Sep Pur Tech 40:155–162Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harmant P, Aimar P (1998) Coagulation of colloids in a boundary layer during cross-flow filtration. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 138:217–230Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kretzschmar R, Sticher H (1998) Colloid transport in natural porous media: Influence of surface chemistry and flow velocity. Phys Chem Earth 23:133–139Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eyrolle F, Benaim J (1999) Metal available sites on colloidal organic compounds in surface waters (Brazil). Water Res 33:995–1004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tipping E, Lofts S, Lawlor A (1998) Modelling the chemical speciation of trace metals in the surface waters of the Humber system. Sci Total Environ 210–211:63–77Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martell A (1957) The chemistry of metal chelates in plant nutrition. Soil Sci 84:13–26Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pervov A, Andrianov A, Efremov R, Desyatov A, Baranov A (2003) A new solution for the Caspian Sea desalination: low-pressure membranes. Des J 157:377–384Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Teuler A, Glucina K, Laine J (1999) Assessment of UF pretreatment prior RO membranes for seawater desalination. Des J 125:89–96Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schafer A, Fane A, Waite T (1998) Nanofiltration of natural organic matter: removal, fouling and the influence of multivalent ions. Des J 118:109–122Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schaefer A, Fane A, Waite T (2000) Fouling effects on rejection in the membrane filtration of natural waters. Des J 131:215–224Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Agashichev S (2006) Enhancement of concentration polarization due to gel accumulated at membrane surface. J Membr Sci 285:96–101Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vrouwenvelder H, Van Paassen J, Folmer H, Hofman A, Nederlof M, Kooij D (1998) Biofouling of membranes for drinking water production. Des J 118:157–166Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vrouwenvelder J, Kappelhof J, Heijman S, Schippers J, Kooij D (2003) Tools for fouling diagnosis of NF and RO membranes and assessment of the fouling potential of feed water. Des J 157:361–365Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Der Bruggen B, Braeken L, Vandecasteele C (2002) Evaluation of parameters describing flux decline in nanofiltration of aqueous solutions containing organic compounds. Des J 147:281–288Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Isaias N (2001) Experience in reverse osmosis pretreatment. Des J 139:57–64Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Luo M, Wang Z (2001) Complex fouling and cleaning in-place of a reverse osmosis desalination system. Des J 141:15–22Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chua K, Hawlader M, Malek A (2003) Pretreatment of seawater: results of pilot trials in Singapore. Des J 159:225–243Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kaiya Y, Itoh Y, Fujita K, Takizawa S (1996) Study on fouling materials in the membrane treatment process for potable water. Des J 106:71–77Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Clark M, Lucas P (1998) Diffusion and partitioning of humic acid in a porous ultrafiltration membrane. J Membr Sci 143:13–25Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jones K, O’Melia C (2000) Protein and humic acid adsorption onto hydrophilic membrane surfaces: effects of pH and ionic strength. J Membr Sci 165:31–46Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chang Y, Benjamin M (2003) Formation of natural organic matter fouling layer on ultrafiltration membranes. Envir Eng J 129:25–32Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee S, Lee C (2006) Microfiltration and ultrafiltration as a pretreatment for nanofiltration of surface water. J Sep Sci Tech 41:1–23Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Choksuchart P, Heran M, Grasmick A (2002) Ultrafiltration enhanced by coagulation in an immersed membrane system. Des J 145:265–272Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brehant A, Bonnelye V, Perez M (2002) Comparison of MF/UF pretreatment with conventional filtration prior to RO membranes for surface seawater desalination. Des J 144:353–360Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Derradji A, Taha S, Dorange G (2005) Application of the resistances in series model in ultrafiltration. Des J 184:1357–1364Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Clever M, Jordt F, Knauf R, Rabiger N, Rudebusch M, Hilker-Scheibel R (2000) Process water production from river water by ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. Des J 131:325–336Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bottino A, Capannelli C, Del Borghi A, Colombino M, Conio O (2001) Water treatment for drinking purpose: ceramic microfiltration application. Des J 141:75–79Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stover R, Ameglio A, Khan P (2005) The ghalilah SWRO plant an overview of the solutions adopted to minimize energy consumption. Des J 184:1197–1201Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gille D, Czolkoss W (2005) Ultrafiltration with multi bore membranes as seawater pre-treatment. Des J 182:295–301Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Halpern D, McArdle J, Antrim B (2005) UF pretreatment for SWRO: pilot studies. Des J 182:317–326Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kothari N, Taylor J (1998) Pilot scale microfiltration at Manitowoc. Des J 119:93–102Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang K, Matsuura T, Chung T, Guo W (2004) The effects of flow angle and shear rate within the spinneret on the separation performance of poly(ethersulfone) (PES) ultrafiltration hollow fiber membranes. J Membr Sci 240:67–79Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cote P, Siverns S, Monti S (2005) Comparison of membrane-based solutions for water reclamation and desalination. Des J 182:251–257Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wolf P, Siverns S, Monti S (2005) UF membranes for RO desalination pretreatment. Des J 182:289–296Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kruithof J, Schippers J, Kamp P, Folmer H, Hofman J (1998) Integrated multi-objective membrane systems for surface water treatment: pretreatment of reverse osmosis by conventional treatment and ultrafiltration. Des J 117:37–48Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Teng C, Hawlader M, Malek A (2003) An experiment with different pretreatment methods. Des J 156:51–58Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Van Hoof S, Hashim A, Kordes A (1999) The effect of ultrafiltration as pretreatment to reverse osmosis in wastewater reuse and seawater desalination applications. Des J 124:231–242Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schafer A, Richards B (2005) Field testing of a hybrid membrane system for groundwater desalination. Des J 183:55–62Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Glueckstern P, Priel M, Wilf M (2002) Field evaluation of capillary UF technology as a pretreatment for large seawater RO systems. Des J 147:55–62Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hofman J, Beumer M, Baars E, Van Der Hoek J, Koppers H (1998) Enhanced surface water treatment by ultrafiltration. Des J 119:113–125Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Murrer J, Rosberg R (1998) Desalting of seawater using UF and RO – results of a pilot study. Des J 118:1–4Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Speth T, Gusses A, Summers R (2000) Evaluation of nanofiltration pretreatments for flux loss control. Des J 130:31–44Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Assemi S, Newcombe G, Hepplewhite C, Beckett R (2004) Characterization of natural organic matter fractions separated by ultrafiltration using flow field-flow fractionation. Water Res 38:1467–1476Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hassan A, Farooque A, Jamaluddin A, Al-Amoudi A, Al-Sofi M, Al-Rubaian A, Kither N, Al-Tisan I, Rowaili A (2000) A demonstration plant based on the new NF-SWRO process. Des J 131:157–171Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lee H, Amy G, Cho J, Yoon Y, Moon S, Kim I (2001) Cleaning strategies for flux recovery of an ultrafiltration membrane fouled by natural organic matter. Water Res 35:3301–3308Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Carroll T, King S, Gary S, Bolto B, Booker N (2000) The fouling of microfiltration membranes by NOM after coagulation treatment. Water Res 34:2861–2868Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yiantsios S, Karabelas A (1998) The effect of colloid stability on membrane fouling. Des J 118:143–152Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jarusutthirak C, Amy G, Croue P (2002) Fouling characteristics of wastewater effluent organic matter (EfOM) isolates on NF and UF membranes. Des J 145:247–255Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kuo C, Amy G (1988) Factors affecting coagulation with aluminium sulphate-II: dissolved organic matter removal. Water Res 22:863–872Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Al-Mutairi N, Hamoda M, Al-Ghusain I (2004) Coagulant selection and sludge conditioning in a slaughterhouse wastewater treatment plant. Bioresource Tech 95:115–119Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kam S, Gregory J (2001) The interaction of humic substances with cationic polyelectrolytes. Water Res 35:3557–3566Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Vickers J, Thompson M, Kelkar U (1995) The use of membrane filtration in conjunction with coagulation processes for improved NOM removal. Des J 102:57–61Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ma J, Liu W (2002) Effectiveness of ferrate (VI) preoxidation in enhancing the coagulation of surface waters. Water Res 36:4959–4962Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Judd S, Hillis P (2001) Optimisation of combined coagulation and microfiltration for water treatment. Water Res 35:2895–2904Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Maartens A, Swart A, Jacobs E (1999) Feed-water pretreatment: methods to reduce membrane fouling by natural organic matter. J Membr Sc 163:51–62Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Huang C, Shiu H (1996) Interactions between alum and organics in coagulation. Colloids Surf A: Physiochem Eng Aspects 113:155–163Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bolto B, Abbt-Braun G, Dixon D, Eldridge R, Frimmel F, Hesse S, King S, Toifl M (1999) Experimental evaluation of cationic polyelectrolytes for removing natural organic matter from water. Water Sci Technol 40:71–79Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gabelich C, Yun T, Coffey B, Mel Suffet I (2002) Effects of aluminum sulfate and ferric chloride coagulant residuals on polyamide membrane performance. Des J 150:15–30Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zidouri H (2000) Desalination in Morocco and presentation of design and operation of the Laayoune seawater reverse osmosis plant. Des J 131:137–145Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kampa P, Kruithof J, Folmer H (2000) UF/RO treatment plant Heemskerk: from challenge to full scale application. Des J 131:27–35Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Abdessemed D, Nezzal G (2002) Treatment of primary effluent by coagulation-adsorption-ultrafiltration for reuse. Des J 152:367–373Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Low S, Han H, Jin W (2004) Characteristics of a vibration membrane in water recovery from fine carbon-loaded wastewater. Des J 160:83–90Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Hilal N, Al-Abri M, Al-Hinai H (2007) Characterization and retention of membranes using PEG, HS and polyelectrolytes. Des J 206:568–578. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2006.02.077 Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    O’Melia C, Becker W, Au K (1999) Removal of humic substances by coagulation. Water Sci Technol 40:47–54Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Verbych S, Bryk M, Alpatova A, Chornokur G (2005) Ground water treatment by enhanced ultrafiltration. Des J 179:237–244Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Alvarez-Puebla R, Valenzuela-Calahorro C, Garrido J (2004) Retention of Co(II), Ni(II), and Cu(II) on a purified brown humic acid. Modeling and characterization of the sorption process. Langmuir J 20:3657–3664Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hilal N, Al-Abri M, Moran A, Al-Hinai H (2008) Effects of heavy metals and polyelectrolytes in humic substance coagulation under saline conditions. Des J 220:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.024 Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hilal N, Al-Abri M, Al-Hinai H, Somerfield C (2008) Combined humic substance and heavy metals agglomeration, and membrane filtration under saline conditions. Sep Sci Tech J 43:1488–1506. doi: 10.1080/01496390801941091 Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Spark K, Wells J, Johnson B (1997) Sorption of heavy metals by mineral-humic acid substrates. Aust J Soil Res 35:113–122Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Spark K, Wells J, Johnson B (1997) The interaction of a humic acid with heavy metals. Aust J Soil Res 35:89–101Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Alvarez-Puebla R, Valenzuela-Calahorro C, Garrido J (2004) Cu(II) retention on a humic substance. J Colloid Interface Sci 270:47–55Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Zhou P, Yan H, Gu B (2005) Competitive complexation of metal ions with humic substances. Chemosphere J 58:1327–1337Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Fukushima M, Nakayasu K, Tanaka S, Nakamura H (1995) Chromium(III) binding abilities of humic acids. Anal Chim Acta 317:195–206Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Alaerts G, Van Haute A (1981) Flocculation of brackish water from a tidal river. Water Res 15:517–523Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Chang E, Chiang P, Tang W, Chao S, Hsing H (2005) Effects of polyelectrolytes on reduction of model compounds via coagulation. Chemosphere J 58:1141–1150Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Petroleum and Chemical Engineering Department, College of EngineeringSultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman
  2. 2.Centre for Water Advanced Technologies and Environmental Research (CWATER), College of EngineeringSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations