Performance evaluation and fouling analysis for reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes during processing of lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysate

Journal of Membrane Science

Volumn 451, Issue , 2014, Pages 252-265

  Gautam, AmitKumar ^a   Menkhaus, Todd J ^a  

^a South Dakota School of Mines and Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

Biorefinery; Biorenewable processing; Membrane fouling; Nanofiltration; Reverse osmosis

Indexed keywords

BIOREFINERIES; BIORENEWABLE; FOULING CHARACTERISTICS; INHIBITOR CONCENTRATION; INHIBITORY COMPOUNDS; LIGNOCELLULOSIC BIOMASS; RENEWABLE FEEDSTOCKS; SUGAR CONCENTRATION;

BIOMASS; ENZYMATIC HYDROLYSIS; FERMENTATION; MEMBRANE FOULING; NANOFILTRATION; NANOFILTRATION MEMBRANES; OSMOSIS; SEPARATION; SUGARS;

REVERSE OSMOSIS;

ACETIC ACID; CARBOHYDRATE; CARBOXYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; FURFURAL; INORGANIC ACID; LIGNOCELLULOSE; PHENOL DERIVATIVE;

ARTICLE; BIOFOULING; BIOMASS; FERMENTATION; HYDROLYSIS; HYDROPHILICITY; NANOFILTRATION; OSMOTIC PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REDUCTION; REVERSE OSMOSIS;

