Effects of mass retention of dissolved organic matter and membrane pore size on membrane fouling and flux decline
Ultrafiltration (UF) fouling has been attributed to concentration polarization, gel layer formation as well as outer and inner membrane pore clogging. It is believed that mass of humic materials either retained on membrane surface or associated with membrane inner pore surface is the primary cause f...
Saved in:
Published in: | Water research (Oxford) Vol. 43; no. 2; pp. 389 - 394 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Kidlington
Elsevier Ltd
01-02-2009
Elsevier |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Ultrafiltration (UF) fouling has been attributed to concentration polarization, gel layer formation as well as outer and inner membrane pore clogging. It is believed that mass of humic materials either retained on membrane surface or associated with membrane inner pore surface is the primary cause for permeate flux decline and filtration resistance build-up in water supply industries. While biofilm/biofouling and inorganic matter could also be contributing factors for permeability decline in wastewater treatment practices. The present study relates UF fouling to mass of dissolved organic matter (DOM) retained on membrane and quantifies the effect of retained DOM mass on filtration flux decline. The results demonstrate that larger pore membranes exhibit significant flux decline in comparison with the smaller ones. During a 24-h period, dissolved organic carbon mass retained in 10
kDa membranes was about 1.0
g
m
−2 and that in 100
kDa membranes was more than 3 times higher (3.6
g
m
−2). The accumulation of retained DOM mass significantly affects permeate flux. It is highly likely that some DOMs bind or aggregate together to form surface gel layer in the smaller 10
kDa UF system; those DOMs largely present in inner pore and serving as pore blockage on a loose membrane (100
kDa) are responsible for severe flux decline. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.10.042 ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 |
ISSN: | 0043-1354 1879-2448 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.watres.2008.10.042 |