Comparison of CNT-PVA membrane and commercial polymeric membranes in treatment of emulsified oily wastewater

doi:10.1007/s11783-019-1103-x

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2019, Vol. 13

Issue (2) : 23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1103-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of CNT-PVA membrane and commercial polymeric membranes in treatment of emulsified oily wastewater

Gang Yi, Xinfei Fan, Xie Quan(

), Shuo Chen, Hongtao Yu

Key Laboratory of Industrial Ecology and Environmental Engineering (Ministry of Education), School of Environmental Science and Technology, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

Download: PDF(3374 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

CNT-PVA membrane was fabricated and compared with polymeric membranes.

The separation performance was evaluated by homemade and cutting fluid emulsions.

The three membranes show similar oil retention rates.

CNT-PVA membranes have higher permeation fluxes compared with polymeric membranes.

CNT-PVA membrane shows higher fouling resistance.

Membrane separation is an attractive technique for removal of emulsified oily wastewater. However, polymeric membranes which dominate the current market usually suffer from severe membrane fouling. Therefore, membranes with high fouling resistance are imperative to treat emulsified oily wastewater. In this study, carbon nanotube-polyvinyl alcohol (CNT-PVA) membrane was fabricated. And its separation performance for emulsified oily wastewater was compared with two commercial polymeric membranes (PVDF membrane and PES membrane) by filtration of two homemade emulsions and one cutting fluid emulsion. The results show that these membranes have similar oil retention efficiencies for the three emulsions. Whereas, the permeation flux of CNT-PVA membrane is 1.60 to 3.09 times of PVDF membrane and 1.41 to 11.4 times of PES membrane, respectively. Moreover, after five consecutive operation circles of filtration process and back flush, CNT-PVA membrane can recover 62.3% to 72.9% of its initial pure water flux. However, the pure water flux recovery rates are only 24.1% to 35.3% for PVDF membrane and 6.0% to 26.3% for PES membrane, respectively. Therefore, CNT-PVA membrane are more resistant to oil fouling compared with the two polymeric membranes, showing superior potential in treatment of emulsified oily wastewater.

Keywords Oily wastewater Microfiltration Carbon nanotube membrane Commercial polymeric membrane

Corresponding Author(s): Xie Quan

Issue Date: 15 March 2019

Cite this article:

Gang Yi,Xinfei Fan,Xie Quan, et al. Comparison of CNT-PVA membrane and commercial polymeric membranes in treatment of emulsified oily wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 23.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-019-1103-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2019/V13/I2/23

Tab.1 The properties of the prepared O/W emulsion

Fig.1 Membrane model (a) and filtration tests system in a dead-end mode (b).

Fig.2 Digital images of CNT-PVA membrane (a), PVDF membrane (b) and PES membrane (c). SEM images of the surface of CNT-PVA membrane (d), PVDF membrane (e) and PES membrane (f).

Fig.3 Pore size distributions (a) and pure water permeation fluxes (b) of CNT-PVA membrane, PVDF membrane and PES membrane.

Fig.4 Pure water contact angles of CNT membrane (a), PVDF membrane (b) and PES membrane (c).

Fig.5 Comparison of oil concentration in filtrate and oil retention rate of CNT-PVA membrane, PVDF membrane and PES membrane.

Fig.6 Permeation flux as a function of running time of CNT-PVA membrane, PVDF membrane and PES membrane for filtration of hexadecane-in-water emulsion (a), soybean oil-in-water emulsion (b) and Mobil emulsion (c).

Fig.7 SEM images of the surfaces of CNT-PVA membrane (a), PVDF membrane (b) and PES membrane (c) before (0) and after emulsion filtration: Hexadecane-in-water emulsion (1), soybean oil-in-water emulsion (2) and Mobil emulsion (3).

Fig.8 Underwater oil contact angle of CNT-PVA membrane (a), PVDF membrane (b) and PES membrane (c).

Fig.9 Change of permeation flux in the filtration of hexadecane-in-water emulsion (a), soybean oil-in-water emulsion (b) and Mobil emulsion (c). (In every circle, run for 30 min at 0.01 MPa and then back flush for 2 min under 0.02 MPa).

Fig.10 Normalized pure water flux after back flush in the filtration of hexadecane-in-water emulsion (a), soybean oil-in-water emulsion (b) and Mobil emulsion (c).

1	BChakrabarty, A K Ghoshal, M K Purkait (2008). Ultrafiltration of stable oil-in-water emulsion by polysulfone membrane. Journal of Membrane Science, 325(1): 427–437 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.08.007
2	BChakrabarty, A K Ghoshal, M K Purkait (2010). Cross-flow ultrafiltration of stable oil-in-water emulsion using polysulfone membranes. Chemical Engineering Journal, 165(2): 447–456 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.09.031
3	WChen, J Peng, YSu, LZheng, LWang, Z Jiang (2009). Separation of oil/water emulsion using Pluronic F127 modified polyethersulfone ultrafiltration membranes. Separation and Purification Technology, 66(3): 591–597 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.01.009
4	J,Coca G GutiÉRrez, JBenito (2011). Treatment Of Oily Wastewater. In: Water Purification and Management. Dordrecht: Springer
5	JCui, X Zhang, HLiu, SLiu, K L Yeung (2008). Preparation and application of zeolite/ceramic microfiltration membranes for treatment of oil contaminated water. Journal of Membrane Science, 325(1): 420–426 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.08.015
6	LDumee, L Velleman, KSears, MHill, J Schutz, NFinn, MDuke, S Gray (2010). Control of porosity and pore size of metal reinforced carbon nanotube membranes. Membranes (Basel), 1(1): 25–36 https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes1010025 pmid: 24957493
7	L FDumée, KSears, JSchütz, NFinn, C Huynh, SHawkins, MDuke, S Gray (2010). Characterization and evaluation of carbon nanotube Bucky-Paper membranes for direct contact membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 351(1–2): 36–43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.01.025
8	XFan, H Zhao, YLiu, XQuan, H Yu, SChen (2015). Enhanced permeability, selectivity, and antifouling ability of CNTs/Al2O3 membrane under electrochemical assistance. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(4): 2293–2300 https://doi.org/10.1021/es5039479 pmid: 25592275
9	MHesampour, A Krzyzaniak, MNyström (2008). Treatment of waste water from metal working by ultrafiltration, considering the effects of operating conditions. Desalination, 222(1–3): 212–221 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.155
10	NHilal, G Busca, NHankins, A WMohammad (2004). The use of ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membranes in the treatment of metal-working fluids. Desalination, 167: 227–238 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.132
11	JKrižan Milić, AMurić, IPetrinić, MSimonič (2013). Recent developments in membrane treatment of spent cutting-oils: A review. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 52(23): 7603–7616 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie4003552
12	YLi, G He, SWang, SYu, F Pan, HWu, ZJiang (2013). Recent advances in the fabrication of advanced composite membranes. Journal of Materials Chemistry. A, Materials for Energy and Sustainability, 1(35): 10058 https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ta01652h
13	DLiu, D Li, DDu, XZhao, A Qin, XLi, CHe (2015). Antifouling PVDF membrane with hydrophilic surface of terry pile-like structure. Journal of Membrane Science, 493: 243–251 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.005
14	DLu, T Zhang, LGutierrez, JMa, J P Croué (2016). Influence of surface properties of filtration-layer metal oxide on ceramic membrane fouling during ultrafiltration of oil/water emulsion. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(9): 4668–4674 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04151 pmid: 27035544
15	TMiyoshi, T P Nguyen, T Tsumuraya, HTanaka, TMorita, HItokawa, THashimoto (2018). Energy reduction of a submerged membrane bioreactor using a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) hollow-fiber membrane. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 12(3): 1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-018-1018-y
16	RMuppalla, S K Jewrajka, A V R Reddy (2015). Fouling resistant nanofiltration membranes for the separation of oil–water emulsion and micropollutants from water. Separation and Purification Technology, 143: 125–134 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.01.031
17	MPadaki, R Surya Murali, M SAbdullah, NMisdan, AMoslehyani, M AKassim, NHilal, A FIsmail (2015). Membrane technology enhancement in oil–water separation: A review. Desalination, 357: 197–207 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.11.023
18	GRao, K S Brastad, Q Zhang, RRobinson, ZHe, Y Li (2016). Enhanced disinfection of Escherichia coli and bacteriophage MS2 in water using a copper and silver loaded titanium dioxide nanowire membrane. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 10(4): 11 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0854-x
19	M H ORashid, S Q TPham, L JSweetman, L JAlcock, AWise, L D Nghiem, G Triani, MPanhuis, S FRalph (2014). Synthesis, properties, water and solute permeability of MWNT buckypapers. Journal of Membrane Science, 456: 175–184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.01.026
20	HRho, K Chon, JCho (2018). Surface charge characterization of nanofiltration membranes by potentiometric titrations and electrophoresis: Functionality vs. zeta potential. Desalination, 427: 19–26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.11.003
21	KSears, L Dumée, JSchütz, MShe, C Huynh, SHawkins, MDuke, S Gray (2010). Recent developments in carbon nanotube membranes for water purification and gas separation. Materials (Basel), 3(1): 127–149 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma3010127
22	BVan der Bruggen, MMänttäri, MNyström (2008). Drawbacks of applying nanofiltration and how to avoid them: A review. Separation and Purification Technology, 63(2): 251–263 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2008.05.010
23	GWei, S Chen, XFan, XQuan, H Yu (2015). Carbon nanotube hollow fiber membranes: High-throughput fabrication, structural control and electrochemically improved selectivity. Journal of Membrane Science, 493: 97–105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.05.073
24	GWei, H Yu, XQuan, SChen, H Zhao, XFan (2014). Constructing all carbon nanotube hollow fiber membranes with improved performance in separation and antifouling for water treatment. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(14): 8062–8068 https://doi.org/10.1021/es500506w pmid: 24938619
25	GYi, S Chen, XQuan, GWei, X Fan, HYu (2018). Enhanced separation performance of carbon nanotube–polyvinyl alcohol composite membranes for emulsified oily wastewater treatment under electrical assistance. Separation and Purification Technology, 197: 107–115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.12.058
26	X SYi, S L Yu, W X Shi, N Sun, L MJin, SWang, B Zhang, CMa, L PSun (2011). The influence of important factors on ultrafiltration of oil/water emulsion using PVDF membrane modified by nano-sized TiO2/Al2O3. Desalination, 281: 179–184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.07.056
27	GZhang, J Jiang, QZhang, FGao, X Zhan, FChen (2016). Ultralow oil-fouling heterogeneous poly (ether sulfone) ultrafiltration membrane via blending with novel amphiphilic fluorinated gradient copolymers. Langmuir, 32(5): 1380–1388 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b04044 pmid: 26780307
28	YZhu, D Wang, LJiang, JJin (2014). Recent progress in developing advanced membranes for emulsified oil/water separation. NPG Asia Materials, 6(5): e101 https://doi.org/10.1038/am.2014.23

[1]

FSE-19011-OF-YG_suppl_1

Download

[1]	Hongtao ZHU, Wenna LI. Bisphenol A removal from synthetic municipal wastewater by a bioreactor coupled with either a forward osmotic membrane or a microfiltration membrane unit[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2013, 7(2): 294-300.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed