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

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (2) : 19    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1105-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Influence of pore size and membrane surface properties on arsenic removal by nanofiltration membranes
Nathalie Tanne, Rui Xu, Mingyue Zhou, Pan Zhang, Xiaomao Wang(), Xianghua Wen()
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
 Download: PDF(495 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Four NF membranes were compared regarding arsenate rejection and their properties.

Rejection of arsenate had no relationship with membrane pore size.

A more negative surface charge was favorable for arsenate rejection at neutral pH.

A severe membrane fouling could lead to a great reduction of arsenic rejection.

Nanofiltration (NF) has a great potential in removing arsenate from contaminated water. The performance including arsenate rejection, water permeability and resistance to fouling could however differ substantially among NF membranes. This study was conducted to investigate the influence of membrane pore size and surface properties on these aspects of membrane performance. Four fully-aromatic NF membranes with different physicochemical properties were adopted for this study. The results showed that surface charge, hydrophobicity, roughness and pore size could affect water permeability and/or arsenate rejection considerably. A more negative surface charge was desirable to enhance arsenate rejection rates. NF90 and a non-commercialized membrane (M#1) demonstrated the best performance in terms of arsenate rejection and water permeability. The M#1 membrane showed less membrane fouling than NF90 when used for filtration of real arsenic-containing groundwater. This was mainly due to its distinct chemical composition and surface properties. A severe membrane fouling could lead to a substantial reduction of arsenic rejection. The M#1 membrane showed the best performance, which indicated that membrane modification could indeed enhance the overall membrane performance for water treatment.
Keywords Arsenate      Nanofiltration      Drinking water      Membrane property      Membrane fouling     
Corresponding Author(s): Xiaomao Wang,Xianghua Wen   
Issue Date: 22 February 2019
 Cite this article:   
Nathalie Tanne,Rui Xu,Mingyue Zhou, et al. Influence of pore size and membrane surface properties on arsenic removal by nanofiltration membranes[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 19.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-019-1105-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2019/V13/I2/19
Membrane Molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) Rejection of NaCl Rejection of As(V) Ref.
Dow/FilmTec NF90 100–200 – 98% Jadhav et al. (2016)
Dow/FilmTec NF270 150–300 – 94% Jadhav et al. (2016)
FilmTec NF45 – – 60%–90% Vrijenhoek and Waypa (2000)
FilmTec NF70 – – 97% Waypa et al. (1997)
Permionics NF-300 – – 99% (P = 0.4–0.5 Mpa) Harisha et al. (2010)
Osmonic 192-NF 300 180 – 93%–99% (pH= 8.1–8.2) Saitúa et al. (2005)
MicrodynNadir GmbH N30F-2440 – 25%–35% >78% (pH= 8) Figoli et al. (2010)
Dow/FilmTec NF200 – – >98% (pH= 7.3±0.1) Uddin et al. (2010)
Fluid Systems TFC-50 membrane 415 – 99.8% (P = 1 Mpa) He et al. (2018)
Fluid Systems TFC-S – – 64.2%±4.7% (P = 1 Mpa) Richards et al. (2011)
TFN-30–0.15 wt% 401 – 98.6%±1.2% (P = 1 Mpa) He et al. (2017)
NF90–4040 – – 99.1% (pH= 9) Mojarrad et al. (2017)
Tab.1  A brief summary of previous studies on As(V) rejection by using NF membranes
Water quality parameter Value
TOC (mg/L) 1.7
pH 7.30
Ca2+ (mg/L) 68.2
Mg2+ (mg/L) 29.6
Na+ (mg/L) 79.8
K+ (mg/L) 0.6
Cl- (mg/L) 54.8
SO42- (mg/L) 62.5
As (µg/L) 37
Tab.2  Water quality parameters of the ground water used for the experiments
Fig.1  Surface zeta potential as a function of pH for the NF90, M#1, ESNA1 and ESNA1-LF2-LD membranes tested with an electrolyte solution of 1 mmol/L KCl.
