Effects of fouling on separation performance by forward osmosis: the role of specific organic foulants

Appropriate Technologies to Combat Water Pollution
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, forward osmosis (FO) membranes and fouling solutions were systematically characterized to elucidate the effects of organic fouling on the rejection of two pharmaceutically active compounds, namely, sulfamethoxazole and carbamazepine. Municipal wastewater resulted in a more severe flux decline compared to humic acid and sodium alginate fouling solutions. This result is consistent with the molecular weight distribution of these foulant solutions. Liquid chromatography with organic carbon detection analysis shows that municipal wastewater consists of mostly low molecular weight acids and neutrals, which produce a more compact cake layer on the membrane surface. By contrast, humic acid and sodium alginate consist of large molecular weight humic substances and biopolymers, respectively. The results also show that membrane fouling can significantly alter the membrane surface charge and hydrophobicity as well as the reverse salt flux. In particular, the reverse salt flux of a fouled membrane was significantly higher than that under clean conditions. Although the rejection of sulfamethoxazole and carbamazepine by FO membrane was high, a discernible impact of fouling on their rejection could still be observed. The results show that size exclusion is a major rejection mechanism of both sulfamethoxazole and carbamazepine. However, they respond to membrane fouling differently. Membrane fouling results in an increase in sulfamethoxazole rejection while carbamazepine rejection decreases due to membrane fouling.

Keywords

Forward osmosis Sulfamethoxazole Carbamazepine Organic fouling Reverse salt flux Municipal wastewater 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Chinese Scholarship Council and University of Wollongong, Australia, are gratefully acknowledged for PhD scholarship support to Lei Zheng. This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council ARC Research Hub for Energy-efficient Separation (IH170100009) and funded by the Australian Government.

References

  1. Aftab B, Khan SJ, Maqbool T, Hankins NP (2015) High strength domestic wastewater treatment with submerged forward osmosis membrane bioreactor. Water Sci Technol 72:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alturki AA, McDonald JA, Khan SJ, Price WE, Nghiem LD, Elimelech M (2013) Removal of trace organic contaminants by the forward osmosis process. Sep Purif Technol 103:258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boo C, Elimelech M, Hong S (2013) Fouling control in a forward osmosis process integrating seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation. J Membr Sci 444:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bungay PM, Brenner H (1973) The motion of a closely-fitting sphere in a fluid-filled tube. Int J Multiphase Flow 1:25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson JC, Anderson JC, Low JE, Cardinal P, MacKenzie SD, Beattie SA, Challis JK, Bennett RJ, Meronek SS, Wilks RPA, Buhay WM, Wong CS, Hanson ML (2013) Presence and hazards of nutrients and emerging organic micropollutants from sewage lagoon discharges into Dead Horse Creek, Manitoba, Canada. Sci Total Environ 445–446:64–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cath TY, Elimelech M, McCutcheon JR, McGinnis RL, Achilli A, Anastasio D, Brady AR, Childress AE, Farr IV, Hancock NT, Lampi J, Nghiem LD, Xie M, Yip NY (2013) Standard methodology for evaluating membrane performance in osmotically driven membrane processes. Desalination 312:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang H-M, Chen S-S, Nguyen NC, Chang W-S, Sinha Ray S (2017) Osmosis membrane bioreactor–microfiltration with magnesium-based draw solute for salinity reduction and phosphorus recovery. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 124:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Z-F, Ying G-G (2015) Occurrence, fate and ecological risk of five typical azole fungicides as therapeutic and personal care products in the environment: a review. Environ Int 84:142–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coday BD, Yaffe BGM, Xu P, Cath TY (2014) Rejection of trace organic compounds by forward osmosis membranes: a literature review. Environ Sci Technol 48:3612–3624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D'Haese A, Le-Clech P, Van Nevel S, Verbeken K, Cornelissen ER, Khan SJ, Verliefde ARD (2013) Trace organic solutes in closed-loop forward osmosis applications: influence of membrane fouling and modeling of solute build-up. Water Res 47:5232–5244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elimelech M, Chen WH, Waypa JJ (1994) Measuring the zeta (electrokinetic) potential of reverse osmosis membranes by a streaming potential analyzer. Desalination 95:269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flemming H-C, Neu TR, Wozniak DJ (2007) The EPS matrix: the “house of biofilm cells”. J Bacteriol 189:7945–7947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Han G, Chung T-S, Toriida M, Tamai S (2012) Thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes with novel hydrophilic supports for desalination. J Membr Sci 423:543–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hancock NT, Cath TY (2009) Solute coupled diffusion in osmotically driven membrane processes. Environ Sci Technol 43:6769–6775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hernando MD, Mezcua M, Fernández-Alba AR, Barceló D (2006) Environmental risk assessment of pharmaceutical residues in wastewater effluents, surface waters and sediments. Talanta 69:334–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber SA, Balz A, Abert M, Pronk W (2011) Characterisation of aquatic humic and non-humic matter with size-exclusion chromatography – organic carbon detection – organic nitrogen detection (LC-OCD-OND). Water Res 45:879–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jin X, Huang X, Hoek EMV (2009) Role of specific ion interactions in seawater RO membrane fouling by Alginic acid. Environ Sci Technol 43:3580–3587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee S, Boo C, Elimelech M, Hong S (2010) Comparison of fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO). J Membr Sci 365:34–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liang H-Q, Hung W-S, Yu H-H, Hu C-C, Lee K-R, Lai J-Y, Xu Z-K (2017) Forward osmosis membranes with unprecedented water flux. J Membr Sci 529:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liyanaarachchi S, Jegatheesan V, Muthukumaran S, Gray S, Shu L (2016) Mass balance for a novel RO/FO hybrid system in seawater desalination. J Membr Sci 501:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luo Y, Guo W, Ngo HH, Nghiem LD, Hai FI, Zhang J, Liang S, Wang XC (2014) A review on the occurrence of micropollutants in the aquatic environment and their fate and removal during wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ 473-474:619–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luo W, Xie M, Hai FI, Price WE, Nghiem LD (2016) Biodegradation of cellulose triacetate and polyamide forward osmosis membranes in an activated sludge bioreactor: observations and implications. J Membr Sci 510:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo W, Phan HV, Li G, Hai FI, Price WE, Elimelech M, Nghiem LD (2017) An osmotic membrane bioreactor–membrane distillation system for simultaneous wastewater reuse and seawater desalination: performance and implications. Environ Sci Technol 51:14311–14320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2006) Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis. J Membr Sci 284:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGinnis RL, Elimelech M (2007) Energy requirements of ammonia-carbon dioxide forward osmosis desalination. Desalination 207:370–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nghiem LD, Coleman PJ (2008) NF/RO filtration of the hydrophobic ionogenic compound triclosan: transport mechanisms and the influence of membrane fouling. Sep Purif Technol 62:709–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nghiem LD, Hawkes S (2007) Effects of membrane fouling on the nanofiltration of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs): mechanisms and role of membrane pore size. Sep Purif Technol 57:176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nghiem LD, Schäfer AI, Elimelech M (2004) Removal of natural hormones by Nanofiltration membranes: measurement, modeling, and mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 38:1888–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nghiem LD, Coleman PJ, Espendiller C (2010) Mechanisms underlying the effects of membrane fouling on the nanofiltration of trace organic contaminants. Desalination 250:682–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nguyen NC, Chen S-S, Jain S, Thi NH, Sinha RS, Hao NH, Guo W, Tuan LN, Duong H (2017) Exploration of an innovative draw solution for a forward osmosis-membrane distillation desalination process. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:52013–55211Google Scholar
  31. Phillip WA, Yong JS, Elimelech M (2010) Reverse draw solute permeation in forward osmosis: modeling and experiments. Environ Sci Technol 44:5170–5176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwarzenbach RP, Escher BI, Fenner K, Hofstetter TB, Johnson CA, von Gunten U, Wehrli B (2006) The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313:1072–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shannon MA, Bohn PW, Elimelech M, Georgiadis JG, Marĩas BJ, Mayes AM (2008) Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades. Nature 452:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon A, Nghiem LD, Le-Clech P, Khan SJ, Drewes JE (2009) Effects of membrane degradation on the removal of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) by NF/RO filtration processes. J Membr Sci 340:16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sutzkover I, Hasson D, Semiat R (2000) Simple technique for measuring the concentration polarization level in a reverse osmosis system. Desalination 131:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tang CY, She Q, Lay WCL, Wang R, Fane AG (2010) Coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes during humic acid filtration. J Membr Sci 354:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Valladares Linares R, Yangali-Quintanilla V, Li Z, Amy G (2011) Rejection of micropollutants by clean and fouled forward osmosis membrane. Water Res 45:6737–6744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xie M, Nghiem LD, Price WE, Elimelech M (2012) Comparison of the removal of hydrophobic trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis and reverse osmosis. Water Res 46:2683–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xie M, Nghiem LD, Price WE, Elimelech M (2013a) Impact of humic acid fouling on membrane performance and transport of pharmaceutically active compounds in forward osmosis. Water Res 47:4567–4575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xie M, Nghiem LD, Price WE, Elimelech M (2013b) A forward osmosis–membrane distillation hybrid process for direct sewer mining: system performance and limitations. Environ Sci Technol 47:13486–13493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie M, Nghiem LD, Price WE, Elimelech M (2014a) Impact of organic and colloidal fouling on trace organic contaminant rejection by forward osmosis: role of initial permeate flux. Desalination 336:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xie M, Nghiem LD, Price WE, Elimelech M (2014b) Relating rejection of trace organic contaminants to membrane properties in forward osmosis: measurements, modelling and implications. Water Res 49:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang S, Hai FI, Price WE, McDonald J, Khan SJ, Nghiem LD (2016) Occurrence of trace organic contaminants in wastewater sludge and their removals by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 210:153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yoon Y, Ryu J, Oh J, Choi B-G, Snyder SA (2010) Occurrence of endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products in the Han River (Seoul, South Korea). Sci Total Environ 408:636–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhao S, Zou L, Tang CY, Mulcahy D (2012) Recent developments in forward osmosis: opportunities and challenges. J Membr Sci 396:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strategic Water Infrastructure LaboratoryUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Technology in Water and WastewaterUniversity of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations