The performance of forward osmosis process in treating the surfactant wastewater: The rejection of surfactant, water flux and physical cleaning effectiveness

Chemical Engineering Journal

Volumn 281, Issue , 2015, Pages 688-695

  Zhao, Pin ^a   Gao, Baoyu ^a   Yue, Qinyan ^a   Shon, Ho Kyong ^b  

^a SHANDONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Forward osmosis; Membrane fouling; Physical cleaning effectiveness; Surfactant rejection; Water flux

Indexed keywords

CLEANING; FLOW VELOCITY; MEMBRANE FOULING; MEMBRANES; OSMOSIS; SODIUM; SURFACE ACTIVE AGENTS; WASTEWATER TREATMENT;

FEED SOLUTION; FORWARD OSMOSIS; MEMBRANE PROCESS; PHYSICAL CLEANINGS; SIZE EXCLUSION; SODIUM DODECYLBENZENE SULFONATE; SOLUTE REJECTION; WATER FLUX;

IONIC STRENGTH;

EID: 84937218372     PISSN: 13858947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. González S., Petrovic M., Barceló D. Removal of a broad range of surfactants from municipal wastewater - comparison between membrane bioreactor and conventional activated sludge treatment. Chemosphere 2007, 67:335-343.
2. Aloui F., Kchaou S., Sayadi S. Physicochemical treatments of anionic surfactants wastewater: effect on aerobic biodegradability. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 164:353-359.
3. Sinclair E., Kannan K. Mass loading and fate of perfluoroalkyl surfactants in wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40:1408-1414.
4. Byhlin H., Jönsson A.S. Influence of adsorption and concentration polarisation on membrane performance during ultrafiltration of a non-ionic surfactant. Desalination 2003, 151:21-31.
5. Baudequin C., Mai Z., Rakib M., Deguerry I., Severac R., Pabon M., Couallier E. Removal of fluorinated surfactants by reverse osmosis - role of surfactants in membrane fouling. J. Membr. Sci. 2014, 458:111-119.
6. Kowalska I., Kabsch-Korbutowicz M., Majewska-Nowak K., Winnicki T. Separation of anionic surfactants on ultrafiltration membranes. Desalination 2004, 162:33-40.
7. Shannon M.A., Bohn P.W., Elimelech M., Georgiadis J.G., Marinas B.J., Mayes A.M. Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades. Nature 2008, 452:301-310.
8. Chung T.-S., Zhang S., Wang K.Y., Su J., Ling M.M. Forward osmosis processes: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Desalination 2012, 287:78-81.
9. Chung T.-S., Li X., Ong R.C., Ge Q., Wang H., Han G. Emerging forward osmosis (FO) technologies and challenges ahead for clean water and clean energy applications. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2012, 1:246-257.
10. Su J., Chung T.-S., Helmer B.J., de Wit J.S. Enhanced double-skinned FO membranes with inner dense layer for wastewater treatment and macromolecule recycle using sucrose as draw solute. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 396:92-100.
11. Li D., Zhang X., Simon G.P., Wang H. Forward osmosis desalination using polymer hydrogels as a draw agent: influence of draw agent, feed solution and membrane on process performance. Water Res. 2013, 47:209-215.
12. Linares R.Valladares, Li Z., Sarp S., Bucs S.S., Amy G., Vrouwenvelder J.S. Forward osmosis niches in seawater desalination and wastewater reuse. Water Res. 2014, 66:122-139.
13. Shaffer D.L., Werber J.R., Jaramillo H., Lin S., Elimelech M. Forward osmosis: where are we now?. Desalination 2015, 356:271-284.
14. Chun Y., Zaviska F., Cornelissen E., Zou L. A case study of fouling development and flux reversibility of treating actual lake water by forward osmosis process. Desalination 2015, 357:55-64.
15. Wilson A.D., Stewart F.F. Deriving osmotic pressures of draw solutes used in osmotically driven membrane processes. J. Membr. Sci. 2013, 431:205-211.
16. Holloway R.W., Childress A.E., Dennett K.E., Cath T.Y. Forward osmosis for concentration of anaerobic digester centrate. Water Res. 2007, 41:4005-4014.
17. Zhang S., Wang P., Fu X., Chung T.S. Sustainable water recovery from oily wastewater via forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD). Water Res. 2014, 52:112-121.
18. Jin X., Shan J., Wang C., Wei J., Tang C.Y. Rejection of pharmaceuticals by forward osmosis membranes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 227:55-61.
19. Xie M., Price W.E., Nghiem L.D., Elimelech M. Effects of feed and draw solution temperature and transmembrane temperature difference on the rejection of trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis. J. Membr. Sci. 2013, 438:57-64.
20. Xie M., Nghiem L.D., Price W.E., Elimelech M. Impact of humic acid fouling on membrane performance and transport of pharmaceutically active compounds in forward osmosis. Water Res. 2013, 47:4567-4575.
21. Linares R.V., Yangali-Quintanilla V., Li Z., Amy G. Rejection of micropollutants by clean and fouled forward osmosis membrane. Water Res. 2011, 45:6737-6744.
22. Tang C.Y., She Q., Lay W.C.L., Wang R., Fane A.G. Coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes during humic acid filtration. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 354:123-133.
23. Yip N.Y., Tiraferri A., Phillip W.A., Schiffman J.D., Elimelech M. High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44:3812-3818.
24. Zhao P., Yue Q., Gao B., Kong J., Rong H., Liu P., Shon H.K., Li Q. Influence of different ion types and membrane orientations on the forward osmosis performance. Desalination 2014, 344:123-128.
25. Zhao P., Gao B., Xu S., Kong J., Ma D., Shon H.K., Yue Q., Liu P. Polyelectrolyte-promoted forward osmosis process for dye wastewater treatment - exploring the feasibility of using polyacrylamide as draw solute. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 264:32-38.
26. Jin X., She Q., Ang X., Tang C.Y. Removal of boron and arsenic by forward osmosis membrane: influence of membrane orientation and organic fouling. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 389:182-187.
27. Cartinella J.L., Cath T.Y., Flynn M.T., Miller G.C., Hunter K.W., Childress A.E. Removal of natural steroid hormones from wastewater using membrane contactor processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40:7381-7386.
28. Bellona C., Drewes J.E., Xu P., Amy G. Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment-a literature review. Water Res. 2004, 38:2795-2809.
29. Boussahel R., Montiel A., Baudu M. Effects of organic and inorganic matter on pesticide rejection by nanofiltration. Desalination 2002, 145:109-114.
30. Nghiem L.D., Hawkes S. Effects of membrane fouling on the nanofiltration of pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs): mechanisms and role of membrane pore size. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2007, 57:176-184.
31. Phuntsho S., Vigneswaran S., Kandasamy J., Hong S., Lee S., Shon H.K. Influence of temperature and temperature difference in the performance of forward osmosis desalination process. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 415-416:734-744.
32. Zeng T., Wilson C.J., Mitch W.A. Effect of chemical oxidation on the sorption tendency of dissolved organic matter to a model hydrophobic surface. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48:5118-5126.
33. Chang E.-E., Chang Y.-C., Liang C.-H., Huang C.-P., Chiang P.-C. Identifying the rejection mechanism for nanofiltration membranes fouled by humic acid and calcium ions exemplified by acetaminophen, sulfamethoxazole, and triclosan. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 221:19-27.