The performance of forward osmosis process in treating the surfactant wastewater: The rejection of surfactant, water flux and physical cleaning effectiveness

Abstract In this study, the rejection of surfactant (sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate, SDBS) was investigated at different feed solution (FS) chemistries (ionic strengths and SDBS concentrations, with and without the presence of organic foulants BSA and Alg-Na), temperatures and flow velocities in the forward osmosis (FO) process. SDBS rejection increased with the increase of flow velocity and the decrease of temperature and SDBS concentration; while it had no obvious change with the increasing FS ionic strength. SDBS rejection of FO membrane was high (more than 99.77%), mainly due to the size exclusion. Moreover, the water flux and effectiveness of physical cleaning were also measured. SDBS impacted water flux by two ways: one was the positive role that SDBS micelles enhanced the hydrophilia of membrane; the other one was the negative role that SDBS formed a gel cake layer and increase the resistance. The membrane fouling caused by Alg-Na increased solute rejection and water flux in the FO mode, which was beneficial to the total membrane process. Though BSA fouling increased solute rejection in the PRO mode, it declined water flux, and caused a severe pore blocking which was hard to remove just by the simple rinse.

[1]  François Zaviska,et al.  A case study of fouling development and flux reversibility of treating actual lake water by forward osmosis process , 2015 .

[2]  Peng Wang,et al.  Sustainable water recovery from oily wastewater via forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD). , 2014, Water research.

[3]  M. Rakib,et al.  Removal of fluorinated surfactants by reverse osmosis – Role of surfactants in membrane fouling , 2014 .

[4]  Ho Kyong Shon,et al.  Polyelectrolyte-promoted forward osmosis process for dye wastewater treatment – Exploring the feasibility of using polyacrylamide as draw solute , 2015 .

[5]  H. Shon,et al.  Influence of different ion types and membrane orientations on the forward osmosis performance , 2014 .

[6]  S. Sayadi,et al.  Physicochemical treatments of anionic surfactants wastewater: Effect on aerobic biodegradability. , 2009, Journal of hazardous materials.

[7]  Tzahi Y Cath,et al.  Removal of natural steroid hormones from wastewater using membrane contactor processes. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Xue Li,et al.  Emerging forward osmosis (FO) technologies and challenges ahead for clean water and clean energy applications , 2012 .

[9]  Kurunthachalam Kannan,et al.  Mass loading and fate of perfluoroalkyl surfactants in wastewater treatment plants. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  Mira Petrovic,et al.  Removal of a broad range of surfactants from municipal wastewater--comparison between membrane bioreactor and conventional activated sludge treatment. , 2007, Chemosphere.

[11]  Jincai Su,et al.  Enhanced double-skinned FO membranes with inner dense layer for wastewater treatment and macromolecule recycle using Sucrose as draw solute , 2012 .

[12]  Christopher Bellona,et al.  Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment--a literature review. , 2004, Water research.

[13]  Dan Li,et al.  Forward osmosis desalination using polymer hydrogels as a draw agent: influence of draw agent, feed solution and membrane on process performance. , 2013, Water research.

[14]  Jay R. Werber,et al.  Forward osmosis: Where are we now? , 2015 .

[15]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes during humic acid filtration , 2010 .

[16]  Tzahi Y Cath,et al.  Forward osmosis for concentration of anaerobic digester centrate. , 2007, Water research.

[17]  A. Jönsson,et al.  Influence of adsorption and concentration polarisation on membrane performance during ultrafiltration of a non-ionic surfactant , 2003 .

[18]  A. Montiel,et al.  Effects of organic and inorganic matter on pesticide rejection by nanofiltration , 2002 .

[19]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Removal of boron and arsenic by forward osmosis membrane: Influence of membrane orientation and organic fouling , 2012 .

[20]  Tai-Shung Chung,et al.  Forward osmosis processes: Yesterday, today and tomorrow , 2012 .

[21]  Frederick F. Stewart,et al.  Deriving osmotic pressures of draw solutes used in osmotically driven membrane processes , 2013 .

[22]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  Victor Yangali-Quintanilla,et al.  Rejection of micropollutants by clean and fouled forward osmosis membrane. , 2011, Water research.

[24]  P. Chiang,et al.  Identifying the rejection mechanism for nanofiltration membranes fouled by humic acid and calcium ions exemplified by acetaminophen, sulfamethoxazole, and triclosan. , 2012, Journal of hazardous materials.

[25]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Rejection of pharmaceuticals by forward osmosis membranes. , 2012, Journal of hazardous materials.

[26]  Corey J. Wilson,et al.  Effect of chemical oxidation on the sorption tendency of dissolved organic matter to a model hydrophobic surface. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[27]  Sherub Phuntsho,et al.  Influence of temperature and temperature difference in the performance of forward osmosis desalination process , 2012 .

[28]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Effects of feed and draw solution temperature and transmembrane temperature difference on the rejection of trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis , 2013 .

[29]  I. Kowalska,et al.  Separation of anionic surfactants on ultrafiltration membranes , 2004 .

[30]  J S Vrouwenvelder,et al.  Forward osmosis niches in seawater desalination and wastewater reuse. , 2014, Water research.

[31]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Impact of humic acid fouling on membrane performance and transport of pharmaceutically active compounds in forward osmosis. , 2013, Water Research.

[32]  L. Nghiem,et al.  Effects of membrane fouling on the nanofiltration of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs): Mechanisms and role of membrane pore size , 2007 .

[33]  J. Georgiadis,et al.  Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades , 2008, Nature.