Literature study for ultra filtration

process

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction..................................................................................................... 3

2.

Membrane processes....................................................................................... 3

3.

Ultrafiltration process...................................................................................... 4

3.1.

Different membranes material available and application.............................4

3.2.

Typical UF membrane fibre/material and application...................................5

3.2.1.

Organic membranes.................................................................................. 5

Polyethersulfone................................................................................................. 5
Polyacrylonitrile.................................................................................................. 5
PVDF (Polyvinylidine Flouride)............................................................................5
Polysulfone......................................................................................................... 5
Cellulose acetate................................................................................................ 6
Polypropylene..................................................................................................... 6
Hydrophilic PVDF................................................................................................ 6
Hydrophobic membranes................................................................................... 6
3.2.2.

Inorganic membranes............................................................................... 6

Ceramic membranes.......................................................................................... 6
3.3.

Operational Mode (Cross flow and Dead end operation)..............................7

3.3.1.

Dead-end mode........................................................................................ 7

3.3.2.

Cross flow mode........................................................................................ 8

3.4.

Recovery...................................................................................................... 9

3.5.

General problems experienced with UF......................................................10

Membrane fouling................................................................................................ 10
3.6.

Parameters used for filter control...............................................................11

3.6.1.

Constant flux operation...........................................................................11

3.6.2.

Constant trans-membrane pressure operation........................................12

3.7.

Cleaning techniques used..........................................................................13

3.8.

Membrane Module configurations..............................................................14

3.8.1.

Tubular membrane.................................................................................. 14

3.8.2.

Plate and frame membranes...................................................................15

3.8.3.

Hollow Fibre membrane..........................................................................15

3.8.4.

Spiral wound membrane.........................................................................16

3.9.

Different suppliers of UF different characteristics....................................16

3.10.

Membrane Costs..................................................................................... 21

3.11.

Case studies............................................................................................ 23

3.12.

Reference................................................................................................ 26

1. Introduction
Membrane can be described as a thin layer of material that is capable of separating
materials as a function of their physical and chemical properties when a driving force is
applied across the membranes. In membrane separation processes, the feed is separated
into a stream that goes through the membrane, i.e, the permeate and a fraction of feed that
does not go through the membrane, i.e., the retentate or the concentrate.

2. Membrane processes
Membranes processes can be classified into microfiltration, ultrafiltration, ninofiltration and
reverse osmosis. The classification is based on the membrane pore size or the size of
particle that can be retained by the membrane. Generally microfiltration membranes have
pore size range of 0.1 to 3 m, ultrafiltration has a range of 0.01-0.1m, ninofiltration ranges
from 0.001-0.01m and reverse range from 0.0001 to 0.001m. Error: Reference source not
found shows the different membrane processes, pore size and impurities removed by each
process.

Figure 1: different membrane processes and impurities removed.

3. Ultrafiltration process
3.1. Different membranes material available and application
Ultrafiltration membranes can be made from organic (polymer) and inorganic materials.
Common polymeric materials used in UF include Polysulfone (PS), Polyethersulfone (PES),
Polypropylene (PP), or Polyvinylidenefluoride (PVDF) and inorganic membranes can be
ceramics, glass, or metals.

3.1.1. Organic membranes and application

Organic membranes can be hydrophilic or hydrophobic. Hydrophilic membranes absorb
water and allow it to pass through yet hydrophobic membranes rejects water molecules and
therefore need higher driving force to push water through.
Hydrophilic membranes are water loving membranes which readily adsorb water.

The

surface chemistry of these materials allow them to be wetted forming a water film on their
surface. Hydrophilic membranes require less operating pressure than hydrophobic
membranes. It has greater resistance to fouling. It is used for general filtration and
mycoplasma removal. The more hydrophilic the membrane surface is, the easier it is for
water to permeate.

Hydrophobic means water-hating and these membrane materials have little or no tendency
to adsorb water. If the membrane surface becomes more and more hydrophobic it will
essentially stop to provide permeate flux and the process will come to a standstill.

Organic membranes material

POLYETHERSULFANE MEMBRANE
Polyethersulfane membrane is highly hydrophilic. It has absolute removal of bacteria and
viruses. It is tolerant to solvents and resistant to many ethers and aromatics. These
membranes are mostly used in oil, food and permaceutical processes.

POLYACRYLONITRILE MEMBRANES
Polyacrylonitrile membranes are tolerant to many solvents and oils. They are mostly used in
oil/water separation, treatment of grey water, black water, lignin and textile waste water.
POLYVINYLIDINE FLOURIDE (PVDF)
PVDF (Polyvinylidine Flouride) membranes are highly oxidant tolerant and have moderate
pH operating range. They have moderate temperature limits and exhibit good mechanical
strength. It is a best choice for low pressure, high flux application. It has good heat stability
and is chemically resistant. It is suitable for waste water treatment, oil/water separation and
surface water treatment.

POLYSULFONE MEMBRANES
These membranes are mostly used for Post-Treatment of ultrapure water as well as
Removal of suspended solids.
CELLULOSE ACETATE
Cellulose acetate is the original membrane used for UF applications. The material has
number of limitations though with respect to pH and temperature. It is hydrophilic which
make it less fouling. This type of membrane can be eaten by microorganism. Polypropylene
membranes operate at wide pH range (2-14). It is resistant to chemicals and has Good
mechanical strength. It is however not tolerant to oxidants.

3.1.2. Inorganic membranes

Inorganic membrane materials are used for extreme conditions such as high temperature,
high or low ph. It can handle solvents and has a long life expectancy. It however has a high
capital and replacement costs. Inorganic materials include aluminium oxide (Al2O3), Zirconia
(ZrO3, Ceria (CeO2), and Stainless steel.

3.2. Operational Mode (Cross flow and Dead end operation)

The direction of feed water flow, in relation to the membrane surface, determines the mode
of filtration in a membrane system. The modes of operation can either be a cross flow or a
dead-end mode. The two modes of operation may experience differences in fouling rate, flux
and recovery, and finished water quality.

3.2.1. Dead-end mode

In a dead-end filtration system the feed water flows perpendicular to the membrane surface.
All the feed water becomes the permeate. The reject is periodically removed from the
system. In dead end operational mode, solids build up in the system, thus it is suitable for
less fouling applications. shows the flow of water in a dead end mode. The flow can be
expresses as follows:
Qfeed = Qpermeate
Where Q = Flow rate

Figure 2: Schematic Diagram Showing Dead -end mode of operation

3.2.2. Cross flow mode

In a cross flow system, the feed water flows parallel to the membrane surface. Permeate is
collected through the sidewalls of the membrane. Cross flow systems are used with high
fouling feed. Solids are continuously flushed from the system resulting in less frequent
backpulses and backwashes, and possibly longer membrane life. A cross-flow system can

also be operated on a dead end mode by simply closing the discharge valve. Figure 3 show
the cross flow mode of operation. The flow on a cross flow can be expressed as follow:
Qfeed =Qpermeate + Qconcentrate

Figure 3: Schematic diagram showing cross flow filtration mode

Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Dead-end and Cross flow operation

Dead End
Advantages
Low cost

Disadvantages
highly susceptible to

Cross Flow
Advantages
Low recovery

fouling

due

to

into

filtered

and

rate

separation

Disadvantages
Relatively
high
operating cost.

water

concentrated

water

High recovery rate

Frequent
makes

backwash Continuous
continuous

operation impossible

Simple operation

operation

Treatment

of

concentrated water is
required

Large
complicated unit

and

3.3. Recovery
Recovery is a term that is used to describe the amount of water that is treated versus the
amount of filtrate that is produced. It can be expressed as follows:
Recovery = Qfiltrate/Qfeed.
There is no mode of operation that will give 100% recorvery. Even on dead-end mode there
is water that is used during backwashes and flushes. It end up in the drain and it must be
accounted for.

3.4. General problems experienced with UF

Membrane fouling

Fouling is the most serious disadvantage of pressure-driven membrane separation

processes. Fouling can be classified into reversible and irreversible fouling depending on the
extent at which the foulants are attached to the membrane surface. Reversible fouling is
caused by gel layer that forms on the surface of a membrane. This is caused by reversible
concentration polarisation. This type of fouling can be removed by physical cleaning
methods. Irreversible fouling is when impurities gets absorbed or trapped inside the
membrane pores. It cannot be removed by physical method.

Membrane fouling results in a decrease in flux and an increase in energy consumption and
feed pressure. Fouling will occur in any UF system, regardless of the membrane polymer,
system manufacturer, and mode of operation. Fortunately, fouling can be effectively
controlled through the proper use of pre-treatment processes, chemical additions, and
proper system design and operation.

