Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp 18979–18992 | Cite as

Application of direct contact membrane distillation for saline dairy effluent treatment: performance and fouling analysis

  • Sana Abdelkader
  • Florian Gross
  • Daniel Winter
  • Joachim Went
  • Joachim Koschikowski
  • Sven Uwe Geissen
  • Latifa BousselmiEmail author
Advanced Oxidation Process for Sustainable Water Management

Abstract

Membrane distillation is getting increasing attention thanks to its advantages in terms of energy consumption and final permeate quality in addition to its resistance against highly corrosive media which forms an appealing solution for industrial wastewater treatment. Despite its advantages, one of the most challenging issues in direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD) is membrane fouling and wetting. In the present research work, saline dairy effluent discharged from hard cheese industry was pretreated by macrofiltration (MAF) and ultrafiltration (UF) and processed by DCMD to investigate the extent of the aforementioned issues. Effluents pretreated by UF have led the best process performance with stable flux values at different operating conditions. Fouling has occurred in all the experiments, though their effect on the flux behavior and membrane wetting was different from one feed to the other. Changing the flow rate and the temperature difference have affected slightly the membrane wettability for all feed qualities. In all experiments, the permeate has maintained a good quality with low electrical conductivity that did not exceed 70 μS/cm and low total organic carbon < 2 mg/L.

Keywords

Direct contact membrane distillation Saline dairy effluent Macrofiltration Ultrafiltration Permeate flux Membrane fouling 

Abbreviations

CA

contact angle

DCMD

direct contact membrane distillation

EDX

energy dispersive X-ray

LEP

liquid entry pressure

MAF

macrofiltration

MAF-UF-WW

pretreated effluent by macrofiltration and ultrafiltration

MAF-WW

pretreated effluent by macrofiltration

PP

polypropylene

PTFE

polytetrafluoroethylene

R-WW

raw effluent

SEM

scanning electron microscopy

TOC

total organic carbon

UF

ultrafiltration

Symbols

T

temperature difference

Ƞth

thermal efficiency

Tco

permeate outlet temperature

Tei

feed inlet temperature

Vc

permeate velocity

Ve

feed velocity

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a fellowship grant received by Ms. Sana Abdelkader in the frame of the program “Bourse d’Alternance” provided by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Tunisia.