Membrane Pore size (nm) Effective membrane thickness
(mm)		 Contact angle
(°)		 Surface roughness (nm) Zeta potential (mV)
pH 8.5
Sa Sq Sy
NF90 0.463 1.93 53.0 45.9 61.2 514.6 -57.8
M#1 0.430 1.74 44.8 50.9 67.7 623.2 -54.7
ESNA1 0.439 1.88 65.3 56.2 73.5 588.0 -51.3
ESNA1-LF2-LD 0.462 1.76 85.0 21.7 27.8 285.8 -55.8
Tab.3  Surface properties of the four membranes used in this study
Fig.2  The measured water flux as a function of pressure.
Fig.3  Effect of operating pressure on arsenate rejection with a feed concentration of 70 µg/L (pH ~8.5).
Fig.4  Development of membrane fouling and the influence on arsenate rejection by the NF90 and M#1 membranes used for filtration of the real contaminated groundwater.
1 F FChang, W J Liu, X M Wang (2014). Comparison of polyamide nanofiltration and low-pressure reverse osmosis membranes on As(III) rejection under various operational conditions. Desalination, 334(1): 10–16
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.11.002
2 X QCheng, S G Ding, J Guo, CZhang, Z HGuo, LShao (2017). In-situ interfacial formation of TiO2/polypyrrole selective layer for improving the separation efficiency towards molecular separation. Journal of Membrane Science, 536: 19–27
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.04.057
3 X QCheng, Z X Wang, X Jiang, T XLi, C HLau, Z HGuo, JMa, L Shao (2018). Towards sustainable ultrafast molecular-separation membranes: From conventional polymers to emerging materials. Progress in Materials Science, 92: 258–283
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.006
4 JFang, B Deng (2014). Rejection and modeling of arsenate by nanofiltration: Contributions of convection, diffusion and electromigration to arsenic transport. Journal of Membrane Science, 453: 42–51
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.10.056
5 AFigoli, A Cassano, ACriscuoli, M SMozumder, M TUddin, M AIslam, EDrioli (2010). Influence of operating parameters on the arsenic removal by nanofiltration. Water Research, 44(1): 97–104
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.09.007 pmid: 19781734
6 R SHarisha, K M Hosamani, R S Keri, S K Nataraj, T M Aminabhavi (2010). Arsenic removal from drinking water using thin film composite nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 252(1–3): 75–80
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.10.022
7 YHe, J Liu, GHan, T SChung (2018). Novel thin-film composite nanofiltration membranes consisting of a zwitterionic co-polymer for selenium and arsenic removal. Journal of Membrane Science, 555: 299–306
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.03.055
8 Y RHe, Y P Tang, D Ma, T SChung (2017). UiO-66 incorporated thin-film nanocomposite membranes for efficient selenium and arsenic removal. Journal of Membrane Science, 541: 262–270
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.06.061
9 MHirose, H Ito, YKamiyama (1996). Effect of skin layer surface structures on the flux behaviour of RO membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 121(2): 209–215
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00181-0
10 E MHoek, M Elimelech (2003). Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: a new fouling mechanism for salt-rejecting membranes. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(24): 5581–5588
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0262636 pmid: 14717167
11 S VJadhav, K V Marathe, V K Rathod (2016). A pilot scale concurrent removal of fluoride, arsenic, sulfate and nitrate by using nanofiltration: Competing ion interaction and modelling approach. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 13: 153–167
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2016.04.008
12 MJiang, K Ye, JDeng, JLin, W Ye, SZhao, BVan der Bruggen (2018). Conventional ultrafiltration as effective strategy for dye/salt fractionation in textile wastewater treatment. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(18): 10698–10708
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02984 pmid: 30118599
13 W J (Lau 2016 ).Nanofiltration Membranes: Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications. Abingdon: CRC Press Taylor & Francis
14 W JLau, A F Ismail, P S Goh, N Hilal, B SOoi (2015). Characterization methods of thin film composite nanofiltration membranes. Separation and Purification Methods, 44(2): 135–156
https://doi.org/10.1080/15422119.2014.882355
15 J YLin, W Y Ye, H M Zeng, H Yang, J GShen, SDarvishmanesh, PLuis, A Sotto, BVan der Bruggen (2015). Fractionation of direct dyes and salts in aqueous solution using loose nanofiltration membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 477: 183–193
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.12.008
16 Y LLin, P C Chiang, E E Chang (2007). Removal of small trihalomethane precursors from aqueous solution by nanofiltration. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 146(1–2): 20–29
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.11.050 pmid: 17212977
