Chemical and physical aspects of cleaning of organic-fouled reverse osmosis membranes

The role of chemical and physical interactions in cleaning of organic-fouled reverse osmosis (RO) membranes is systematically investigated. Fouling and cleaning experiments were performed with organic foulants (alginate and natural organic matter) that simulate effluent organic matter (EfOM) and selected cleaning agents using a laboratory-scale crossflow test unit. Following accelerated organic fouling runs with divalent calcium ions, cleaning experiments were performed at various chemical and physical conditions. The results showed that a metal chelating agent (EDTA) and an anionic surfactant (SDS) were able to clean the fouled RO membrane effectively by optimizing chemical (dose and pH) and physical (time, crossflow velocity, and temperature) conditions during cleaning. The permeate flux was, however, poorly recovered when cleaning was performed with NaOH (pH 11). Interfacial force measurements (by AFM) further confirmed the cleaning results, demonstrating the influence of cleaning agents on reducing the foulant–foulant adhesion force. The results showed that the adhesion force caused by calcium-induced foulant–foulant interaction was reduced significantly with EDTA and SDS cleaning, while substantial adhesion force still remained following NaOH cleaning. It is proposed that an efficient cleaning agent and favorable cleaning conditions could be selected by considering two important mechanisms: chemical reaction between cleaning agents and foulants in the fouling layer, and mass transfer of chemical agents (from the bulk phase to the fouling layer) and foulants (from the fouling layer to the bulk phase).

[1]  Eun Namkung,et al.  A Critical Evaluation of Microbial Product Formation in Biological Processes , 1987 .

[2]  E. M. Thurman,et al.  Organic Geochemistry of Natural Waters , 1985, Developments in Biogeochemistry.

[3]  Jean-Philippe Croué,et al.  Fouling characteristics of wastewater effluent organic matter (EfOM) isolates on NF and UF membranes , 2002 .

[4]  A. Mohammad,et al.  Using atomic force microscopy towards improvement in nanofiltration membranes properties for desalination pre-treatment: A review , 2003 .

[5]  Sayed Siavash Madaeni,et al.  Chemical cleaning of reverse osmosis membranes , 2001 .

[6]  Nidal Hilal,et al.  Photochemical modification of membrane surfaces for (bio)fouling reduction: a nano-scale study using AFM , 2003 .

[7]  D. Rees.  Polysaccharide shapes and their interactions - some recent advances , 1981 .

[8]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Influence of membrane surface properties on initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes , 2001 .

[9]  A. Clark,et al.  Structural and mechanical properties of biopolymer gels , 1987 .

[10]  TalalK. Osta,et al.  Pretreatment System in Reverse Osmosis Plants , 1987 .

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

[12]  Jaeweon Cho,et al.  Membrane filtration of natural organic matter: factors and mechanisms affecting rejection and flux decline with charged ultrafiltration (UF) membrane , 2000 .

[13]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Coupling between chemical and physical interactions in natural organic matter (NOM) fouling of nanofiltration membranes: implications for fouling control , 2002 .

[14]  J. J. Sadhwani,et al.  Cleaning tests for seawater reverse osmosis membranes , 2001 .

[15]  D. Stuckey,et al.  Production of Soluble Microbial Products (SMP) in an Anaerobic Baffled Reactor: Composition, Biodegradability, and the Effect of Process Parameters , 1998 .

[16]  S. Ebrahim.  Cleaning and regeneration of membranes in desalination and wastewater applications: State-of-the-art , 1994 .

[17]  N. Hilal,et al.  Atomic force microscope study of the rejection of colloids by membrane pores , 2002 .

[18]  Bruce Durham,et al.  Wastewater reuse through dual-membrane processes: opportunities for sustainable water resources☆ , 1999 .

[19]  Peter Fox,et al.  Comparing microfiltration-reverse osmosis and soil-aquifer treatment for indirect potable reuse of water. , 2003, Water research.

[20]  M. Elimelech,et al.  Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes: measurements and mechanisms. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  Jaeweon Cho,et al.  Characterizations of NOM included in NF and UF membrane permeates , 2005 .

[22]  David C. Stuckey,et al.  Soluble Microbial Products in ABR Treating Low-Strength Wastewater , 2000 .

[23]  S. Moe,et al.  Temperature dependence of the elastic modulus of alginate gels , 1992 .

[24]  T. Mohammadi,et al.  Investigation of membrane fouling , 2003 .

[25]  John Aurie Dean,et al.  Handbook of Organic Chemistry , 1987 .

[26]  K. Furton,et al.  Determining the critical micelle concentration of aqueous surfactant solutions: Using a novel colorimetric method , 1993 .

[27]  M. Rebhun,et al.  Characterization of organics in secondary effluents , 1974 .

[28]  Jaeweon Cho,et al.  Applicability of Sherwood correlations for natural organic matter (NOM) transport in nanofiltration (NF) membranes , 2004 .

[29]  J. Drewes,et al.  Fate of natural organic matter (NOM) during groundwater recharge using reclaimed water , 1999 .

[30]  E. Morris,et al.  Biological interactions between polysaccharides and divalent cations: The egg‐box model , 1973 .

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