Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-0179

ISSN 2095-0187(Online)

CN 11-5981/TQ

Postal Subscription Code 80-969

2018 Impact Factor: 2.809

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (4) : 490-498    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-016-1600-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE
On the fouling mechanism of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane in the treatment of coal gasification wastewater
Xue Zou1,2,Jin Li1()
1. School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China
2. College of Architectural Engineering, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, China
 Download: PDF(329 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Membrane fouling has been investigated by using a polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane with the molecular weight cutoff of 20 kDa to treat crushed coal pressurized gasification wastewater. Under the conditions of different feed pressures, the permeate flux declines and rejection coefficients of pollutants referring to three parameters (total organic carbon (TOC), chroma and turbidity) were studied. The membrane fouling mechanism was simulated with three classical membrane fouling models. The membrane image and pollutants were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and gas chromatography-mass spectrography (GC-MS). The results indicate that the permeate flux decreases with volume reduction factor before reaching a constant value. The rejection coefficients were also measured: fTOC = 70.5%, fC = 84.9% and fT = 91%. Further analysis shows that the higher the feed pressure is, the sooner the permeate flux reaches constant value and the more sharply the permeate flux declines. Constant flux indicates a nonlinear growth with feed pressure (PF): when PF equals 1.2 bar, the mark for the critical flux, slight membrane fouling occurs; when PF exceeds 1.2 bar, cake layer pollution aggravates. Also the rejection coefficients of global pollutant increases slightly with PF, suggesting the possibility of cake compression when PF exceeds 1.2 bar. Through regression analysis, the fouling of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane could be fitted very well by cake filtration model. The membrane pollutants were identified as phthalate esters and long-chain alkenes by GC-MS, and a certain amount of inorganic pollutants by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy.
Keywords membrane fouling      ultrafiltration membrane      coal gasification wastewater      rejection coefficient     
Corresponding Author(s): Jin Li   
Online First Date: 21 November 2016    Issue Date: 29 November 2016
 Cite this article:   
Xue Zou,Jin Li. On the fouling mechanism of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane in the treatment of coal gasification wastewater[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 490-498.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/10.1007/s11705-016-1600-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/Y2016/V10/I4/490
Index COD /(mg?L?1) Turbidity /NTU Conductivity /(ms?cm?1) pH NH3-N /(mg?L?1) Chroma
SBR effluent 717.37 110 1560 8.04 12.38 80
UF feed 94 15 1628 8.47 11.38 35
Tab.1  Water quality of the effluent from SBR and the feed into UF membrane
Fig.1  Schematic diagram of UF system
Index Value
Pure water permeate flux /(L?m?2h?1) 400–600
Temperature of feed /°C 5–50
pH 1–13
Maximum feed turbidity /NTU 200
Maximum pressure /bar 2.0
Maximum trans-membrane pressure /bar 1.0
Backwashing pressure /bar 1–1.5
Tab.2  Parameters of UF device operating
No. QF /(L?h?1) PF /bar
1 2 0.6
2 2 0.8
3 2 1.0
4 2 1.2
5 2 1.4
Tab.3  The operating conditions of UF process
Membrane fouling model Formula Control factors
Transient blocking model
JV=J01+J0kt
or
1JV=1J0+kt
 Membrane
Cake filtration model
JV2=J021+J02kt
or
1JV2=1J02+kt
 Pollution layer
Complete pore blocking model
JV=J0exp?（−kt)
or
ln?JV=ln?J0−kt
 Membrane pore
Tab.4  Fouling models reported in the literature
Fig.2  Variation of permeate flux with VRF
Fig.3  Effect of VRF on rejection coefficient f
Water Operating conditions QF /(L?h?1) PF /bar Jv(note) /(L?m?2·h?1) fTOC /% fC /% fT /%
Coal gasification wastewater 1 2 0.6 51.5 70.1 85.1 91.3
2 2 0.8 64.4 73.5 86.4 91.9
3 2 1.0 67.5 74.4 88 92.4
4 2 1.2 68.4 75.1 90 93.5
5 2 1.4 68.7 75.5 91.3 93.5
Pure water 1 2 0.6 69.3 ? ? ?
2 2 0.8 92.6 ? ? ?
3 2 1.0 114.6 ? ? ?
4 2 1.2 137.8 ? ? ?
5 2 1.4 162.1 ? ? ?
Tab.5  UF membrane filtration experiments by pure water and coal gasification wastewater under five operating conditionsa)
Fig.4  Effect of PF on Jv for UF membrane filtration
Fig.5  Variation of permeate fluxes with processing time
Operating
modes		 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE
1 0.95 2.01 0.96 1.69 0.93 2.37
2 0.95 2.54 0.97 2.01 0.92 3.05
3 0.97 2.49 0.98 1.76 0.95 3.28
4 0.92 4.41 0.95 3.43 0.88 5.38
5 0.93 4.16 0.96 3.22 0.89 5.05
Tab.6  The RMSE and R2 of fouling models fitting
Fig.6  Linear relationship of 3 models under 5 operating conditions
Fig.7  The images of PS hollow fiber membranes recorded by SEM: (a) clean membrane, and (b) fouled membrane: dynamic voltage,10.0 kV; amplified factor, × 400; and focus distance, 100 µm
No. Remaining time /s Name Molecular formula Area Structure Fitting level
1 29.647 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,
bis(2-methylpropyl) ester		 C16H22O4 29926496