17 MMojarrad, A Noroozi, AZeinivand, PKazemzadeh (2018). Response surface methodology for optimization of simultaneous Cr(VI) and As(V) removal from contaminated water by nanofiltration process. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 37(1): 434–443
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12704
18 L DNghiem, A I Schäfer, M Elimelech (2004). Removal of natural hormones by nanofiltration membranes: measurement, modeling, and mechanisms. Environmental Science & Technology, 38(6): 1888–1896
https://doi.org/10.1021/es034952r pmid: 15074703
19 C MNguyen, S Bang, JCho, K WKim (2009). Performance and mechanism of arsenic removal from water by a nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 245(1–3): 82–94
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.04.047
20 J IOh, K Yamamoto, HKitawaki, SNakao, TSugawara, M MRahman, M HRahman (2000). Application of low-pressure nanofiltration coupled with a bicycle pump for the treatment of arsenic-contaminated groundwater. Desalination, 132(1–3): 307–314
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00165-X
21 L ARichards, B S Richards, A I Schäfer (2011). Renewable energy powered membrane technology: Salt and inorganic contaminant removal by nanofiltration/reverse osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science, 369(1–2): 188–195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.11.069
22 HSaitúa, M Campderrós, SCerutti, A PPadilla (2005). Effect of operating conditions in removal of arsenic from water by nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 172(2): 173–180
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.08.027
23 YSato, M Kang, TKamei, YMagara (2002). Performance of nanofiltration for arsenic removal. Water Research, 36(13): 3371–3377
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00037-4 pmid: 12188137
24 MSu, D X Wang, X L Wang, M Ando, TShintani (2006). Rejection of ions by NF membranes for binary electrolyte solutions of NaCl, NaNO3, CaCl2 and Ca(NO3)2. Desalination, 191(S1–3): 303–308
25 C YTang, Y N Kwon, J O Leckie (2007). Probing the nano- and micro-scales of reverse osmosis membranes-A comprehensive characterization of physiochemical properties of uncoated and coated membranes by XPS, TEM, ATR-FTIR, and streaming potential measurements. Journal of Membrane Science, 287(1): 146–156
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.10.038
26 C YTang, Y N Kwon, J O Leckie (2009). Effect of membrane chemistry and coating layer on physiochemical properties of thin film composite polyamide RO and NF membranes: I. FTIR and XPS characterization of polyamide and coating layer chemistry. Desalination, 242(1–3): 149–167
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.04.003
27 JTanninen, M Mänttäri, MNyström (2006). Effect of salt mixture concentration on fractionation with NF membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 283(1–2): 57–64
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.06.012
28 M TUddin, M S I Mozumder, M A Islam, S A Deowan, J Hoinkis (2007). Nanofiltration membrane process for the removal of arsenic from drinking water. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 30(9): 1248–1254
https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.200700169
29 E MVrijenhoek, J JWaypa (2000). Arsenic removal from drinking water by a “loose” nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 130(3): 265–277
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)00091-6
30 J JWaypa, M Elimelech, J GHering (1997). Arsenic removal by RO and NF membranes. Journal- American Water Works Association, 89(10): 102–114
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.1997.tb08309.x
31 RXu, P Zhang, QWang, X MWang, K CYu, TXue, X H Wen (2019). Influences of multi influent matrices on the retention of PPCPs by nanofltration membranes. Separation and Purification Technology, 212: 299–306
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.11.040
32 W YYe, J Y Lin, R Borrego, DChen, ASotto, PLuis, H M Liu, S F Zhao, C Y Tang, B Van der Bruggen (2018). Advanced desalination of dye/NaCl mixures by a loose nanofiltration membrane for digital ink-jet printing. Separation and Purification Technology, 197: 27–35
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.12.045
33 S YZhang, P N Williams, J M Luo, Y G Zhu (2017). Microbial mediated arsenic biotransformation in wetlands. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 11 (1): 1
https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0893-y
34 Y YZhao, F X Kong, Z Wang, H WYang, X MWang, Y FXie, T DWaite (2017). Role of membrane and compound properties in affecting the rejection of pharmaceuticals by different RO/NF membranes. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 11(6): 20
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0975-x
[1] Supplementary Material Download
[1] Danyang Liu, Johny Cabrera, Lijuan Zhong, Wenjing Wang, Dingyuan Duan, Xiaomao Wang, Shuming Liu, Yuefeng F. Xie. Using loose nanofiltration membrane for lake water treatment: A pilot study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 69-.