References

  1. Alkhudhiri A, Darwish N, Hilal N (2012) Membrane distillation: a comprehensive review. Desalination 287:2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashoor BB, Mansour S, Giwa A, Dufour V, Hasan SW (2016) Principles and applications of direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD): a comprehensive review. Desalination 398:222–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaschek KM, Wendorff WL, Rankin SA (2007) Survey of salty and sweet whey composition from various cheese plants in Wisconsin. J Dairy Sci 90(4):2029–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottino A, Capannelli G, Monticelli O, Piaggio P (2000) Poly(vinylidene fluoride) with improved functionalization for membrane production. J Membr Sci 166:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camacho LM, Dumée L, Zhang J, De Li J, Duke M, Gomez J (2013) Advances in membrane distillation for water desalination and purification applications. Water (Switzerland) 5:94–196Google Scholar
  6. Carvalho F, Prazeres AR, Rivas J (2013) Cheese whey wastewater: characterization and treatment. Sci Total Environ 445–446:385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corcoran E, Nellemann C, Baker E, Bos R, Osborn D, Savelli H (2010) Sick water? The central role of wastewater management in sustainable development. A rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, UN-HABITAT, GRID-Arendal. Norway. http://www.coalition-eau.org/wp-content/uploads/SickWater_screen.pdf
  8. De La Fuente MA, Singh H, Hemar Y (2002) Recent advances in the characterization of heat induced aggregates and intermediates of whey proteins. Trends Food Sci Technol 13(8):262–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. El-Bourawi MS, Ding Z, Ma R, Khayet M (2006) A framework for better understanding membrane distillation separation process. J Membr Sci 285:4–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ge J, Peng Y, Li Z, Chen P, Wang S (2014) Membrane fouling and wetting in a DCMD process for RO brine concentration. Desalination 344:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gryta M (2008) Fouling in direct contact membrane distillation process. J Membr Sci 325:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gryta M (2012) Effectiveness of water desalination by membrane distillation process. Membranes 2:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hausmann A, Sanciolo P, Vasiljevic T, Weeks M, Schroën K, Gray S, Duke M (2013a) Fouling mechanisms of dairy streams during membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 441:102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hausmann A, Sanciolo P, Vasiljevic T, Weeks M, Schroën K, Gray S, Duke M (2013b) Fouling of dairy components on hydrophobic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membranes for membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 442:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jang D, Hwang Y, Shin H, Lee W (2013) Effects of salinity on the characteristics of biomass and membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors. Bioresour Technol 141:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kehoe JJ, Foegeding EA (2011) Interaction between β-casein and whey proteins as a function of pH and salt concentration. J Agric Food Chem 59:349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kezia K, Judy L, Mike W, Sandra K (2015) Direct contact membrane distillation for the concentration of saline dairy effluent. Water Res 81:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laganà F, Barbieri G, Drioli E (2000) Direct contact membrane distillation: modelling and concentration experiments. J Membr Sci 166:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawson KW, Lloyd DR (1996) Membrane distillation. II. Direct contact membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 120:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mounsey JS, O’Kennedy BT (2009) Stability of β-lactoglobulin/micellar casein mixtures on heating in simulated milk ultrafiltrate at pH 6.0. Int J Dairy Technol 62(4):493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Naidu G, Jeong S, Kim S-J, Kim IS, Vigneswaran S (2014) Organic fouling behavior in direct contact membrane distillation. Desalination 347:230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Onsekizoglu Bagci P (2013) Potential of membrane distillation for production of high quality fruit juice concentrate. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 55:1098–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pierre A, Fauquant J, Le Graet Y, Piot M, Maubois JL (1992) Préparation de phosphocaséinate natif par microfiltration sur membrane. Lait 72:461–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rice G, Kentish SE, O'Connor A, Barber A, Philajamaki A, Nystrom M, Stevens GW (2009) Analysis of separation and fouling behavior during nanofiltration of dairy ultrafiltration permeate. Desalination 236:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saffarini RB, Mansoor B, Thomas R, Arafat HA (2013) Effect of temperature-dependent microstructure evolution on pore wetting in PTFE membranes under membrane distillation conditions. J Membr Sci 429:282–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schofield RW, Fane AG, Fell CJD (1987) Heat and mass transfer in membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 33:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schofield RW, Fane AG, Fell CJD, Macoun R (1990) Factors affecting flux in membrane distillation. Desalination 77:279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Ang L, Choon Ng K (2017) Energy-water-environment nexus underpinning future desalination sustainability. Desalination 413:52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Singh H, Boland M, Thompson A (2014) Milk proteins: from expression to food (second edition). A volume in Food science and technology. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. ISBN: 978-0-12-405171-3Google Scholar
  30. Tijing LD, Woo YC, Choi J-S, Lee S, Kim S-H, Shon HK (2015) Fouling and its control in membrane distillation—a review. J Membr Sci 475:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waninge R, Walstra P, Bastiaans J, Nieuwenhuijse H, Nylander T, Paulsson M, Bergenståhl B (2005) Competitive adsorption between â-casein or â-lactoglobulin and model milk membrane lipids at oil-water interfaces. J Agric Food Chem 53:716–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Winter D (2015) Membrane distillation—a thermodynamic, technological and economic analysis. Schriftenreihe der Reiner Lemoine-Stiftung. D 386 (Diss. Technische Universität Kaiserslautern) Aachen, Germany. ISBN 978-3-8440-3706-7Google Scholar
  33. Winter D, Koschikowski J, Düver D, Hertel P, Beuscher U (2013) Evaluation of MD process performance: effect of backing structures and membrane properties under different operating conditions. Desalination 323:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme) 2014 The United Nations World Water Development Report 2014: water and energy. Paris, UNESCO. ISBN 978-92-3-104259-1. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002257/225741E.pdf
  35. Zisman W. A. (1964). Relation of the equilibrium contact angle to liquid and solid constitution. Advances in chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sana Abdelkader
    • 1
    • 2
  • Florian Gross
    • 3
  • Daniel Winter
    • 3
  • Joachim Went
    • 3
  • Joachim Koschikowski
    • 3
  • Sven Uwe Geissen
    • 2
  • Latifa Bousselmi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Water Research and Technologies (CERTE)SolimanTunisia
  2. 2.Technische Universitaet Berlin (TU Berlin)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Fraunhofer ISEFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations