Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ELSEVIER
www.elsevier.corn/locate/desal
Abstract
Reverse osmosis membrane performance was evaluated using ASTM D 4516 and a modified form of the mass
transfer coefficient (MTC) as described in the homogenous solution diffusion model (HSDM) on a common data
set. Standardized salt passage and water production is used to compare both methods. ASTM D 4516 is based on
normalized pressure over time for a given set of data, considers temperature only for water production but not for
salt passage. The HSDM MTC is diffusion based and the HSDM considers variations in flux and recovery for salt
passage. Normalization of the HSDM MTCs for temperature and pressure over time provided a universal assessment
for the water and water quality for a specific diffusion controlled membrane. Assessment of water production was
identical by either method, but assessment of salt passage was different. Salt passage determined by the ASTM
method is dependent on actual net solute driving force, while HSDM determined salt passage is dependent on
MTCs, flux, recovery, temperature, net solute driving force and changes in mass transfer over time. The HSDM
MTC method of membrane evaluation is more versatile for assessment of membrane performance at varying sites
and changing operation.
1. Introduction
Reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF)
are significant technologies for production o f
drinking water. RO and NF performance is
typically evaluated by the change o f water pro*Corresponding author.
ductivity and salt passage over time. Standardization of productivity and salt passage (membrane
performance) is required to compare inter and intra
site membrane performance. The American Standard for Testing Materials ( A S T M ) standard
method, ASTM D 4516 M e t h o d - - Standard Practice for Standardizing Reverse Osmosis Performance Data, provides a procedure to normalize
0011-9164/05/$-- See front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.089
232
PRETREATED
FEED(f) WATER
Qf, Cf, Pf
Fig. 1. NF or RO membraneflow diagram.
2. Theory
Jw=Kwx(AP-A=) =Qp
(1)
L=K.aC=J.C,,
(2)
Cp
K,C
(3)
PERMEATE(p)
Op, Cp, Pf
CONCENTRATE(c)
Qc, Cc, Pc
7t = Kms x TDS
(4)
(5)
K, r = 0(y-zs) x Ks2s
(6)
(7)
Pyo
s =(ps
233
TM
Pm -Irma +rcr~
(seo)
(8)
Osmotic pressure is related to temperature and concentration as NaCI (in mg/L) using Eq. (9).
n =0.2654 C (T + 273.15)/(1000- C/1000)
(9)
234
3. Methods
I
II
Settled
Pretreated
4. Theoretical interpretations
Qm=J~.xA=K~zsx(AP~-A1r.)A
Filtered
Pretreated
I
I
(lO)
x O~r-25)
Breaktank Permeate
Concentrate
Feed
ii
, ~
Ferric sulfate
............................
Ammonia
Booster
pump
SuP Transfer
AF Pump
Pressure
Filter
Break
Tank
Transfer
Pump
H Ig h
Cartridge Pressure Membrane
Filter
Pu m p
Vessel
Cp Cp
x 0~;-25)
(
(12)
= (aeo
a=o)
K,
C----~AC:Kx(Ap-Arc)
SP = Cp
- A=., )
C:
235
K, x Cj~
Kw(AP-An)C:
(13)
(14)
, "
236
0(~/'-25)
i=1
i=1
(15)
+XturbZJwCturb_iti q- XNH2CIZJwCNH2CI_iI ,
i=!
