Bench‐scale evaluation of critical flux and TMP in low‐pressure membrane filtration

The biggest operational obstacle to the application of low-pressure membrane filtration is fouling, i.e., the reduction of flux or the increase in transmembrane pressure (TMP) during operation because of the accumulation of materials within the membrane pores or on the surface of the membrane. Fouling increases rapidly once a critical permeate flux has been exceeded. However, no standard protocols exist for measuring critical flux or TMP as a function of coagulation or changing water quality. Such a protocol, which could provide information analogous to that provided by jar testing in conventional water treatment, is necessary. This article describes bench-scale techniques that can be used to measure critical flux and determine the effects of changing water quality on membrane performance. The bench-scale test is also used to demonstrate the effectiveness of coagulation on the performance of low-pressure membrane systems. The concept of critical flux describes the maximum permeate flux that can be applied without rapid fouling of the membrane. Critical flux has been described in a theoretical fashion, but the testing procedure proposed in this article relies on an operational definition of critical flux: the highest flux for which there was only a small linear increase in TMP with time of filtration. In the experiments presented in this article, fluxes greater than the critical flux resulted in exponentially increasing TMP with filtered volume and were labeled super-critical. The measured value for critical flux decreased with increasing time of filtration (for each step in the critical flux test). An empirical equation was developed to allow prediction of critical flux for longer filtration times. The authors propose that similar bench-scale critical flux measurements should be used by utilities and consultants to assist in the design of low-pressure membrane systems, to modify operation during periods of changing water quality, and to determine the effects of coagulation or other treatments on performance of low-pressure membrane systems. The authors also propose that water utilities and consultants consider adopting bench-scale testing procedures for low-pressure filters, and it is recommended that results are evaluated using plots of average TMP versus flux, with different time steps and with extrapolation of results to longer time steps. This would provide a relatively conservative estimate of critical flux.-KD.

[1]  Maria D. Kennedy,et al.  Applications of the MFI-UF to measure and predict particulate fouling in RO systems , 2003 .

[2]  M. Clark,et al.  Adsorption of aquatic humic substances on hydrophobic ultrafiltration membranes , 1994 .

[3]  Anthony G. Fane,et al.  Fouling transients in nominally sub-critical flux operation of a membrane bioreactor , 2002 .

[4]  K. Choi,et al.  In-line coagulation with low-pressure membrane filtration. , 2004, Water research.

[5]  A. Grasmick,et al.  Membrane fouling during constant flux filtration in membrane bioreactors , 2002 .

[6]  R. Field,et al.  Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling , 1995 .

[7]  A. Zydney,et al.  HUMIC ACID FOULING DURING MICROFILTRATION , 1999 .

[8]  Y. Choi Critical flux,resistance, and removal of contaminants in ultrafiltration (UF) of natural organic materials , 2003 .

[9]  A. Grasmick,et al.  Ultrafiltration enhanced by coagulation in an immersed membrane system , 2002 .

[11]  R. Wakeman,et al.  Stability of latex crossflow filtration: cake properties and critical conditions of deposition , 2002 .

[12]  Mark R. Wiesner,et al.  Coagulation pretreatment for ultrafiltration of a surface water , 1990 .

[13]  Chi-Wang Li,et al.  Monitoring the properties of natural organic matter through UV spectroscopy: A consistent theory , 1997 .

[14]  Hongyu Li,et al.  An assessment of depolarisation models of crossflow microfiltration by direct observation through the membrane , 2000 .

[15]  T. Champlin Using circulation tests to model natural organic matter adsorption and particle deposition by spiral-wound nanofiltration membrane elements , 2000 .

[16]  Lianfa Song,et al.  A new model for the calculation of the limiting flux in ultrafiltration , 1998 .

[17]  Shoji Kimura,et al.  Effects of size and compressibility of suspended particles and surface pore size of membrane on flux in crossflow filtration , 1993 .

[18]  Pierre Aimar,et al.  On an experimental method to measure critical flux in ultrafiltration , 2002 .

[19]  J. Howell,et al.  Critical flux in ultrafiltration of myoglobin and baker’s yeast , 2002 .

[20]  Mark R. Wiesner,et al.  Fouling in tangential-flow ultrafiltration : the effect of colloid size and coagulation pretreatment , 1990 .

[21]  P. Aimar,et al.  Influence of surface interaction on transfer during colloid ultrafiltration , 1996 .

[22]  Mika Mänttäri,et al.  Critical flux in NF of high molar mass polysaccharides and effluents from the paper industry , 2000 .

[23]  J. Mallevialle,et al.  Coagulation-floculation à l'aide de sels d'aluminium: Influence sur la filtration par des membranes microporeuses , 1992 .

[24]  Anthony G. Fane,et al.  Experimental determination of critical flux in cross-flow microfiltration , 2000 .

[25]  Pierre Aimar,et al.  Coagulation of colloids retained by porous wall , 1996 .

[26]  A. Fane,et al.  Particle deposition during membrane filtration of colloids: transition between concentration polarization and cake formation , 1997 .

[27]  Jaeweon Cho,et al.  Membrane filtration of natural organic matter: comparison of flux decline, NOM rejection, and foulants during filtration with three UF membranes , 2000 .

[28]  Robert W. Field,et al.  Critical flux measurement for model colloids , 1999 .

[29]  Vicki Chen,et al.  Ultrafiltration of protein mixtures: measurement of apparent critical flux, rejection performance, and identification of protein deposition , 2002 .

[30]  Lianfa Song,et al.  Mechanisms and Parameters Affecting Flux Decline in Cross-Flow Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration of Colloids , 2000 .

[31]  Vicki Chen,et al.  Performance of partially permeable microfiltration membranes under low fouling conditions , 1998 .

[32]  M. Jaffrin,et al.  Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux : application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater treatment , 1999 .

[33]  A. D. Marshall,et al.  Performance of crossflow microfiltration during constant transmembrane pressure and constant flux operations , 2002 .

[34]  Gun Trägårdh,et al.  The influence of the membrane zeta potential on the critical flux for crossflow microfiltration of particle suspensions , 1999 .

[35]  Klaus Kaiser,et al.  Estimation of the hydrophobic fraction of dissolved organic matter in water samples using UV photometry. , 2002, Water research.

[36]  J. Howell,et al.  Sub-critical flux operation of microfiltration , 1995 .

[37]  Lianfa Song Flux decline in crossflow microfiltration and ultrafiltration: mechanisms and modeling of membrane fouling , 1998 .