Natural organic matter removal and flux decline with charged ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membranes

Journal of Membrane Science

Volumn 376, Issue 1-2, 2011, Pages 179-187

  Song, Hongchen ^a   Shao, Jiahui ^a   He, Yiliang ^a   Hou, Juan ^a   Chao, Wenpo ^a  

^a SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Charge modification; Flux decline; Nanofiltration; Rejection; Ultrafiltration

Indexed keywords

CHARGE MODIFICATION; DRINKING WATER QUALITY; DRINKING WATER TREATMENT; ELECTROSTATIC INTERACTIONS; FLUX DECLINE; MEMBRANE PORE SIZE; NATURAL ORGANIC MATTERS; NF MEMBRANES; REGENERATED CELLULOSE; REJECTION; STRINGENT REGULATIONS; UF MEMBRANES;

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY; BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS; CHEMICALS REMOVAL (WATER TREATMENT); MEMBRANE FOULING; NANOFILTRATION; ORGANIC COMPOUNDS; PORE SIZE; POTABLE WATER; ULTRAFILTRATION; WATER FILTRATION; WATER QUALITY; WATER TREATMENT;

NANOFILTRATION MEMBRANES;

CELLULOSE; DRINKING WATER; NATURAL ORGANIC MATTER;

ARTICLE; BIOFOULING; HYDROPHILICITY; HYDROPHOBICITY; MEMBRANE; NANOFILTRATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATIC ELECTRICITY; SURFACE CHARGE; ULTRAFILTRATION; WASTE COMPONENT REMOVAL;

EID: 79957554086     PISSN: 03767388     EISSN: 18733123     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2011.04.022     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Fan L., Harris J.L., Roddick F.A., Booker N.A. Influence of the characteristics of natural organic matter on the fouling of microfiltration membranes. Water Res. 2001, 35:4455-4463.
2. Wei X., Wang R., Li Z., Fane A.G. Development of a novel electrophoresis-UV grafting technique to modify PES UF membranes used for NOM removal. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 273:47-57.
3. Lin C.-F., Lin T.-Y., Hao O.J. Effects of humic substance characteristics on UF performance. Water Res. 2000, 34:1097-1106.
4. Yuan W., Zydney A.L. Humic acid fouling during ultrafiltration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34:5043-5050.
5. Cho J., Amy G., Pellegrino J. Membrane filtration of natural organic matter: factors and mechanisms affecting rejection and flux decline with charged ultrafiltration (UF) membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 2000, 164:89-110.
6. Shim Y., Lee H.J., Lee S., Moon S.H., Cho J. Effects of natural organic matter and ionic species on membrane surface charge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36:3864-3871.
7. Nakatsuka S., Nakate I., Miyano T. Drinking water treatment by using ultrafiltration hollow fiber membranes. Desalination 1996, 106:55-61.
8. Jung C.-W., Son H.-J., Kang L.-S. Effects of membrane material and pretreatment coagulation on membrane fouling: fouling mechanism and NOM removal. Desalination 2006, 197:154-164.
9. Carroll T., King S., Gray S.R., Bolto B.A., Booker N.A. The fouling of microfiltration membranes by NOM after coagulation treatment. Water Res. 2000, 34:2861-2868.
10. Zularisam A.W., Ismail A.F., Salim R. Behaviours of natural organic matter in membrane filtration for surface water treatment-a review. Desalination 2006, 194:211-231.
11. Cho J., Amy G., Pellegrino J. Membrane filtration of natural organic matter: initial comparison of rejection and flux decline characteristics with ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membranes. Water Res. 1999, 33:2517-2526.
12. Nyström M., Ruohomäki K., Kaipia L. Humic acid as a fouling agent in filtration. Desalination 1996, 106:79-87.
13. W. Yuan, Fouling of humic acid during ultrafiltration and microfiltration for water treatment, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delaware, Delaware, 2001.
14. R. van Reis, Charged filtration membranes and uses therefor, US Patent APP 2003/0178368 A1, 2003.
15. Rao S.M., Zydney A.L. High resolution protein separations using affinity ultrafiltration with small charged ligands. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 280:781-789.
16. Freger V., Gilron J., Belfer S. TFC polyamide membranes modified by grafting of hydrophilic polymers: an FT-IR/AFM/TEM study. J. Membr. Sci. 2002, 209:283-292.
17. Hunter R.J. Zeta Potential in Colloid Science: Principles and Applications 1981, Academic Press, London.
18. Nyström M., Pihlajamaki A., Ehsani N. Characterization of ultrafiltration membranes by simultaneous streaming potential and flux measurements. J. Membr. Sci. 1994, 87:245-256.
19. Dal-Cin M.M., McLellan F., Striez C.N., Tam C.M., Tweddle T.A., Kumar A. Membrane performance with a pulp mill effluent: relative contributions of fouling mechanisms. J. Membr. Sci. 1996, 120:273-285.
20. Aiken G.R. Evaluation of ultrafiltration for determining molecular weight of fulvic acid. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1984, 18:978-981.
21. Yuan W., Zydney A.L. Effects of solution environment on humic acid fouling during microfiltration. Desalination 1999, 122:63-76.
22. Shao J., Hou J., Song H. Comparison of humic acid rejection and flux decline during filtration with negatively charged and uncharged ultrafiltration membranes. Water Res. 2011, 45:473-482.
23. Mänttäri M., Pekuri T., Nystrm M. NF270, a new membrane having promising characteristics and being suitable for treatment of dilute effluents from the paper industry. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 242:107-116.