EID: 84886816094     PISSN: 03767388     EISSN: 18733123     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.09.042     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Sanchez O.J., Cardona C.A. Trends in biotechnological production of fuel ethanol from different feedstocks. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99:5270-5295.
2. Weng Y.-H., Wei H.-J., Tsai T.-Y., Wei T.-Y., Guo G.-L., Huang C.-P. Separation of furans and carboxylic acids from sugars in dilute acid rice straw hydrolyzates by nanofiltration. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101:4889-4894.
3. Demirbas A. Bioethanol from cellulosic materials: a renewable motor fuel from biomass. Energy Sources 2005, 27:327-337.
4. Negron J.F., Allen K., Cook B., Withrow J.R. Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa (Dougl. ex Laws.), to mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, attack in uneven-aged stands in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 254(2):327-334.
5. Gurram R.N., Datta S., Lin Y.J., Snyder S.W., Menkhaus T.J. Removal of enzymatic and fermentation inhibitory compounds from biomass slurries for enhanced biorefinery process efficiencies. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102(17):7850-7859.
6. Sagehashi M., Nomura T., Shishido H., Sakoda A. Separation of phenols and furfural by pervaporation and reverse osmosis membranes from biomass-superheated steam pyrolysis-derived aqueous solution. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98:2018-2026.
7. Falls M., Shi J., Ebrik M.A., Redmond T., Yang B., Wyman C.E., Garlock R., Balan V., Dale B.E., Pallapolu V.R., Lee Y.Y., Kim Y., Mosier N.S., Ladisch M.R., Hames B., Thomas S., Donohoe B.S., Vinzant T.B., Elander R.T., Warner R.E., S-Ramirez R., Holtzapple M.T. Investigation of enzyme formulation on pretreated switchgrass. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102:11072-11079.
8. Mosier N., Wyman C., Dale B., Elander R., Lee Y.Y., Holtzapple M., Ladisch M. Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96:673-686.
9. Wyman C.E., Balan V., Dale B.E., Elander R.T., Falls M., Hames B., Holtzapple M.T., Ladisch M.R., Lee Y.Y., Mosier N., Pallapolu V.R., Shi J., Thomas S.R., Warner R.E. Comparative data on effects of leading pretreatments and enzyme loadings and formulations of sugar yields from different switchgrass sources. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102:11052-11062.
10. Kumar R., Wyman C.E. Does change in accessibility with conversion depend on both the substrate and pretreatment technology?. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100:4193-4202.
11. Wyman C.E., Dale B.E., Elander R.T., Holtzapple M., Ladisch M.R., Lee Y.Y. Comparative sugar recovery data from laboratory scale application of leading pretreatment technologies to corn stover. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96:2026-2032.
12. Wyman C.E., Dale B.E., Elander R.T., Holtzapple M., Ladisch M.R., Lee Y.Y. Coordinated development of leading biomass pretreatment technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96:1959-1966.
13. Najafpour G., Younesi H., Ismail K.S.K. Ethanol fermentation in an immobilized cell reactor using Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 92:251-260.
14. Sedlak M., Ho N.W.Y. Production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass hydrolysates using genetically engineered saccharomyces yeast capable of cofermenting glucose and xylose. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2004, 113-116:403-416.
15. Dien B.S., Cotta M.A., Jeffries T.W. Bacteria engineered for fuel ethanol production: current status. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2003, 63:258-266.
16. Cheng N.G., Hasan M., Kumoro A.C., Ling C.F., Tham M. Production of ethanol by fed-batch fermentation. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 2009, 17:399-408.
17. K.A. Standish, M.R. Mallem, P.C. Gilcrease, D.J. Dixon, Extruder pretreatment of ponderosa pine to enhanced cellulose hydrolysis, in: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Biochemical Engineering Symposium, April 29th, 2006, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD, 2007.
18. Madaeni S.S., Zereshki S. Reverse osmosis alternative: energy implication for sugar industry. Chem. Eng. Process. 2008, 47:1075-1080.
19. Madaeni S.S., Zereshki S. Energy consumption for sugar manufacturing. Part1: evaporation versus reverse osmosis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010, 51:1270-1276.
20. Madaeni S.S., Tahmasebi K., Kerendi S.H. Sugar syrup concentration using reverse osmosis membranes. Eng. Life Sci. 2004, 4:187-190.
21. Kiss I., Vatai Gy., Bekassy-Molnar E. Must concentrate using membrane technology. Desalination 2004, 162:295-300.
22. Brethauer S., Wyman C.E. Review: continuous hydrolysis and fermentation for cellulosic ethanol production. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101:4862-4874.
23. Qing Q., Yang B., Wyman C.E. Xylooligomers are strong inhibitors of cellulose by enzymes. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101:9624-9630.
24. Grzenia D.L., Schell D.J., Wickramasinghe S.R. Membrane extraction for removal of acetic acid from biomass hydrolysates. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 322:189-195.
25. Carter B., Gilcrease P.C., Menkhaus T.J. Removal and recovery of furfural, 5-hydroxymethylfurfural and acetic acid from aqueous solutions using a soluble polyelectrolyte. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011, 108:2046-2052.
26. Carter B., Squillace P., Gilcrease P.C., Menkhaus T.J. Detoxification of a lignocellulosic biomass slurry by soluble polyelectrolyte adsorption for improved fermentation efficiency. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2011, 108:2053-2060.
27. Teella A., Huber G.W., Ford D.M. Separation of acetic acid from the aqueous fraction of fast pyrolysis bio-oils using nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 378:495-502.
28. Weng Y., Wei H., Tsai T., Lin T., Wei T., Guo G., Huang C. Separation of furans and carboxylic acids from sugars in dilute acid rice straw hydrolyzates by nanofiltration. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101:4889-4894.
29. Maiti S.K., Thuyavan Y.L., Singh S., Oberoi H.S., Agarwal G.P. Modeling of the separation of inhibitory components from pretreated rice straw hydrolysate by nanofiltration membranes. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 114:419-427.
30. Zhou F., Wang C., Wei J. Separation of acetic acid from monosaccharides by NF and RO membranes: performance comparison. J. Membr. Sci. 2013, 429:243-251.
31. Zhou F., Wang C., Wei J. Simultaneous acetic acid separation and monosaccharide concentration by reverse osmosis. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 131:349-356.
32. Brant J.A., Johnson K.M., Childress Amy E. Characterizing NF and RO membrane surface heterogeneity using chemical force microscopy. Colloids Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2006, 280:45-57.
33. Zhao Y., Taylor J., Hong S. Combined influence of membrane surface properties and feed water qualities on RO/NF mass transfer, a pilot study. Water Res. 2005, 39:1233-1244.
34. Lee W., Ahn C.H., Hong S., Kim S., Lee S., Baek Y., Yoon J. Evaluation of surface properties of reverse osmosis membranes on the initial biofouling stages under no filtration condition. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 351:112-122.
35. Extrand C.W. Water contact angles and hysteresis of polyamide surfaces. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2002, 248:136-142.
36. Wayne Y., Yoram C., Faibish R.S. Contact angle study on polymer-grafted silicon wafers. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2002, 256:341-350.
37. Matsumoto H., Tanioka A. Functionality in electrospun nanofibrous membranes based on fiber's size, surface area, and molecular orientation. Membranes 2011, 1:249-264.
38. Wang J., Yue Z., Ince J.S., Economy J. Preparation of nanofiltration membranes from polyacrylonitrile ultrafiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 286(1-2):333-341.
39. Tomicki F., Krix D., Nienhaus H., Ulbricht M. Stimuli-responsive track-etched membranes via surface-initiated controlled radical polymerization: Influence of grafting density and pore size. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 377(1-2):124-133.
40. Calvo J.I., Prádanos P., Hernández A., Bowen W.R., Hilal N., Lovitt R.W., Williams P.M. Bulk and surface characterization of composite UF membranes atomic force microscopy, gas adsorption-desorption and liquid displacement techniques. J. Membr. Sci. 1997, 128(1):7-21.
41. Brunauer S., Emmett P.H., Teller E. Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1938, 60(2):309-319.
42. Calvo J.I., Hernandez A., Pradanos P., Martibnez L., Bowen W.R. Pore size distributions in microporous membranes II. Bulk characterization of track-etched filters by air porometry and mercury porosimetry. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1995, 176:467-478.
43. Smolders C.A., Mulder M.H.V., Velden van der P.M. A survey of structure characterization methods for ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 1976, 19(1-3):481.
44. Li N.N., Fane A.G., Ho W.S.W., Matsuura T. Advanced Membrane Technology and Applications 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
45. Arora A., Dien B.S., Belyea R.L., Wang P., Singh V., Tumbleson M.E., Rausch K.D. Thin stillage fractionation using ultrafiltration: resistance in series model. Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 32:225-233.
46. Leberknight J., Wielenga B., Lee-Jewett A., Menkhaus T.J. Recovery of high value from a corn ethanol process by ultrafiltration and an exploration of the associated membrane fouling. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 366:405-412.
47. Bhattacharya P.K., Agarwal S., De S., Rama Gopal U.V.S. Ultrafiltration of sugar cane juice for recovery of sugar: analysis of flux and retention. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2001, 21:247-259.
48. Rai P., Raia C., Majumdara G.C., DasGupta S., De S. Resistance in series model for ultrafiltration of mosambi (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) juice in a stirred continuous mode. J. Membr. Sci 2006, 283:116-122.
49. Wijmans J.G., Nakao S., Smolders C.A. Flux limitation in ultrafiltration: osmotic pressure model and gel layer model. J. Membr. Sci. 1984, 20:115-124.
50. Satyanarayana S.V., Bhattacharya P.K., De S. Flux decline during ultrafiltration of kraft black liquor using different flow modules: a comparative study. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2000, 20:155-167.
51. Weng Y., Wei H., Tsai T., Chen W., Wei T., Hwang W., Wang C., Huang C. Separation of acetic acid from xylose by nanofiltration. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2009, 67:95-102.
52. Lapointe J., Gauthier S.F., Pouliot Y., Bouchard C. Characterization of interactions between B-lactoglobulin tryptic peptides and a nanofiltration membrane: impact on the surface membrane properties as determined by contact angle measurements. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 261:36-48.
53. Van Den Berg G.B., Smolders C.A. Flux decline in ultrafiltration processes. Desalination 1990, 77:101-133.
54. Vrijenhoek E.M., Hong S., Elimelech M. Influence of membrane surface properties on initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 188:115-128.
55. Elimelech M., Zhu X., Childress A.E., Hong S. Role of membrane surface morphology in colloidal fouling of cellulose acetate and composite aromatic polyamide reverse osmosis membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1997, 127:101-109.
56. Khulbe K.C., Matsuura T. Characterization of synthetic membranes by Raman spectroscopy, electron spin resonance and atomic force microscopy: a review. Polymer 2000, 41:1917-1935.
57. Yi Z., Zhu L., Xu Y., Jiang J., Zhu B. Polypropylene glycol: the hydrophilic phenomena in the modification of polyethersulfone membranes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50:11297-11305.
58. Nady N., Franssen M.C.R., Zuilhof H., Eldin M.S.M., Boom R., Schroen K. Modification methods for poly(arylsulfone) membranes: a mini-review focusing on surface modification. Desalination 2011, 275:1-9.
59. Kang G., Cao Y. Development of antifouling reverse osmosis membranes for water treatment: a review. Water Res. 2012, 46:584-600.
60. Chen G., Li S., Zhang X., Zhang S. Novel thin-film composite membranes with improved water flux sulfonated cardo poly(arylene ether sulfone) bearing pendant amino groups. J. Membr. Sci. 2008, 310:102-109.
61. Hurwitz G., Guillen G.R., Hoek E.M.V. Probing polyamide membrane surface charge, zeta potential, wettability, and hydrophilicity with contact angle measurements. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 349:349-357.
62. Saha N.K., Joshi S.V. Performance evaluation of thin film composite polyamide nanofiltration membrane with variation in monomer type. J. Membr. Sci. 2009, 342:60-69.
63. Artug G., Hapke J. Characterization of nanofiltration membranes by their morphology, charge and filtration performance parameters. Desalination 2006, 200:178-180.
64. Saksena S., Zydney A.L. Pore size distribution effects on electrokinetic phenomena in semipermeable membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1995, 105:203-215.
65. Larsson S., Palmqvist E., Hahn-Hagerdal B., Tengborg C., Stenberg K., Zacchi G., et al. The generation of fermentation inhibitors during dilute acid hydrolysis of softwood. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 1999, 24:151-159.
66. Almeida J.R.M., Modig T., Petersson A., Hahn-Hagerdal B., Liden G., Gorwa-Grauslund M.F. Increased tolerance and conversion of inhibitors in lignocellulosic hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2007, 82:340-349.
67. Boyer L.J., Vega J.L., Klasson K.T., Clausenv E.C., Gaddy J.L. The effects of furfural on ethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae in batch culture. Biomass Bioenergy 1992, 3(1):41-48.
68. Palmqvist E., Grage H., Meinander N.Q., Hahn-Hagerdal B. Main and interaction effects of acetic acid, furfural and p-hydroxybenzoic acid on growth and ethanol productivity of yeasts. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1999, 63(1):46-55.
69. Goosen M.F.A., Sablani S.S., Al-Hinai H., Al-Obeidani S., Al-Belushi R., Jackson D. Fouling of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration membranes: a critical review. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2004, 39:2261-2298.
70. Babu B.R., Rastogi N.K., Raghavarao K.S.M.S. Effect of process parameters on transmembrane flux during direct osmosis. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 280:185-194.
71. Petrotos K.B., Quantick P., Petropakis H. A study of the direct osmotic concentration of tomato juice in tubular membrane-module configuration. I. The effect of certain basic process parameters on the process performance. J. Membr. Sci. 1998, 150:99-110.
72. Lee S., Lueptow R.M. Reverse osmosis filtration for space mission wastewater: membrane properties and operating conditions. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 182:77-90.
73. Jamal K., Khan M.A., Kamil M. mathematical modeling of reverse osmosis systems. Desalination 2004, 160:29-42.
74. Nicolas S., Balannec B., Beline F., Bariou B. Ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis of small non-charge molecules: a comparison study of rejection in a stirred and an unstirred batch cell. J. Membr. Sci. 2000, 164:141-155.
75. Gautam A.K., Menkhaus T.J. Surface modified reverse osmosis and nano-filtration membranes for the production of biorenewable fuels and chemicals. MRS Proceed. 2013, 1502. mrsf12-1502-t10-06. 10.1557/opl.2013.347.
76. J. Leberknight, T.J. Menkhaus, Membrane separations for solid-liquid clarification within lignocellulosic biorefining processes, Biotechnol. Prog., Available on-line, 2013, doi: 10.1002/btpr.1778.