91
2 30.450 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl octyl ester C20H30O4 49074335

90
3 31.248 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl 2-methylpropyl ester C16H22O4 42158678

95
4 43.053 2,6,10,14,18,22-Tetracosahexaene, 2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyl-, (all-E)- C30H50 9783950

60
Tab.7  The results of GC-MS analysis
element Peak bound energy /eV At /%
C1s 283.74 44.59
O1s 530.14 37.34
Al2p 74.3 9.51
N1s 405.71 1.88
S2p 168.3 2.19
Si2p 101.61 6.49
Tab.8  Atomic percentage in the membrane foulants
1 Li H Q, Han H J, Du M A, Wang W. Removal of phenols, thiocyanate and ammonium from coal gasification wastewater using moving bed biofilm reactor. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(7): 4667–4673
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.029
2 Li H Q, Han H J, Du M A, Wang W. Inhibition and recovery of nitrification in treating real coal gasification wastewater with moving bed biofilm reactor. Journal of Environmental Sciences (China), 2011, 23(4): 568–574
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60449-4
3 Liu D M, Liu Z H L, Li Y Y. Distribution and occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from coal combustion and coking and its impact on the environment. Energy Procedia, 2011, 5(5): 734–741
4 Burmistrz P, Burmistrz M. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in coke plant wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 2013, 68(11): 2414–2420
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.506
5 Zhang W, Wei C, Yan B, Feng C, Zhao G, Lin C, Yuan M, Wu C, Ren Y, Hu Y. Identification and removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in wastewater treatment processes from coke production plants. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2013, 20(9): 6418–6432
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1697-7
6 Luthy R G, Stamoudis V C, Campbell J R, Harrison W. Removal of organic contaminants from coal conversion process condensates. Water Pollution Control Federation, 1983, 55(2): 196–207
7 Qian Y, Wen Y, Zhang H. Efficiency of pre-treatment methods in the activated sludge removal of refractory compounds in coke-plant wastewater. Water Research, 1994, 28(3): 701–710
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(94)90150-3
8 Zhang M, Tay J H, Qian Y, Gu X S. Coke plant wastewater treatment by fixed biofilm system for COD and NH3-N removal. Water Research, 1998, 32(2): 519–527
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00231-5
9 Yu H Q, Gu G W, Song L P. The effect of fill mode on the performance of sequencing-batch reactors treating various wastewaters. Bioresource Technology, 1996, 58(1): 46–55
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(96)00101-0
10 Yu H Q, Yang C Y, Zhang H. The study on PAC leading in UF removing NOM of water. Membrane Science and Technology, 2009, 29(6): 85–89 (in Chinese)
11 Lee M W, Park J M. Biological nitrogen removal from coke plant wastewater with external carbon addition. Water Environment Research, 1998, 70(5): 1090–1095
https://doi.org/10.2175/106143098X123444
12 Li Y M, Gua G W, Zhao J F, Yu H Q, Qiu Y L, Peng Y Z. Treatment of coke-plant wastewater by biofilm systems for removal of organic compounds and nitrogen. Chemosphere, 2003, 52(6): 997–1005
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00287-X
13 Marañón E, Vázquez I, Rodríguez J, Castrillón L, Fernández Y, López H. Treatment of coke wastewater in a sequential batch reactor (SBR) at pilot plant scale. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(10): 4192–4198
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.081
14 Giménez J B, Robles A, Carretero L, Duran F, Ruano M V, Gatti M N, Ribes J, Ferrer J, Seco A. Experimental study of the anaerobic urban wastewater treatment in a submerged hollow-fibre membrane bioreactor at pilot scale. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(19): 8799–8806
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.014
15 Ahmad A L, Sarif M, Ismail S. Development of an integrally skinned ultrafiltration membrane for wastewater treatment: Effect of different formulations of PSf/NMP/PVP on flux and rejection. Desalination, 2005, 179(1-3): 257–263
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.072
16 Wintgens T, Melin T, Schäfer A I, Muston M, Bixio D, Thoeye C. The role of membrane processes in municipal wastewater reclamation and reuse. Desalination, 2005, 178(1-3): 1–11
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.12.014
17 Ajmani G S, Goodwin D, Marsh K, Marsh K, Fairbrother D H, Schwab K J, Jacangelo J G, Huang H O. Modification of low pressure membranes with carbon nanotube layers for fouling control. Water Research, 2012, 46(17): 5645–5654
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.059
18 Tian J Y, Ernst M, Cui F Y, Jekel M. Correlations of relevant membrane foulants with UF membrane fouling in different waters. Water Research, 2013, 47(3): 1218–1228
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.043
19 Mallevialle J, Odendaal P E, Wiesner M R. Water Treatment Membrane Processes.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, 31–32
20 Bruggen B V, Lejon L, Vandecasteele C. Reuse, treatment and discharge of the concentrate pressure-driven membrane processes. Environmental Science & Technology, 2003, 37(17): 3733–3738
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0201754
21 Magara Y, Kunikane S, Itoh M. Advanced membrane technology for application to water treatment. Water Science and Technology, 1998, 37(10): 91–99
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(98)00307-2
22 Wen X, Zhou Z, Wei G, Zhang N. Experimental study on advanced treating process of coking wastewater by UF and RO. Technology of Water Treatment, 2010, 36(3): 93–96
23 Ma M, Jing D. Research on immersed UF-RO combined technological processes of recycling coal-gasification wastewater. . Journal of Tianjin Institute of Urban Construction, 2009, 15(4): 280–284
24 Karakulski K, Morawski W A, Grzechulska J. Purification of bilge water by hybrid ultrafiltration and photocatalytic processes. Separation and Purification Technology, 1998, 14(1-3): 163–173
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5866(98)00071-9
25 Luo M, Wang Z S. Studies on the dentification and mechanism of the nanofiltration membrane fouling. Technology of Water Treatment, 1998, 24(6): 318–323 (in Chinese)
26 Yu H Q, Yang C Y, Zhang H. The study on PAC leading in UF removing NOM of water. Membrane Science and Technology, 2009, 29(6): 85–89 (in Chinese)
27 Yiantsios S G, Karabelas A J. An experimental study of humid acid and powdered activated carbon deposition on UF membranes and their removal by back washing. Desalination, 2001, 140(2): 195–209
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00368-X
28 MEP. Determination Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater.Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2003: 1–213 (in Chinese)
29 Hermia J. Constant pressure blocking filtration laws—application to power-law non-newtonian fluids. Chemical Engineering Research & Design, 1982, 60: 183–187
30 Gonsalves V E. Recueil Des Travaux Chimiques Des Pays-Bas. Journal of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society, 1950, 69: 873
31 Field R W, Wu D, Howell J A, Gupta B B. Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling. Journal of Membrane Science, 1995, 100(3): 259–272
https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-7388(94)00265-Z
32 Defrance L, Jaffrin M Y. Comparison between filtrations at fixed transmembrane pressure and fixed permeate flux: Application to a membrane bioreactor used for wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, 1999, 152(2): 203–210
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00220-8
33 Choo K H, Lee C H. Membrane fouling mechanisms in the membrane-coupled anaerobic bioreactor. Water Research, 1996, 30(8): 1771–1780
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(96)00053-X
34 Benítez F J, Acero J L, Leal A I. Treatment of wastewaters from the cork process industry by using ultrafiltration membranes. Desalination, 2008, 229(1-3): 156–169
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.08.016
35 Pillay V L, Buckley C A. Cake formation in cross-flow microfiltration systems. Water Science and Technology, 1992, 25(10): 149–162
36 Benítez F J, Acero J L, Leal A I. Application of microfiltration and ultrafiltration processes to cork processing wastewaters and assessment of the membrane fouling. Separation and Purification Technology, 2006, 50(3): 354–364
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2005.12.010
37 Xu H, Chen W, Sun M. Effect of two pretreatment techniques on preventing membrane fouling. Journal of Civil. Architectural & Environmental Engineering, 2012, 34(1): 108–112 (i<?Pub Caret?>n Chinese)
38 Lai P, Zhao H, Ye Z, Ni J. Assessing the effectiveness of treating coking effluents using anaerobic and aerobic biofilms. Process Biochemistry, 2008, 43(3): 229–237
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2007.11.012
39 Wang W, Han H J, Yuan M, Li H, Fang F, Wang K. Treatment of coal gasification of wastewater by a two continuous UASB system with step-feed for COD and phenols removal. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(9): 5454–5460
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.019
[1] WU Chunrui, ZHANG Shouhai, YANG Fajie, YAN Chun, JIAN Xigao. Preparation and performance of novel thermal stable composite nanofiltration membrane [J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2008, 2(4): 402-406.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed