Osmotic pressure and substrate resistance during the concentration of manure nutrients by reverse osmosis membranes

Abstract The objective of the membrane technology presented here is the production of nitrogen concentrates from pretreated swine manure. This paper reports on the effect of osmotic pressure and substrate resistance on transmembrane flux during the concentration of prefiltered swine (PFS) manure by reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. The PFS manure at various concentration levels was filtered by four highly selective polyamide RO membranes with maximum allowable pressures ranging from 41 to 83 bar. The osmotic pressure created by the PFS manure on the RO membranes fitted a second-order equation with respect to manure conductivity or total ammonia-nitrogen (TAN), indicating that the rate of increase in osmotic pressure accelerated as manure was being concentrated. Average osmotic pressure increased by a factor of 6.8, from 5.4 to 36.6 bar, as TAN was increased 5.6 times, from 1.6 g to 9.2 g/l. Substrate-related resistance, which has been attributed to specific membrane–solute interactions even in the absence of flow, tended to increase as PFS manure concentration increased. However, reduction in transmembrane flux during manure concentration was mainly due to increase in osmotic pressure. If the objective of the technology is to concentrate manure in small volumes with high nitrogen concentrations, RO systems have to be equipped with membranes that are able to sustain high applied pressures, because the decrease in flow due to increased osmotic pressure along membrane elements will be substantial.

[1]  Munir Cheryan,et al.  Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Handbook , 1998 .

[2]  Daniel I. Massé,et al.  The use of membranes for the treatment of manure: a critical literature review , 2007 .

[3]  S. Sablani,et al.  Effect of feed temperature on permeate flux and mass transfer coefficient in spiral-wound reverse osmosis systems☆ , 2002 .

[4]  D. Massé,et al.  The effect of pH on the separation of manure nutrients with reverse osmosis membranes , 2008 .

[5]  G. Likens,et al.  Technical Report: Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Sources and Consequences , 1997 .

[6]  S. Yamada,et al.  Plasma protein osmotic pressure equations and nomogram for sheep. , 1991, Journal of applied physiology.

[7]  J. Turnbull,et al.  Treatment of swine wastewater with biological conversion, filtration, and reverse osmosis: a laboratory study , 2004 .

[8]  M. A. Islam,et al.  Contribution of adsorbed layer resistance to the flux-decline in an ultrafiltration process , 1998 .

[9]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Performance limitation of the full-scale reverse osmosis process , 2003 .

[10]  M. D. Pinho,et al.  Development of nanofiltration/steam stripping sequence for coke plant wastewater treatment☆ , 2002 .

[11]  Kenneth M Persson,et al.  Treatment of liquid effluents from dairy cattle and pigs using reverse osmosis , 1999 .

[12]  M. Cheryan,et al.  Ultrafiltration of Skimmilk in Hollow Fibers , 1986 .

[13]  E. Espedal,et al.  Membrane Separation of Raw and Anaerobically Digested Pig Manure , 1992 .

[14]  A. E. Greenberg,et al.  Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater : supplement to the sixteenth edition , 1988 .

[15]  W. Ng,et al.  Nonlinear Behavior of Permeate Flux in Full-Scale Reverse Osmosis Processes , 2005 .

[16]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. , 2006 .

[17]  K. V. D. Hoek,et al.  Nitrogen efficiency in global animal production , 1998 .