The efficiency of various chemical solutions to clean reverse osmosis membranes processing swine wastewater

IF 2 Q3 Environmental Science

Water Quality Research Journal of Canada Pub Date : 2014-11-01 DOI:10.2166/WQRJC.2014.008

L. Masse, M. Mondor, J. Puig-Bargués, L. Deschênes, G. Talbot

{"title":"The efficiency of various chemical solutions to clean reverse osmosis membranes processing swine wastewater","authors":"L. Masse, M. Mondor, J. Puig-Bargués, L. Deschênes, G. Talbot","doi":"10.2166/WQRJC.2014.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The increasing use of membrane technology to treat highly charged wastewaters has renewed interest in the development of adequate cleaning strategies. This study investigated the efficiency of various chemicals, including acids, bases, surfactants, chelators, salts, enzymes, and oxidants, to clean two reverse osmosis membranes (BW30 and SW30XLE) filtering one swine wastewater pretreated by aerobic biofiltration and two swine wastewaters pretreated by mechanical solid–liquid separation. Mixes of anionic surfactants and chelators provided optimal cleaning efficiency for all fouled membranes and all effluents. A solution containing 10 mM EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) and 10 mM SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) yielded the highest flux recovery after one 20-h fouling cycle with the BW30 membrane and three consecutive fouling–cleaning cycles with the SW30XLE membrane. The EDTA + SDS solution also resulted in the lowest residual protein concentration on membrane surface and the optimal restoration of the initial contact angle of the membranes. Conversely, 75 mM acid citric and 100 mM NaCl solutions were the least efficient to clean the fouled membranes. Most chemical solutions were more efficient to clean the fouling layer generated by the swine wastewater pretreated by aerobic biofiltration than mechanical separation.","PeriodicalId":54407,"journal":{"name":"Water Quality Research Journal of Canada","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2166/WQRJC.2014.008","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Quality Research Journal of Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2166/WQRJC.2014.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

The increasing use of membrane technology to treat highly charged wastewaters has renewed interest in the development of adequate cleaning strategies. This study investigated the efficiency of various chemicals, including acids, bases, surfactants, chelators, salts, enzymes, and oxidants, to clean two reverse osmosis membranes (BW30 and SW30XLE) filtering one swine wastewater pretreated by aerobic biofiltration and two swine wastewaters pretreated by mechanical solid–liquid separation. Mixes of anionic surfactants and chelators provided optimal cleaning efficiency for all fouled membranes and all effluents. A solution containing 10 mM EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) and 10 mM SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate) yielded the highest flux recovery after one 20-h fouling cycle with the BW30 membrane and three consecutive fouling–cleaning cycles with the SW30XLE membrane. The EDTA + SDS solution also resulted in the lowest residual protein concentration on membrane surface and the optimal restoration of the initial contact angle of the membranes. Conversely, 75 mM acid citric and 100 mM NaCl solutions were the least efficient to clean the fouled membranes. Most chemical solutions were more efficient to clean the fouling layer generated by the swine wastewater pretreated by aerobic biofiltration than mechanical separation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

各种化学溶液清洗反渗透膜处理生猪废水的效率

越来越多地使用膜技术来处理高电荷废水，重新引起了人们对开发适当的清洁策略的兴趣。本研究考察了酸、碱、表面活性剂、螯合剂、盐、酶和氧化剂等多种化学物质对两种反渗透膜(BW30和SW30XLE)的净化效果，分别过滤一种好氧生物过滤预处理的猪废水和两种机械固液分离预处理的猪废水。阴离子表面活性剂和螯合剂的混合物为所有污染的膜和所有流出物提供了最佳的清洁效率。含有10 mM EDTA(乙二胺四乙酸)和10 mM SDS(十二烷基硫酸钠)的溶液在BW30膜的一个20小时的污染循环和SW30XLE膜的连续三个污染-清洗循环后的通量回收率最高。EDTA + SDS溶液在膜表面的残留蛋白浓度最低，膜的初始接触角恢复最佳。相反，75 mM柠檬酸和100 mM NaCl溶液对污染膜的清洁效率最低。大多数化学溶液对好氧生物过滤预处理的生猪废水所产生的污染层的净化效果优于机械分离。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Water Quality Research Journal of Canada WATER RESOURCES-

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Water Quality Research Journal publishes peer-reviewed, scholarly articles on the following general subject areas: Impact of current and emerging contaminants on aquatic ecosystems Aquatic ecology (ecohydrology and ecohydraulics, invasive species, biodiversity, and aquatic species at risk) Conservation and protection of aquatic environments Responsible resource development and water quality (mining, forestry, hydropower, oil and gas) Drinking water, wastewater and stormwater treatment technologies and strategies Impacts and solutions of diffuse pollution (urban and agricultural run-off) on water quality Industrial water quality Used water: Reuse and resource recovery Groundwater quality (management, remediation, fracking, legacy contaminants) Assessment of surface and subsurface water quality Regulations, economics, strategies and policies related to water quality Social science issues in relation to water quality Water quality in remote areas Water quality in cold climates The Water Quality Research Journal is a quarterly publication. It is a forum for original research dealing with the aquatic environment, and should report new and significant findings that advance the understanding of the field. Critical review articles are especially encouraged.