[2] Zhiling Wu, Xianchun Tang, Hongbin Chen. Seasonal and treatment-process variations in invertebrates in drinking water treatment plants[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 62-.
[3] Yue Hu, Ding Dong, Kun Wan, Chao Chen, Xin Yu, Huirong Lin. Potential shift of bacterial community structure and corrosion-related bacteria in drinking water distribution pipeline driven by water source switching[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 28-.
[4] Shuo Wei, Lei Du, Shuo Chen, Hongtao Yu, Xie Quan. Electro-assisted CNTs/ceramic flat sheet ultrafiltration membrane for enhanced antifouling and separation performance[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 11-.
[5] Xuewen Yi, Zhanqi Gao, Lanhua Liu, Qian Zhu, Guanjiu Hu, Xiaohong Zhou. Acute toxicity assessment of drinking water source with luminescent bacteria: Impact of environmental conditions and a case study in Luoma Lake, East China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 109-.
[6] An Ding, Yingxue Zhao, Huu Hao Ngo, Langming Bai, Guibai Li, Heng Liang, Nanqi Ren, Jun Nan. Metabolic uncoupler, 3,3′,4′,5-tetrachlorosalicylanilide addition for sludge reduction and fouling control in a gravity-driven membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 96-.
[7] An Ding, Yingxue Zhao, Zhongsen Yan, Langming Bai, Haiyang Yang, Heng Liang, Guibai Li, Nanqi Ren. Co-application of energy uncoupling and ultrafiltration in sludge treatment: Evaluations of sludge reduction, supernatant recovery and membrane fouling control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 59-.
[8] Ting Zhang, Heze Liu, Yiyuan Zhang, Wenjun Sun, Xiuwei Ao. Comparative genotoxicity of water processed by three drinking water treatment plants with different water treatment procedures[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 39-.
[9] Kun Wan, Wenfang Lin, Shuai Zhu, Shenghua Zhang, Xin Yu. Biofiltration and disinfection codetermine the bacterial antibiotic resistome in drinking water: A review and meta-analysis[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 10-.
[10] Caiyun Hou, Sen Qiao, Yue Yang, Jiti Zhou. A novel sequence batch membrane carbonation photobioreactor developed for microalgae cultivation[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 92-.
[11] Xuehao Zhao, Yinhu Wu, Xue Zhang, Xin Tong, Tong Yu, Yunhong Wang, Nozomu Ikuno, Kazuki Ishii, Hongying Hu. Ozonation as an efficient pretreatment method to alleviate reverse osmosis membrane fouling caused by complexes of humic acid and calcium ion[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 55-.
[12] Chao Pang, Chunhua He, Zhenhu Hu, Shoujun Yuan, Wei Wang. Aggravation of membrane fouling and methane leakage by a three-phase separator in an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 50-.
[13] Qiaowen Tan, Weiying Li, Junpeng Zhang, Wei Zhou, Jiping Chen, Yue Li, Jie Ma. Presence, dissemination and removal of antibiotic resistant bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes in urban drinking water system: A review[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 36-.
[14] Guangrong Sun, Chuanyi Zhang, Wei Li, Limei Yuan, Shilong He, Liping Wang. Effect of chemical dose on phosphorus removal and membrane fouling control in a UCT-MBR[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 1-.
[15] Lu Ao, Wenjun Liu, Yang Qiao, Cuiping Li, Xiaomao Wang. Comparison of membrane fouling in ultrafiltration of down-flow and up-flow biological activated carbon effluents[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2018, 12(6): 9-.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed