To evaluate the significance of reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF) surface morphology on membrane performance, productivity experiments were conducted using flat-sheet membranes and three different nanoparticles, which included SiO 2, TiO 2 and CeO 2. In this study, the productivity rate was markedly influenced by membrane surface morphology. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) analysis of membrane surfaces revealed that the higher productivity decline rates associated with polyamide RO membranes as compared to that of a cellulose acetate NF membrane was due to the inherent ridge-and-valley morphology of the active layer. The unique polyamide active layer morphology was directly related to the surface roughness, and was found to contribute to particle accumulation in the valleys causing a higher flux decline than in smoother membranes. Extended RO productivity experiments using laboratory grade water and diluted pretreated seawater were conducted to compare the effect that different nanoparticles had on membrane active layers. Membrane flux decline was not affected by particle type when the feed water was laboratory grade water. On the other hand, membrane productivity was affected by particle type when pretreated diluted seawater served as feed water. It was found that CeO 2 addition resulted in the least observable flux decline, followed by SiO 2 and TiO 2. A productivity simulation was conducted by fitting the monitored flux data into a cake growth rate model, where the model was modified using a finite difference method to incorporate surface thickness variation into the analysis. The ratio of cake growth term ( k 1) and particle back diffusion term ( k 2) was compared in between different RO and NF membranes. Results indicated that k 2 was less significant for surfaces that exhibited a higher roughness. It was concluded that the valley areas of thin-film membrane surfaces have the ability to capture particles, limiting particle back diffusion.
References
[1]
Liikanen, R.; Yli-Kuivila, J.; Laukkanen, R. Efficiency of various chemical cleanings for nanofiltration membrane fouled by conventionally-treated surface water. J. Membr. Sci. 2002, 195, 265–276, doi:10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00569-5.
[2]
Shaalan, H.F. Development of fouling control strategies pertinent to nanofiltration membranes. Desalination 2002, 153, 125–131, doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(02)01113-X.
[3]
Kim, S.; Kwak, S.; Sohn, B.; Park, T. Design of TiO2 nanoparticle self-assembled aromatic polyamide thin-film-composite (TFC) membrane as an approach to solve biofouling problem. J. Membr. Sci. 2003, 211, 157–165, doi:10.1016/S0376-7388(02)00418-0.
[4]
Belfort, G.; Davis, R.; Zydney, A. The behavior of suspensions and macromolecular solutions in crossflow microfiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 1994, 96, 1–58, doi:10.1016/0376-7388(94)00119-7.
[5]
Boussu, K.; Brlpaire, A.; Volodin, A.; Haesendonck, C.V.; van der Meeren, P.; Vandecasteele, C.; van der Bruggen, B. Influence of membrane and colloid characteristics on fouling of nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 289, 220–230, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2006.12.001.
[6]
Norberg, D.; Hong, S.; Taylor, J.; Zhao, Y. Surface characterization and performance evaluation of commercial fouling resistant low-pressure RO membranes. Desalination 2007, 202, 45–52, doi:10.1016/j.desal.2005.12.037.
[7]
Zhu, X.; Elimelech, M. Colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis membranes: Measurements and fouling mechanism. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 3654–3662, doi:10.1021/es970400v.
[8]
Tarabara, V.; Koyuncu, I.; Wiesner, M. Effect of hydrodynamics and solution ionic strength on permeate flux in cross-flow filtration: Direct experimental observation of filter cake cross-sections. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 241, 65–78, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2004.04.030.
[9]
Zhang, M.; Song, L. Mechanisms and parameters affecting flux decline in cross-flow microfiltration and ultrafiltration of colloids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 34, 3767–3773, doi:10.1021/es990475u.
[10]
Lee, S.; Cho, J.; Elimelech, M. Combined influence of natural organic matter and colloid particles on nanofiltration membrane fouling. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 262, 27–41, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2005.03.043.
[11]
Singh, G.; Song, L. Quantifying the effect of ionic strength on colloidal fouling potential in membrane filtration. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2005, 284, 630–638, doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2004.10.030.
[12]
Lee, S.; Cho, J.; Elimelech, M. Influence of colloidal fouling and feed water recovery on salt rejection of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. Desalination 2004, 160, 1–12, doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(04)90013-6.
[13]
Vrijenhoek, E.M.; Hong, S.; Elimelech, M. Influence of membrane surface properties on initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 188, 115–128, doi:10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00376-3.
[14]
Madaeni, S.; Ghaemi, N. Characterization of self-cleaning RO membranes coated with TiO2 particles under UV irradiation. J. Membr. Sci. 2007, 303, 221–233, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2007.07.017.
[15]
Bae, T.-H.; Tak, T.-M.T. Preparation of TiO2 self-assembled polymeric nanocomposite membranes and examination of their fouling mitigation effects in a membrane bioreactor system. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 266, 1–5, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2005.08.014.
[16]
Cao, X.; Ma, J.; Shi, X.; Ren, Z. Effect of TiO2 nanoparticle size on the performance of PVDF membrane. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2006, 253, 2003–2010, doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2006.03.090.
[17]
Razmjou, A.; Mansouri, J.; Chen, V. The effects of mechanical and chemical modification of TiO2 nanoparticles on the surface chemistry, structure and fouling performance of PES ultrafiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 378, 73–84, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2010.10.019.
[18]
Crittenden, J.C.; Trussell, R.R.; Hand, D.W. Water Treatment Principles and Design; Jonh Wiley & Sons. Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
[19]
Hoek, E.M.; Elimelech, M. Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: A new fouling mechamism for salt-rejecting membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5581–5588, doi:10.1021/es0262636.
[20]
Mohammadi, T.; Kazeminoghadam, M.; Saadabadi, M. Modeling of membrane fouling and flux decline in reverse osmosis during separation of oil in water emulasions. Desalination 2003, 157, 369–375, doi:10.1016/S0011-9164(03)00419-3.
[21]
Lim, A.; Bai, R. Membrane fouling and cleaning in microfiltration of activated sludge wastewater. J. Membr. Sci. 2003, 216, 279–290, doi:10.1016/S0376-7388(03)00083-8.
[22]
Bolton, G.; LaCasse, D.; Kuriyel, R. Combined models of membranes fouling: Development and application to microfiltration and ultrafiltration of biological fluids. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 277, 75–84, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2004.12.053.
[23]
Sioutopoulos, S.G.; Yiantsios, D.G.; Karabelas, A.J. Relation between fouling characteristics of RO and UF membranes in experiments with colloidal organic and inorganic species. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 350, 62–82, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2009.12.012.
[24]
Elimelech, M.; Zhu, X.; Childress, A.E.; Hong, S. Role of membrane surface morphology in colloidal fouling of cellulose acetate and composite aromatic polyamide reverse osmosis membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1997, 127, 101–109, doi:10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00351-1.
[25]
Wiesner, M.; Veerapaneni, S.; Brejchova, D. Improvements in Membrane Microfiltration Using Coagulation Pretreatment. In Chemical Water and Wastewater Treatment; Hahn, H., Klute, R., Eds.; Springer Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1992.
[26]
Fang, Y.; Duranceau, S.J. Comparison of Non-Homogeneous and Homogeneous Mass Transfer in Reverse Osmosis Membrane Processes. Desalin. Water Treat. 2013. in press.
[27]
Bouchard, C.R.; Carreau, P.J.; Matsuura, T.; Sourirajan, S. Modeling of ultrafiltration: Prediction of concentration polarization effect. J. Membr. Sci. 1994, 97, 215–229, doi:10.1016/0376-7388(94)00164-T.
