The effect of imposed flux on biofouling in reverse osmosis: Role of concentration polarisation and biofilm enhanced osmotic pressure phenomena

This paper describes a systematic study of biofouling in reverse osmosis process using model bacteria of Pseudomonas fluorescens and employing a sodium chloride tracer response technique for fouling characterization. It was found that the growth of biofilm at constant flux following initial bacteria colonization of the membrane surface increased with imposed flux. The rationale was that biofilm growth was nutrient dependent, where the nutrient availability at the membrane wall was controlled by the magnitude of concentration polarization, which is driven by flux. The salt tracer response showed that the biofouling comprised a hydraulic resistance and induced an enhanced osmotic pressure phenomenon; known as the biofilm enhanced osmotic pressure (BEOP) effect [M. Herzberg, M. Elimelech, Biofouling of reverse osmosis membranes: role of biofilm-enhanced osmotic pressure, Journal of Membrane Science 295 (2007) 11–20], due to hindered back diffusion of solutes through the tortuous path of the heterogeneous structure of the biofilm. For the conditions studied, the contribution of BEOP to transmembrane pressure increase was greater than the hydraulic resistance.

[1]  Raphael Semiat,et al.  Characterization of membrane biofouling in nanofiltration processes of wastewater treatment , 2005 .

[2]  Marc A. Deshusses,et al.  Direct observation of biofouling in cross-flow microfiltration: mechanisms of deposition and release , 2004 .

[3]  H. Flemming,et al.  Biofouling in water systems – cases, causes and countermeasures , 2002, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[4]  L. Y. Dudley,et al.  Biofouling in membrane systems — A review☆ , 1998 .

[5]  Hilary M. Lappin-Scott,et al.  Growth and Detachment of Cell Clusters from Mature Mixed-Species Biofilms , 2001, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[6]  How Yong Ng,et al.  Influence of colloidal fouling on rejection of trace organic contaminants by reverse osmosis , 2004 .

[7]  Paul L. Bishop,et al.  Measurement of polysaccharides and proteins in biofilm extracellular polymers , 1998 .

[8]  C. J. van Oss,et al.  Acid—base interfacial interactions in aqueous media , 1993 .

[9]  Anthony G. Fane,et al.  Implications of critical flux and cake enhanced osmotic pressure (CEOP) on colloidal fouling in reverse osmosis: Experimental observations , 2008 .

[10]  L. Melo.  Biofilm physical structure, internal diffusivity and tortuosity , 2005 .

[11]  Hans-Curt Flemming,et al.  Biofouling—the Achilles heel of membrane processes☆ , 1997 .

[12]  Bernard P. Boudreau,et al.  The diffusive tortuosity of fine-grained unlithified sediments , 1996 .

[13]  B. Derjaguin,et al.  Theory of the stability of strongly charged lyophobic sols and of the adhesion of strongly charged particles in solutions of electrolytes , 1993 .

[14]  Anthony G. Fane,et al.  Enhanced concentration polarization by unstirred fouling layers in reverse osmosis: Detection by sodium chloride tracer response technique , 2007 .

[15]  L. V. Evans,et al.  Biofilms : recent advances in their study and control , 2000 .

[16]  Robert W. Field,et al.  Critical and sustainable fluxes: Theory, experiments and applications , 2006 .

[17]  D. Hempel,et al.  Modeling mass transfer and substrate utilization in the boundary layer of biofilm systems , 1998 .

[18]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Biofouling of reverse osmosis membranes: Role of biofilm-enhanced osmotic pressure , 2007 .

[19]  Sunny Wang,et al.  Direct observation of microbial adhesion to membranes. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[20]  Bart Nicolai,et al.  Predictive modelling and validation of Pseudomonas fluorescens growth at superatmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations , 2005 .

[21]  C. Mayer,et al.  Physico-chemical properties of biofilms. , 2000 .

[22]  S. A. Beg,et al.  A Review on the Mathematical Modeling of Biofilm Processes: Advances in Fundamentals of Biofilm Modeling , 1998 .

[23]  F. Smith,et al.  COLORIMETRIC METHOD FOR DETER-MINATION OF SUGAR AND RELATED SUBSTANCE , 1956 .

[24]  Haluk Beyenal,et al.  An electrochemical technique to measure local flow velocity in biofilms , 1998 .

[25]  Philip S. Stewart,et al.  Diffusion in Biofilms , 2003, Journal of bacteriology.

[26]  Hans G.L. Coster,et al.  Observation of deposition and removal behaviour of submicron bacteria on the membrane surface during crossflow microfiltration , 2003 .

[27]  A. Fane,et al.  Implications of enhancing critical flux of particulates by AC fields in RO desalination and reclamation , 2008 .

[28]  A. Fane,et al.  Fouling phenomena in a MBR: transmembrane pressure transients and the role of EPS (extracellular polymeric substances) , 2003 .

[29]  P. Bishop,et al.  Comparison of extraction methods for quantifying extracellular polymers in biofilms , 1999 .

[30]  Anthony G. Fane,et al.  Implications of critical flux and cake enhanced osmotic pressure (CEOP) on colloidal fouling in reverse osmosis: Modeling approach , 2009 .

[31]  P. Stewart,et al.  Hypothesis for the Role of Nutrient Starvation in Biofilm Detachment , 2004, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[32]  Hans-Curt Flemming,et al.  Reverse osmosis membrane biofouling , 1997 .

[33]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: a new fouling mechanism for salt-rejecting membranes. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[34]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Influence of Crossflow Membrane Filter Geometry and Shear Rate on Colloidal Fouling in Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Separations , 2002 .

[35]  Wen-Tso Liu,et al.  Biofilm formation characteristics of bacterial isolates retrieved from a reverse osmosis membrane. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[36]  R. C. Weast.  CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics , 1973 .

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