Membranes fouling typically manifests itself as a decline in permeate flux with time of
operation, and consequently, this is often accompanied by an alteration in membrane
selectivity. These changes often continue throughout the process and eventually require
extensive cleaning or replacement of the membrane. It should be noted that the effect of
membrane fouling on the flux can often be very similar to those associated with
concentration polarization. For this reason, it is first necessary to distinguish between
membrane fouling and concentration polarization, although both are not completely
independent of each other since fouling can result from polarization phenomena.

Flux decline can also be caused by changes in membrane properties as a result of physical
deterioration of the membrane and/or change in feed properties. Severe fouling may also be
caused by seasonal algae bloom in the feed water. Occasional pre-chlorination is necessary
for such cases. There are different types of fouling mechanisms. Viz: inorganic, organic,
biological/microbial and colodial/particulate fouling.

Inorganic fouling

Inorganic fouling- is caused by the accumulation of inorganic precipitates, such as metal

hydroxides. Precipitates are formed when the concentration of these chemical species
exceeds their saturation concentrations.

Particulate / Colloidal fouling

Particulate/ Colloidal fouling can be caused by impurities like algae, bacteria, and some
natural organic matter fall into the size range of particulate and colloids.

Microbial/biological fouling
Microbial/biological fouling is a result of formation of biofilms on membrane surfaces. Such
films grow and release biopolymers as a result of microbial activity. For example, once
bacteria attach to the membrane, they start to multiply and produce extracellular polymetric
substances (EPS) to form a viscous, slimy, hydrated gel.

Organic Fouling
Several studies have shown that natural organic matter (NOM) is a major culprit in UF
membrane fouling, and that different component of NOM causes different forms of fouling.

3.5. Parameters used for filter control

UF membrane filtration system control is governed by the fouling tendency of the feed. Trans
membrane Pressure (TMP) and Flux are the parameters used to control the UF systems. A
UF system can be operated at constant Trans-membrane and varying flux, or constant flux
and varying Trans-membrane pressure. It can be operated at ambient temperature, even
though at some occasions it is necessary to operate at considerable low temperature to
prevent the growth of microbiological organisms.

3.5.1. Constant flux operation

Pressure difference across the membrane is the indication of the extent of fouling. The TMP
is directly proportional to fouling. UF systems can be operated at constant flux. The fouling of
the membrane will be indicated be an increase in trans-membrane pressure. These systems
have a set high TMP limits which when reached the system requires cleaning. These
phenomena can be automated to protect the membranes from irreversible fouling.

Figure 4: Constant flux operation

3.5.2. Constant trans-membrane pressure operation

Flux is a term used to describe the filtration rate in membrane treatment. It is the rate of flow
per unit area of membrane, measured in litres per meter squared per hour (LMH). It can be
expressed as follows:

Flux=

Q
A

Where Q = volumetric flow rate across membrane

A= cross sectional area of membrane
It can also be used to indicate fouling of a membrane system. If the system is operated at
constant trans-membrane pressure, fouling of the membrane will be indicated by a decrease
in flux. At constant TMP, the system will be run with flux dropping due to fouling. At a set
minimum flux, the membranes will require cleaning to recover the initial flux. If the initial flux

is not achieved after cleaning, it will be an indication of irreversible fouling. Figure 5 show
flux vs time profile for a constant pressure operation.

Figure 5: Constant Trans-membrane pressure operation

3.6. Cleaning techniques used

The fouling on membrane surface results in reduction in flux or an increase in TransMembrane Pressure (TMP). In order to have a continuous operation, membrane cleaning is
then required. Membrane cleaning methods can broadly be classified into physical and
chemical cleaning. The choice of cleaning method depends of the type of fouling.
Physical cleaning
Physical cleaning is mostly required to remove cake layer on membrane surface. Physical
cleaning may include backwashing, back-pulsation, air scrub, low pressure-high flow rate,
mechanical scrub, hot water cleaning and circulation spray cleaning.
Chemical cleaning
Chemical cleaning is used to remove organic and inorganic impurities on the membrane
surface. Chemicals used include acids and alkaline detergents, oxidants, enzyme
detergents, disinfectants, surfactants etc. Acid detergents such as hydrochloric acid remove
inorganic impurities, whereas alkaline detergents, oxidant, such as sodium hydroxide are
used to remove organic impurities, enzyme detergents are used to remove impurities such
as proteins and surfactants are used to remove oils. Chemicals are added in three
categories, viz;a) Chemical Enhanced Backwashing (CEB) - Here the chemical is added in the
backwash stream of water to assist the backwash.
b) Chemical addition - in this technique a chemical is added on the feed to condition
it so that the fouling potential may decrease.
c) Chemical Cleaning in Place (CIP) - this step is taken when the membrane have
experienced severe fouling, it is aimed at removing all the contaminants. The
membrane process is stopped and the module is soaked in a chemical solution.

