Ultrafiltration Technologies PDF

Less-Water Bev.
Tech Project
Cip Eco-Innovation
Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna

Department of Industrial Engineering (DIN)
Ultrafiltration Technology:
Overview & Drivers for Applications
Mauro Gamberi, Marco Bortolini,

Alessandro Graziani, Francesco Pilati
Fornovo di Taro, Parma - March 16th, 2015

Agenda
 Fundamentals
• Operating principle
• Range of application
• Pros & Cons
• Shape & dimensions
 Focus 1: Membranes
• Structures
• Materials
 Focus 2: Working methods

• Dead-end vs. Cross-flow filtration
• Hybrid-flow filtration
 Focus 3: Operating & Maintenance (O&M)

• Membrane fouling
• Pretreatment options
• Operation condition effects on fouling
• Cleaning methods
2
Fundamentals (1)
Ultrafiltration (UF)
“UF is recognized as a low-pressure membrane filtration process; it is usually
defined to be limited to membranes with pore diameters from 0.005µm to 0.1µm.
When the source water is passing through the filter under a trans-membrane
pressure provided by the gravity or a pump, the bacteria and most viruses can be
removed, […] the drinking water quality can be satisfied for consumers, and the use
of chemicals, capital, and operating cost can be reduced.”
(Gao et al., 2011)
Mechanical
sieve theory
UF uses the different pressure on

the two membrane sides to
separate the fluid contents
 Physical rejection
 Chemical reaction
 Biological degradation 3
Fundamentals (2)
Food & Beverage UF industrial applications
 20–30% of the current €250 million turnover of membrane used in the
manufacturing industry worldwide.
 Dairy industry: the dairy industry is the pioneer in the development of UF
equipment and techniques for the production of cheese. (Daufin et al., 2001)
 Beverage industry: UF employed for processing a variety of fruit and vegetable
juices (orange, lemon, grapefruit, tangerine, tomato, cucumber, carrot and
mushroom). In juice clarification, UF is used to separate juices into fibrous
concentrated pulp (retentate) and a clarified fraction free of spoilage
microorganisms (permeate). UF is also applied to the concentration process in
fruit juice processing industry proving to recover bioactive components in fruit
juice. (Cheryan, 1998; Cassano et al., 2008)
 Fish & poultry industry: UF is mainly used for fractionation and waste recovery
processes. The wastewaters generated in fish and poultry processing
industries contain a large amount of organic load. (Afonso et al., 2002, 2004; Chabeaud
et al., 2009)
Water and Waste water

treatment/pretreatment 4
(Mohammad et al., 2012)
Fundamentals (3)
Overall Operating Conditions & Output
 Pressures: 0.03 ÷ 3 bar
 Pore diameter: 0.005 ÷ 0.1 µm
 Withholding molecular amount: 1 ÷ 500 kDalton
 Membrane structure: porous anisotropic structure
(Cieszko, 2009)
 Typical removed impurities: suspension, colloids,
bacteria, dissolved organics (partially)
 Unremoved solutes: fine minerals, soluble salts,
metal ions
 Flow rate: 40 ÷ 90 l/m2h (depending on the treated
water) Hagen-Poiseuille Carman-Kozeny equations
(Munir, 2006)
Distinctive features vs. (micro)-filtration
 Low pressure (pro)
 No high temperature required (pro)
 Smallest pore diameter (pro & con)
 High dynamics of the process  flux decrease due
to fouling  wash every 20 ÷ 60 minutes
(depending on the treated water) (con)
5
Fundamentals (4)
Shape & Dimensions (example)
Dimensions
(http://www.hytekintl.com)
Flexibility Integration with

RO unit (series)
Modularity
6
UF membranes (1)
UF membrane existing structures

 Hollow fibre
 Tubular
 Spiral
Asymmetric structure made of two elements:

 Compact cerebral cortex  high filtration capacity
 Sponge support layer  low resistance
(http://www.hytekintl.com)
7
UF membranes (2)
Std. diameter:
0.8mm
8
http://www.memfil.com
UF membranes (3)
UF membrane materials
 Polyvinylidiene fluoride (PVDF) Current standards
 Polyether sulfone (PES) (> 85% solutions)
 Polysulfone (PS)
 Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) PVDF
 Polyethylene (PE)  Chemical stability (NaClO)
 Polypropylene (PP)  Mechanical strength
 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)  Durability
UF membrane expected properties PES

