Chemical cleaning of UF membranes fouled by BSA

Abstract Cleaning of MF and UF membranes is currently performed by a combination of water and air in either the forward or backward direction. When the above-mentioned cleaning methods are not effective enough to restore the flux to an acceptable level, it is necessary to clean the membranes chemically. During chemical cleaning, membranes are soaked in a solution of strong acids and bases such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH), or disinfection agents such as hypochlorous acid (HOCl). As a result of the effective chemical cleaning, the initial flux is restored and the membrane deemed as amenable for further operation. The shadow side of the process is an alteration of the membrane surface, which under some forced cleaning conditions results in formation of holes in the membrane skin layer. Since such a chemical cleaning shortens membrane lifetime, the next logical step is to evaluate to what extent chemical cleaning alters the membrane's surface. The parameters under investigation included various cleaning agents and their concentration, time of clean-in-place treatment and frequency of cleanings. As was found during the current study, higher dosages of cleaning agents result in complete restoration of the initial flux at the first step, but lead to more severe fouling, thus requiring faster clean-in-place operations in the long term. Another finding of the current research was that the character of the bonding between the foulant and membrane surface changes between suspended and adsorbed stages. Albeit the electrostatic character of BSA-PES surface interactions, the flux was not restored with the application of NaOH at virtually any concentration.

[1]  A. Shono,et al.  FT-IR analysis of BSA fouled on ultrafiltration and microfiltration membranes , 2001 .

[2]  J. Mallevialle,et al.  Effects of Humic Substances on Membrane Processes , 1988 .

[3]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Chemical and physical aspects of natural organic matter (NOM) fouling of nanofiltration membranes , 1997 .

[4]  Johannes Lyklema,et al.  Fundamentals of Interface and Colloid Science , 1991 .

[5]  S. S. Davis,et al.  An introduction to tissue-biomaterial interactions , 2002 .

[6]  G Amy,et al.  Cleaning strategies for flux recovery of an ultrafiltration membrane fouled by natural organic matter. , 2001, Water research.

[7]  J. Laîné,et al.  Control fouling and cleaning procedures of UF membranes by a streaming potential method , 1998 .

[8]  R. Parsons Fundamentals of interface and colloid science, volume II. Solid-liquid interfaces , 1997 .

[9]  A. Zydney,et al.  Effects of intermolecular thiol–disulfide interchange reactions on bsa fouling during microfiltration , 1994, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[10]  Keith Scott,et al.  Handbook of Industrial Membranes , 1995 .

[11]  Akihiko Tanioka,et al.  Interaction of proteins with weak amphoteric charged membrane surfaces: effect of pH. , 2003, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[12]  S. Belfer Surface characterization by FTIR-ATR spectroscopy of polyethersulfone membranes-unmodified, modified and protein fouled , 2000 .

[13]  Riina Liikanen,et al.  Efficiency of various chemical cleanings for nanofiltration membrane fouled by conventionally-treated surface water , 2002 .

[14]  M. Nyström,et al.  Cleaning results characterized by flux, streaming potential and FTIR measurements , 1998 .