3.7. Membrane Module configurations

There are several module configurations used in membrane filtration. They include plate and
frame, tubular, hollow fibre and spiral wound. The emergence of the different configurations
has been to address the problem of membrane fouling. Plate and frame and tubular
membrane were the first commercialised membranes. These membranes were expensive
and this limited their application. The development of low cost hollow fibre and spiral wound
membranes has increase the use of membrane filtration.

3.7.1. Tubular membrane

A Tubular membrane consists of a hollow polymeric tube (10- 25 mm diameter). The feed
travels through the tube and the permeate flows to the outer surface for collection. These
membranes can be mechanically cleaned. Feeds containing large amounts of suspended
solids and fibrous material can be handled.
In order to minimise fouling, tubular membranes are operates at high velocities. This results
in high pressure drop which in turn require large pumps. This escalates capital and
operational cost. Figure 6 shows a picture of tubular membranes as well as flow regime
through the membrane.

Figure 6: Tubular Membranes

3.7.2. Plate and frame membranes

These membranes compete with tubular membranes in some applications. These

membranes are not fouling resistant as tubular membrane but they are less expensive. A
module consists of four sided frame with membrane sheets stick on either sides of the
frame. A spacer is incorporated in between the sheets to enhance flow of permeate. A set of
20 to 30 modules are stacked together into a pack. The flow through a module is from
outside in. this membrane system can be used in high pressure application, which can be an
advantage in some cases. On Figure 7 is a diagram of plate and frame membrane.

Figure 7: Plate and Frame membrane modules

3.7.3. Hollow Fibre membrane

Hollow Fibre membranes are made of 0.5 to 1.5mm diameter tubes stack together into a
membrane module. Flow through a hollow fibre membrane can be inside-out or outside-in
depending on solids content of the feed. If there are high solids, an outside-in flow is
preferred. An inside-out flow can be used if the size of the solids particles in the feed is less
than one tenth of the membrane diameter.
Hollow fibre membrane can be in cross flow or dead end mode. If the feed is highly fouling, a
dead end arrangement can be used. Extensive pre-treatment is not required in hollow fibre
membranes since it can easily be backwashed. Hollow fibre can give a high throughput due
to extensive surface area and it cost less compared to plate and frame and tubular
membranes. Figure 8 shows a schematic diagram for hollow fibre membranes.

Figure 8: Hollow Fibre membrane module

3.7.4. Spiral wound membrane

A spiral wound membrane consists of a series of membrane leafs connected to a central
tube. Each leaf consists of two membrane sheets joined together on the edges. A spacer is
incorporated in between the sheets. Water flows from outside into the inside of the sheets. It
then flows through the central tube and then collected as permeate. These membranes can
not be backwashed and therefore not suitable for highly fouling feeds. Schematic diagram
for spiral wound membrane is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Spiral Wound membrane module

3.8. Different suppliers of UF different characteristics

Membrane manufactures that have full-scale operating MF/UF membrane drinking water
installations includes but not limited to Hydranautics of Oceanside, California, Koch
industries of Wilmington, Delaware, Norit Americas Inc. of Atlanta, Ondeo-Aquasource of
Richmond, Pall Corporation of Port Washington, N.Y, USF Memcor of Sturbridge, Mass,
Zenon Environment of Oakville, Toronto, Dow Water and Process Solutions,Toray
Membranes. Due to the dynamic and complex market for MF/UF membranes and the almost
continuous development bringing new technologies and new suppliers to the drinking water
market, listed here are few membrane manufacturers that are currently supplying MF and
UF membranes.
There are other suppliers who do not manufacture MF/UF membranes, but they design and
supply MF/UF systems for drinking water applications with successful installations. These

includes F.B. Leopold Company of Zelienople, Ionics of Watertown, PCI Division of ITT
Sanitaire of Milford, Ohio, etc
HYDRANAUTICS
Hydranautics has developed and manufactures both spiral wound elements and hollow fiber
modules, including the HYDRAcap low-pressure UF capillary membrane technology. In
1970, hydranautics began providing reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF)
membrane separation technology to the drinking water industry. Acquired by Nitto Denko
Corporation in 1987, Hydranautics established its corporate headquarters in Oceanside,
California.
Hydranautics continuing commitment to research and technology resulted in the ongoing
development and updating of a range of specialized membrane products. The HYDRAcap
UF modules provide more than 5-log removal of pathogens, are fouling resistant, and are
oxidant tolerant. HYDRAcap systems can be configured as stand-alone treatment, single
stage, or with other types of pre-treatment as well.
HYDRAcap

capillary UF

membrane

fiber

composition is

a hydrophilic

modified

polyethersulfone, a material that is resistant to organic fouling and is excellent barrier for
pathogen and colloidal removal. HYDRAcap modules operate in direct flow or cross flow
modes, providing operational flexibility required for variable feed quality. These membranes
can be applied in groundwater, surface water and waste-water treatment. They are made
from hydrophilic polyethersufones (PES). They operate within pH range of 2-13.
KOCH MEMBRANE SYSTEMS INC.
Koch Membrane Systems (KMS) is one of the largest manufacturers of membranes and
membrane products in the world and have over 35 years of experience as a manufacturer of
RO, NF, UF, and MF membranes in hollow fiber, spiral, and tubular configurations. KMS has
complete capabilities in research and development; process, design, and electrical
engineering; and technical service.
KMS is a leader in large-scale membrane filtration in the municipal and industrial water
markets, with a base of more than 6000 UF and MF systems installed around the world in a
number of different applications.

It manufactures hundreds of membrane products with

different polymers, porosities, and configurations. KMSs UF hollow fiber product is known in
the municipal market for its clear housing and adapter. This feature provides the capability
for both automated and visual integrity tests.

Characteristics of KOCH membrane systems

Membrane type
Ultra filtration
Membrane material
Polysulfone (PS)
Driving force
Pressure
Membrane nominal Molecular weight cut-off 100000 Daltons
Maximum inlet pressure
70psi (4.8 bar)

NORIT AMERICAS INC.

Norit is a world-leading supplier of hollow fiber UF membrane technology. Since 1996, Norit
has completed over 150 UF projects with a total installed capacity of over 400 mgd. In 1997
Norit integrated the in-house expertise in process engineering solutions of Norit Membrane
World leader in the development and manufacturing of hollow fiber membrane and tubular
membranes. The high fouling resistance of the membrane is provided by the incorporation of
polyvinyl pyrrolidone in the membrane casting, rendering the fibers permanently hydrophilic.
AQUASOURCE
The Aquasource UF membrane is produced and marketed by the Inflico Degremont group of
water and wastewater companies. Since 1988, the Inflico Degremont group has had more
than 90 drinking water installations worldwide using the Aquasource UF membrane,
producing over 200 mgd of drinking water. Material used in these membranes is cellulose
acetate and polysulfone.
PALL CORPORATION
Pall Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells a wide array of filter media, elements,
vessels, and fully-integrated separation systems. Since its founding in 1946, Pall has
provided thousands of successful installations of state-of-the-art filter systems to remove
contaminants from all types of fluids. These installations include many critical applications in
pharmaceutical, biomedical, and water processing. For drinking water treatment, Pall
provides both MF and UF systems to remove pathogens and a wide range of other
contaminants, and RO and NF systems for desalination.
Pall membrane systems are successfully applied as stand-alone treatment. The highstrength, oxidant-resistant Microza PVDF membranes allow many alternatives for pretreatment and cleaning of the membranes These membranes are made of Polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) as well asPolyacrylonitrile
USF MEMCOR

USFilter Memcor is a world leader in the development, manufacturing, and application of

low-pressure membrane filtration for water and wastewater treatment. More than 40 percent
of membrane plants installed worldwide to purify municipal water and wastewater use a
Memcor system.
Memcors CMF (continuous microfiltration) can be equipped with polypropylene or PVDF
membranes manufactured by USFilter, providing a range of filtration rates and chemical
resistance properties and enabling a preferred membrane material to be selected for every
application. The primary advantage of PVDF versus PP is that PVDF is an oxidant-resistant
material. PVDF is the preferred membrane material for preoxidized feeds, filtration feeds
containing high iron or manganese, or coagulated when ferric-based coagulant is used.
ZENON ENVIRONMENTAL INC
Zenon Environtmental Inc. is a Canadian company headquartered in Oakville. Zenon is
focused on providing membrane solutions for water treatment and distributes its products
and processes worldwide through a network of regional offices. It pioneered immersed
membranes in the early 1990s and has since developed a wide range of applications for
water and wastewater treatment.
Zenons immersed membrane, called ZeeWeed, is a hollow fiber with filtration from the
outside-in under gentle suction. They are asymmetric UF membranes that reject all
suspended and colloidal solids, including viruses. They are made from PVDF, a strong,
chlorine-tolerant polymer.
DOW WATER AND PROCESS SOLUTIONS
Dow Water & Process Solutions (DW&PS) offerings are used throughout the world to
improve the quality of drinking water and the water that's critical to essential industrial
processes like chemical processing, power generation and the manufacturing of food and
pharmaceuticals. Dow technology is also vital to desalination and water reclamation efforts
in communities with severe water shortages.
The DOW Ultrafiltration module utilizes a double-walled hollow fiber (capillary) PVDF
membrane which has a very small nominal pore diameter for PVDF material that allows for
the removal of all particulate matter, bacteria and most viruses and colloids. Despite the
small pore diameter, the membrane has a very high porosity resulting in a flux similar to that
of micro-filtration (MF) and can effectively replace MF in most cases.

Systems designed with DOW Ultrafiltration use an outside-in flow configuration which allows
for less plugging, higher solids loading, higher flow area and easy cleaning. The primary flow
design is dead-end filtration but the module can be operated using a concentrate bleed.
Dead-end filtration uses less energy and has a lower operating pressure than the
concentrate bleed, therefore reducing operating costs.

TORAY MEMBRANE
Membrane Technology for reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration, and spiral wound
membrane elements have been produced since 1967, starting with cellulose acetate
membrane elements. Today, the product line includes a full range of state-of-the-art
polyamide composite membranes.
The range of ultrafiltration elements, both in pressurized and submerged configurations, is
employing a PVDF hollow-fiber, out-in concept and serves in numerous water treatment
units around the world.
Toray's PVDF hollow fiber membrane module effectively removes suspended solids and
microorganisms such as pathogens, when used for various types of water treatment. This
innovative membrane module was developed with polymer science and the membrane
fabrication technologies accumulated in Toray Industries, Inc. for more than 30 years.
The material of Torays Hollow Fiber (HF) Pressurized Ultrafiltration (UF) / Microfiltration
(MF) modules is PVDF (Polyvinylidene fluoride). This best grade HF membrane material
provides high mechanical strength and chemical resistance (oxidation, pH). Two HF
membranes with different nominal pore size are available:

HFU Series : 150 kDa (0.01 micron meter)

HFS Series : 0.02 micron meter

The filtration mode is an Outside in & Dead-End Filtration. This filtration method offers
simple operating control and low energy consumption.
The possibility of the filtration of Ground Water, Surface Water, Sewage Secondary Effluent
and Seawater allows a wide range of different applications.
INGE GmbH

The company Inge GmbH develops innovative ultrafiltration technologies used in the
treatment of drinking water, process water, sea water and waste water. Our systems purify
water by reliably removing bacteria, viruses, particles and suspended solids. inge is
constantly reaffirming its goal of ensuring consistently high quality for both our existing,
satisfied customers and potential future clients.
Inge GmbH was founded in the year 2000 and is headquartered in the town of Greifenberg
near Munich in Bavaria. Its German headquarters houses all the company's main operations
including development, production, marketing and sales. Since August 2011 inge has been
part of BASF, the worlds leading chemical company.
Efficient and effective water treatment generally requires a combination of different methods
and technologies. This combination depends on the intended purpose of the cleaned water
(e.g. drinking water, industrial process water for power plants, etc.) as well as on the quality
and degree of contamination of the original water.
The dizzer modules produced by Inge transform water into clean water. Optimum flow
distribution, top-notch purification efficiency and variable operating modes at low pressure
ensure consistently high quality.

3.9. Membrane Costs

The costs associated with a new membrane treatment facility can be grouped into four
categories i,e Project management and administrative costs, Membrane procurement costs,
Construction costs as well as operational and maintenance costs.

Project Management and administrative costs

The following items are normally for the engineering and administrative effort associated with
a membrane filtration facility:

Pilot testing

Environmental assessment

Regulatory permitting

Membrane procurement

Engineering design.

Construction

administration

(services

during

construction

and

construction

management)

Legal and administrative fees

Financial administration and fees

Membrane procurement Costs

For many projects, there is a competitive selection process that determines the successful
membrane equipment supplier. A majority of projects determine the supplier based on an
economic analysis using a present-worth analysis that considers both capital and operational
costs as part of the evaluation.
There are many variations of membrane procurement, but in general, the process can be
informal or formal. An informal process is one where the selection is made based on the
receipt of information provided by the equipment supplier. A more formal approach is to
prepare a detailed set of procurement documents and solicit proposals that comply with the
requirements of the specifications.

Membrane System Capital Cost considerations

Typical costs that are generally associated with the equipment supply contract for the UF
equipment supplier include Feed and dosing pumps, Strainers, Membrane units, Backwash
equipment, Process air, Chemicals, Clean-in-place (CIP) facilities, Ancillary equipment
(tanks, valves, piping and instrumentation), Programmable logic controller (PLC) and
SCADA, Electrical equipment including variable-frequency drives.
In the development or calculation of the capital cost for a project, sometimes it is appropriate
to include costs for items that are outside the membrane procurement contract such costs
may include the following:

Cost of a larger building or a more complex building structure

Cost of a more complex motor control centre

Cost for concrete that would be used to construct a membrane treatment basin

Considerations for the installation of large-diameter or complex membrane system

interconnecting piping or ventilation systems

Cost for the installation of a constructed-in-place membrane unit

Cost of hoisting equipment

Operational costs
Operational costs are those costs that capture the annual expenses associated with the
operation of a membrane treatment facility. These costs include energy (feed/permeate
pumps, backwash pumps, process air, compressed air, cleaning and heating solutions),
chemical(Pre-treatment,

backwashing,

cleaning

in

place),membrane

replacement,

equipment maintenance and repair, waste disposal and labour.

3.10.

Case studies

Case Study 1: (Brazos River Authority, Lake Granbury Surface Water Advanced
Treatment System- Ultrafiltration/ Reverse Osmosis Integrated Membrane System).
The Brazos River Authority (BRA) owns and operates a surface water treatment plant near
Granbury, Texas. The source of water to the Lake Granbury Surface Water Advanced
Treatment System (LGSWATS) plant is from Lake Granbury, characterized by relatively high
concentrations of chlorides and dissolved solids. Further complicating the applicable
advanced treatment technologies is a background concentration of barium in the raw water
of up to 0.15mg/L. Another important consideration is the consideration is the existence of a
high silt density index (SDI).
UF were selected as the unit processes preceding the RO process (pre-treatment) to
sufficiently reduce the barium and SDI in the RO feed. Because of limited experience

throughout the US with this process alternative, pilot testing was performed to confirm the
application and optimize the treatment process prior to design. Pilot plant testing was
conducted during a 2-month period to determine the softening reactions and sludge
production, along with barium removal efficiency.
The softened/settled was fed to two pilot-scale UF units and one MF unit to optimize the flux
rates through the membranes. Filtrate from the MF/UF units fed a two-stage RO pilot system
using thin-film, composite polyamide, spiral-wound membranes. The pilot testing showed
that softening and membranes are not mutually exclusive and in fact, softening can
significantly increase the recovery rate for the membrane process. The pilot testing also
showed that up to 70 percent removal of barium can be achieved through the lime-soda ash
softening process and that the MF/UF units effectively reduced the SDI below 1.5, which is
unacceptable level for RO. The pilot testing also confirmed the levels of antiscalant for the
RO membranes.
At the time of this case study, the UF system completed a 2-day performance test and was
concluding a 30-day acceptance test. During the performance testing, the turbidity of the UF
permeate was continuously recorded below the guarantee of 0.10 NTU, minimum
throughput and recovery requirements were exceeded, and a guaranteed maximum energy
consumption was not exceeded.
The UF/RO integrated membrane system (IMS) is one of the largest drinking water
production facilities in North America to use the lime-soda ash softening and recarbonation
pre-treatment processes upstream of UF and RO. Based on preliminary performance data of
the two systems following start-up, the LGSWATS now provides a reliable source of highquality drinking water for the BRA customers.

Case Study 2: (Seekonk, Mass.-Iron and Manganese Removal Plant)

The Seekonk Water District serves a population of approximately 13500 and is located in
Seekonk (a town in Bristol County, Massachusetts, United States) approximately 16 km east
of Providence, R.I. The groundwater source, under the influence of surface water, had been
experiencing high levels of both iron and manganese over the past two decades. The
existing facility utilized an in-ground treatment system to inject oxygenated water into the
ground to oxidize and settle both minerals. However, this was only effective for two out of the
three existing gravel-packed wells, resulting in reduced production capabilities.

There were also concerns regarding the 250 to 300 percent overall increases in demand
during the summer months, surface water influences, and the need to achieve a prolonged
cleaning interval. Pilot tests were performed with the Zenon ZeeWeed 500 immersed UF
process to confirm its performance in comparison to three pressure filtration processes and
for approval by the state. The UF system proved to be the most successful at meeting the
quality goals of 0.03mg/L of manganese and 0.01mg/L of iron and demonstrated the ability
to achieve the highest recovery (>99%). Thus, a new immersed UF facility was constructed
and has been operational since April 2001.
The UF membrane plant is effective in reducing iron and manganese to undetectable levels.
The UF membranes also provide a positive physical barrier to microorganisms. This
characteristic allowed the Seekonk Water district to return to operation two well supplies that
were determined to be under the influence of surface water; one had not been used since
1989 and another had suffered surface water contamination in 1998.
The plant operates at a net flux of 42.44 L/m 2.hr. Cleaning frequency has successfully been
prolonged to 2-3 times per year and consists of a citric acid soak at 350mg/L to control
inorganic fouling and a chlorine soak at 250mg/L to control organic fouling. While the
recovery of the membrane filtration system is 95 percent, the combined recovery including
the reclaim tank is greater than 99 percent. Online particle counters are used for indirect
monitoring of membrane integrity, and a pressure decay test is performed twice per year as
a direct method to test the integrity of the membrane system.

Case Study 3: (Lyonnaise Water, Bernay Water Treatment Plant, Bernay, France)
The plant is designed to produce a maximum of 3.028 mL/day year-round, regardless of
feed water temperature or turbidity. Raw water flow is pumped from the spring to two 16module UF membrane skids, each rated at 1703 LPM per unit. Filtrate from the units flows
by gravity to a clearwell for distribution. Before entering the membrane modules, the spring
water

passes

through

200-micron

prefilter

mounted

at

each

skid

to

retain

macroparticulates that could damage the membranes or cause flux loss. Chlorine is the only
chemical routinely used in the process- for finished water disinfection and as an oxidant in
the membrane backwash.
The UF system is designed to operate in dead-end mode the majority of the time. During
peak turbidity events, the skids automatically switch from dead-end to cross flow
recirculation mode. This increases the velocity of water across the inner surface of the

membrane fibers to control the accumulation of solids, reduce fouling, and allow for
continued filtrate production at rated capacity without excessive increase in transmembrane
pressure (TMP). Instrumentation and automation at the plant is typical for a membrane
facility with all major operating parameters (flows, temperature, and pressures) monitored
along with feed and filtrate turbidity and particle counts.
The UF units have operated for more than 12 years on a continuous basis with little or no
downtime and in 2003 were in the process of being replaced. During this period, the
membrane modules had been cleaned on the average of every 6 to 12 months, primarily
using an alkaline surfactant. The plant was operational year-round during that period with
finished water flows varying from 757 to 2271 LPM, producing consistent finished water
quality.

3.11. Reference
WIESNER, M.R., AND J.-M. LAINE. (1996). Coagulation and membrane separation.
MALLEVIALLE, J., P.E. ODENDAAL, M. R. WIESNER. Water Treatment Membrane
Processes. American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
ZEMAN, L.J. AND A.L. SYDNEY. (1996). Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration: Principles and
Applications, 1st edition. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York
MALLEVIALLE, J., P.E. ODENDAAL, M. R. WIESNER. Water Treatment Membrane
Processes. American Water Works Association Research Foundation.

CHERYAN, M. (1986). Ultrafiltration Handbook. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.

MALLEVIALLE, J., P.E. ODENDAAL, M. R. WIESNER. (1996).The emergence of
membranes in water and wastewater treatment.