 Mechanical strength  Hydrophilicity
 Hydrophilicity  Low polymer cost
 Durability  History (early ‘90s)
 Chemical stability
(Wilf, 2008)
 Low polymer cost
9
UF working methods (1)
Dead-end filtration
The complete feed flow is forced through the membrane and the filtered matter is
accumulated on the surface of the membrane. The dead-end filtration is a batch
process as accumulated matter on the filter decreases the filtration capacity, due to
clogging. A next process step to remove the accumulated matter is required.
Cross-flow filtration
A constant turbulent flow along the membrane surface prevents the accumulation
of matter on the membrane surface. The feed flow through the membrane tube has
an higher pressure as driving force for the filtration process and a high flow speed
to create turbulent conditions. The process is referred to as "cross-flow", because
the feed flow and filtration flow direction have a 90 degrees angle.
10
(Munir, 2006)
UF working methods (2)
Dead-end filtration Cross-flow filtration
 Batch process  Continuous process
 No concentrate/no waste  Concentrate/waste
 Low pressure (< 1 bar)  High pressure (1 ÷ 3 bar)
 Low concentration of filtrable matter  High concentration of filtrable
(underground/tape water) matter (surface/sea/wastewater)
Hybrid-flow filtration
It combines the dead-end and the cross-flow principle. The filtration process has
two phases: the production phase and the flushing phase. During the production
phase, the tubes are closed on one side and a dead-end filtration is performed.
During the flushing phase, the tube is open on both sides and the fraction that
did not pass through the membranes is removed in order to clean the
membrane surface as in cross-flow filtration. This filtration technique is
especially suitable for treating water streams containing suspended solids in low
concentrations.
11
(Munir, 2006)
UF working/cleaning plant
Cross
flow
UF
12
UF Operating & Maintenance (1)
Membrane fouling
UF involves physical, chemical, and biological reactions among the impurities or
between the impurities and the membrane surface. In the practical operation, the
reactions are often influenced by each other, and therefore, present more
complicated effects on membrane fouling.
The UF membrane is prone to losing permeability because of the accumulation of
impurities (physic-, chemic-, and bio-substances) on or inside the membrane
matrices.
The membrane fouling is responsible for the permeability yields with low/no effect
on the water quality (permeate).
Types of foulant
 Particles’ fouling on membrane surface and inside the pores
 Organic fouling caused by natural organic matter from the source water and
interactions
 Bio-fouling from aquatic organisms, such as algae, forming colonies
13
(Gao et al., 2011)
Pretreatment
options
14
(Huang et al., 2009)
Operation condition effects on fouling
Some proper operation (and cleaning) strategies inhibit the complicated reaction
before it happens and their combined benefits could be an ideal way to control or
reduce the membrane fouling.
Evidences from the field

 A relatively low flux is bound to bring a lower rate of fouling but more membrane
required would increase the building and operating cost
 Constant pressure operation present more effective fouling control than constant
permeate flux when applied to cold water (below 5°C) treatment (Guo et al., 2009)
 Lee et al. state that proper constant flux was favorable than constant pressure
operation (Lee et al., 2008)
 The proper running modes used now are mostly based on the experience, and
often in a conservative way
15
(Lipp et al., 2003; Gao et al., 2011)
Cleaning methods
 Rinsings
• Forward flushing
• Back-washing
 Air scrub
 Chemical cleaning
• Acid solution (inorganic fouling)
• Alkali solution (organic fouling)
• Biocide solution (bio-fouling)
(Gao et al., 2011) 16

References & Links (1)
Scientific literature
 Afonso, M.D., Bόrquez, R. (2002) Review of the treatment of seafood processing wastewaters and recovery of
proteins therein by membrane separation processes prospects of the ultrafiltration of wastewaters from the fish
meal industry. Desalination 142(1):29-45.
 Afonso, M.D., Ferrer, J., Bórquez, R. (2004) An economic assessment of proteins recovery from fish meal effluents
by ultrafiltration. Trends in Food Science & Technology 15(10):506-512.
 Cassano, A., Donato, L., Conidi, C., & Drioli, E. (2008) Recovery of bioactive compounds in kiwifruit juice by
ultrafiltration. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 9(4):556-562.
 Cheryan, M. (1998) Ultrafiltration and microfiltration handbook (2nd ed.). Boca Raton.
 Cieszko, M. (2009) Description of anisotropic pore space structure of permeable materials based on Minkowski
metric space. Archives of Mechanics 61(6):425-444.
 Huang, H., Schwab, K., Jacangelo, J.G. (2009) Pretreatment for low pressure membranes in water treatment: a
review. Environmental Science & Technology 43:3011-3019.
 Daufin, G., Escudier, J.P., Carrère, H., Bérot, S., Fillaudeau, L., Decloux, M. (2001) Recent and emerging
applications of membrane processes in the food and dairy industry. Food and Bioproducts Processing 79(2):89-
102.
 Gao, W., Liang, H., Ma, J., Han, M., Chen, Z., Han, Z., Li, G. (2011) Membrane fouling control in ultrafiltration
technology for drinking water production: a review. Desalination 272:1-8.
 Guo, X., Zhenjia, Z., Lin, F., Liguo S. (2009) Study on ultrafiltration for surface water by a polyvinylchloride hollow
fiber membrane. Desalination 238:183-191.
 Lee, E.K., Chen, V., Fane, A.G. (2008) Natural organic matter (NOM) fouling in low pressure membrane filtration
effect of membranes and operation modes. Desalination 218:257-270.
 Lipp, P., Baldauf, G., Schmitt, A., Theis, B. (2003) Long-term behaviour of UF membranes treating surface water.
Water Science & Technology: Water Supply 3:31-37.
 Mohammad, A.W., Ng, C.Y., Lim, Y.P., Ng, G.H. (2012) Ultrafiltration in food processing industry: review on
application, membrane fouling and fouling control. Food Bioprocess Technology 5:1143-1156.
 Munir, A. (2006) Dead end membrane filtration. Lab feasibility studies in Environmental Engineering.
 Wilf, M. (2008) Membrane types and factors affecting membrane performance. Standford University. 17
References & Links (2)
Industrial links
 http://www.hyfluxmembranes.com
 http://www.kochmembrane.com
 http://www.imtmembranes.nl
18

Ultrafiltration Technologies PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ultrafiltration Technologies PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ultrafiltration Technologies PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Less-Water Bev.

Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna

Mauro Gamberi, Marco Bortolini,

Fornovo di Taro, Parma - March 16th, 2015

 Focus 2: Working methods

 Focus 3: Operating & Maintenance (O&M)

UF uses the different pressure on

Water and Waste water

Flexibility Integration with

UF membrane existing structures

Asymmetric structure made of two elements:

UF membrane expected properties PES

Evidences from the field

(Gao et al., 2011) 16

You might also like