Edinburgh Research Archive logo

Edinburgh Research Archive

University of Edinburgh homecrest
View Item 
  •   ERA Home
  • Engineering, School of
  • Membrane Technology Research Group
  • Membrane Technology Research Group publications
  • View Item
  •   ERA Home
  • Engineering, School of
  • Membrane Technology Research Group
  • Membrane Technology Research Group publications
  • View Item
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Cost factors and chemical pretreatment effects in the membrane filtration of waters containing natural organic matter

View/Open
J10 ERA.pdf (475.6Kb)
Date
2001
Author
Schäfer, Andrea
Fane, Anthony G.
Waite, T.D.
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
This paper compares the membrane processes available for water treatment. Membranes have the advantage of currently decreasing capital cost, a relatively small footprint compared to conventional treatment, generally a reduction in chemicals usage and comparably low maintenance requirements. Three membrane processes applicable to water treatment, micro- (MF), ultra- (UF), and nanofiltration (NF), are compared in terms of intrinsic rejection, variation of rejection due to membrane fouling and increase in rejection by ferric chloride pretreatment. Twelve different membranes are compared on the basis of their membrane pore size which was calculated from their molecular weight cut-off. A pore size of <6 nm is required to achieve substantial (>50%) organics removal. For a fouled membrane this pore size is about 11 nm. UV rejection is higher than DOC rejection. Coagulation pretreatment allows a higher rejection of organics by MF and UF and the cut-off criterion due to initial membrane pore size is no longer valid. A water quality parameter (WQP) is introduced which describes the product water quality achieved as a function of colloid, DOC and cation rejection. The relationship between log (pore size) and WQP is linear. Estimation of membrane costs as a function of WQP suggests that open UF is superior to MF (similar cost at higher WQP) and NF is superior to tight UF. Chemical pretreatment could compensate for the difference between MF and UF. However, when considering chemicals and energy costs, it appears that a process operated at a higher energy is cheaper at a guaranteed product quality (less dependent on organic type). This argument is further supported by environmental issues of chemicals usage, as energy may be provided from renewable sources.
URI
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00418-8

http://hdl.handle.net/1842/4322
Collections
  • Engineering publications
  • Membrane Technology Research Group publications

Library & University Collections HomeUniversity of Edinburgh Information Services Home
Privacy & Cookies | Takedown Policy | Accessibility | Contact
Privacy & Cookies
Takedown Policy
Accessibility
Contact
feed RSS Feeds

RSS Feed not available for this page

 

 

All of ERACommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication TypeSponsorSupervisorsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication TypeSponsorSupervisors
LoginRegister

Library & University Collections HomeUniversity of Edinburgh Information Services Home
Privacy & Cookies | Takedown Policy | Accessibility | Contact
Privacy & Cookies
Takedown Policy
Accessibility
Contact
feed RSS Feeds

RSS Feed not available for this page