i=I
K, = 0!r-z~)
r 25+Xw=EJ.t,+XuvEJ.C
v2 _,t,
i=l
i=I
?1
(16)
+x~ZJwC~eo_,t, + XN.,C.ZJ~CN.2C._,t,
i=1
i=1
237
Tablel
Standard conditions for normalization of SP for LR2 system
Standard condition
NaCI feed, mg/L
Pressure drop device, kPa (psi)
Pressure feed, kPa (psi)
Pressure permeate, kPa (psi)
Recovery
Flow feed, m3.d-1 (gpm)
Flux, L.m-2.h-I (gsfd)
Temperature,C
1st membrane
350
303 (44)
1020 (148)
138 (20)
0.3
42.0 (7.7)
23.3 (13.7)
25.0
2nd membrane
350
152 (22)
1344 ( ! 95)
138 (20)
0.3
39.8 (7.3)
22.1 (13.0)
25.0
Table 2
Non-linear regression coefficients of Kw,K mass loading model
System
Kwh,Ks25
Xw-~r3
Kw
K~
0.68 (L.d-l'm-2"kPa-~)1
0.21 (L-h-l-m-2)2
-3.90E - 07
3.60E - 06
XUV
Xturb
XNH,C1
0w, 0s
R2
1.041
1.006
0.78
0.29
238
15
r
J
Norm Kw
14
13
12
11
tA
10
92~,
0.6
'E
0.5
al
70
._1
v
1st membrane
0.4
2nd membrane
5 ~<
0.3
0.2
0.1
I
I
0.0
500
1000
. . . .
1500
i i , , , t l
2000
. . . .
2500
1 , 1 1 , 1
3000
. . . .
3500
i , l , i
4000
0
4500
Hours
Fig. 3. A S T M standardized PF and normalized K vs. membrane run time, X 2 0 m e m b r a n e .
1.0
0.9 ,A t=l,_
'=-aA ~.
O~
I~ .
d
II
"7
t~
o_
~ - ~ll I ~
~,m~',ll~il'
i
i
" PredictedKw
A ActualKw
0.8
,~
0.7
p"= :
. =
0.6
E
05
._1
"7
O..
E
0.4
1st membrane
0.3
2nd membrane
"O
_.1
ff
0.2
0.1
0.0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Hours
3000
3500
Fig. 4. Actual K w and H S D M predicted K w vs. m e m b r a n e run time for the X20 m e m b r a n e .
4000
4500
239
20
;
ActualTDS
A PredictedTDS
-i- ActuaIMembranesp
Replacement
1
t
15
15
Predicted SP
lOu~
or)
{3
}-
ZX
SP
tt~ !
[]
[]
[]
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Hours
3000
3500
4000
Fig. 5. Actual and HSDM predicted TDS and SP vs. membrane run time, X20 membrane.
0.05
.....................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
ti
A ASTM Standardized SP
- Membrane Replacement
----. HSDM Standardized SP
--
0.04
y = 9E-06x + 0.0074
t~
u)
~1'
0.03
r =
t~
o,.
~o 0.02
u')
T~J
y = -4E-07x + 0.0149
l ~ ~ 1 1 ~
y=5E-O6x+O.OOQ5 ~
0.01
1st membrane
0.00
1000
2nd membrane
|
|
I
2000
Hours
3000
4000
Fig. 6. ASTM standardized SP and HSDM SP normalized for temperature vs. run time.
0
4500
240
(17)
HSDM-SP,
%
1.50
1.55
1.64
1.69
1.74
i.79
1.84
ASTM-SP, ROSA-SP,
%
%
1.442
0.55
1.443
0.63
1.454
0.83
1.455
0.93
1.456
1.05
1.456
1.18
1.457
1.33
to
0.25
. . . . .
1,
"d-l~rn-2.d;l
0.30
241
005
000t
e
~u 45 50
... .-:'<.. t
2"
...
_,,-=',~
Plane1:Ks=0.SL.hr-1.m-2;Plane2:Ks=0.85L.hr-1.m-2
Plane3:Ks=1.7L.hr-1.m-2;Kw=0.00103L-d-1-m-2.d-1
242
Acknowledgements
6. Conclusions
6.1. General conclusions
ASTM D 4516 and HSDM methods of assessing membrane productivity and solute mass transfer are different. The HSDM method considers
water quality mass solute and water MTCs, fluxes,
recoveries, foulants and temperatures which are
directly transferable to any other water quality
environment. ASTM D 4516 is based on a ratio
of operating results to average operating conditions and does not consider major factors that
influence mass transfer. However the ASTM D
4516 does provide standardized measures of production and salt passage that can be directly used
to assess membrane performance among any environments and operating conditions. ASTM D
4516just can not be easily used to predict actual
performance.
Symbols
A
C
C~,~
C~s
jP
j
W
K25
- -
- -
- -
243
R e f e r e n c e s
244