|
|
|
Effects of a dynamic membrane formed with polyethylene
glycol on the ultrafiltration of natural organic matter |
| Boksoon KWON1,Noeon PARK2,Jaeweon CHO3, |
| 1.Woongjin R&D Center,
San 4-1, Nakseongdae-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-057, Korea; 2.Korea Institute of S&T
Evaluation and Planning, Yangjae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-130, Korea; 3.Department of Environmental
Science and Engineering, GIST, 1 Oryong-dong, Buk-gu, Gwangju 500-712,
Korea; |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The formation of a dynamic membrane (DM) was investigated using polyethylene glycol (PEG) (molecular weight of 35000 g/mol, concentration of 1 g/L). Two natural organic matters (NOM), Dongbok Lake NOM (DLNOM) and Suwannee River NOM (SRNOM) were used in the ultrafiltration experiments along with PEG. To evaluate the effects of the DM with PEG on ultrafiltration, various transport experiments were conducted, and the analyses of the NOM in the membrane feed and permeate were performed using high performance size exclusion chromatography, and the effective pore size distribution (effective PSD) and effective molecular weight cut off (effective MWCO) were determined. The advantages of DM formed with PEG can be summarized as follows: (1) PEG interferes with NOM transmission through the ultrafiltration membrane pores by increasing the retention coefficient of NOM in UF membranes, and (2) low removal of NOM by the DM is affected by external factors, such as pressure increases during UF membrane filtration, which decreases the effective PSD and effective MWCO of UF membranes. However, a disadvantage of the DM with PEG was severe flux decline; thus, one must be mindful of both the positive and negative influences of the DM when optimizing the UF performance of the membrane.
|
| Keywords
dynamic membrane
natural organic matters
ultrafiltration membrane performance
effective PSD
effective molecular weight cutoff
|
|
Issue Date: 05 June 2010
|
|
|
Kuberkar V T, Davis R H. Modelingof fouling reduction by secondary membranes. J Membr Sci, 2000, 168: 243―258
doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(99)00324-5
|
|
van Oers C W, Vorstman M A G, Kerkhof P J A M. Solute rejection in the presenceof a deposited layer during ultrafiltration. J Membr Sci, 1995, 107: 173―192
doi: 10.1016/0376-7388(95)00116-T
|
|
Tsapiuk E A. Ultrafiltration separation of aqueous solutions of poly(ethyleneglycol)s on the dynamic membrane formed by gelatin. J Membr Sci, 1996, 116: 17―29
doi: 10.1016/0376-7388(95)00320-7
|
|
Zhang M, Li C, Benjamin M M, Chang Y. Fouling and natural organic matter removal in adsorbent/membranesystems for drinking water treatment. EnvironSci Technol, 2003, 37: 1663―1669
doi: 10.1021/es0260418
|
|
Chin Y, Aiken G, O’Loughlin E. Molecular weight, polydispersity,and spectroscopic properties of aquatic humic substances. Environ Sci Technol, 1994, 28: 1853―1858
doi: 10.1021/es00060a015
|
|
Her N, Amy G, Park H-R, Song M. Characterizingalgogenic organic matter (AOM) and evaluating associated NF membranefouling. Wat Res, 2004, 38: 1427―1438
doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2003.12.008
|
|
Singh S, Khulbe K C, Matsuura T, Ramamurthy P. Membrane characterization by solute transport and atomicforce microscopy. J Membr Sci, 1998, 142: 117―127
doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(97)00329-3
|
|
Tam C M, Tremblay A Y. Membrane pore characterization-comparison between single and multicomponentsolute probe techniques. J Membr Sci, 1991, 57: 271―287
doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(00)80683-3
|
|
Shim Y, Lee H J, Lee S, Moon S H, Cho J. Effects of natural organicmatter and ionic species on membrane surface charge. Environ Sci Technol, 2000, 28: 3864―871
|
|
Wang Y, Combe C, Clark M M. The effects of pH and calcium on thediffusion coefficient of humic acid. JMembr Sci, 2001, 183: 49―60
doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(00)00555-X
|
|
Thurman E, Malcolm R. Preparativeisolation of aquatic humic substances. Environ Sci Technol, 1991, 15: 463―466
doi: 10.1021/es00086a012
|
|
Lide D R. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 84th ed. NewYork: Taylor & Francis, 2003―2004, 6―181
|
|
Probstein R F. Physicochemical Hydrodynamics.2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1994
doi: 10.1002/0471725137
|
|
Lee S, Park G, Amy G, Hong S-K, Moon S-H, Lee D-H, Cho J. Determinationof membrane pore size distribution using the fractional rejectionof nonionic and charged macromolecules. J Membr Sci, 2002, 201: 191―201
doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00729-3
|
|
Park N, Yoon Y, Moon S-H, Cho J. Evaluationof the performance of tight-UF membranes with respect to NOM removalusing effective MWCO, molecularweight, and apparent diffusivity of NOM. Desalination, 2004, 164: 53―62
doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(04)00155-9
|
|
Jucker G, Clark M M. Adsorptionof aquatic humic substances on hydrophobic ultrafiltration membranes. J Membr Sci, 1994, 97: 37―52
doi: 10.1016/0376-7388(94)00146-P
|
|
Myung S W, Choi I H, Lee S H, Kim I C, Lee K H. Use of fouling resistantnanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes for dyeing wastewatereffluent treatment. Water Sci Technol, 2005, 51(6―7): 159―164
|
|
Vrijenhoek E M, Hong S, Elimelech M. Influence of membrane surface propertieson initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltrationmembranes. J Membr Sci, 2001, 188: 115―128
doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00376-3
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
