Next Article in Journal
A Deliberative Rural Community Consultation to Assess Support for Flood Risk Management Policies to Strengthen Resilience in Malawi
Previous Article in Journal
A Framework to Project Future Rainfall Scenarios: An Application to Shallow Landslide-Triggering Summer Rainfall in Wanzhou County China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reverse Osmosis Membrane Combined with Ultrasonic Cleaning for Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater Treatment

1
School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, 30 Xueyuan Rd., Haidian Distract, Beijing 100083, China
2
National Environment and Energy International Science and Technology Cooperation Base, Beijing 100083, China
3
Department of Environmental Science & Technology, Beijing Forestry University, 35 Tsinghua East Rd., Haidian District, Beijing 100083, China
4
Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, No.8 Dayangfang, Beiyuan Rd., Chaoyang District, Beijing 100012, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(6), 875; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060875
Submission received: 12 February 2022 / Revised: 6 March 2022 / Accepted: 9 March 2022 / Published: 11 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Wastewater Treatment and Reuse)

Abstract

:
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater treatment is currently of interest, as stringent standards have been released in order to limit the pollution emissions from the energy industry, and concerns about water scarcity are also increasing. Reverse osmosis (RO) membrane is a promising alternative for highly efficient FGD wastewater treatment. However, membrane fouling strongly limits its application. This study developed a suitable treatment system by combining RO membrane with ultrasonic cleaning. The introduction of low-frequency and high-intensity ultrasonic cleaning improved the cleaning efficiency of membrane fouling, as the permeate flux recovered 49% of the reduced value within 10 min of cleaning. The lifespan of the membrane was also extended, as the time of permeate flux declined to the same level, increasing from 2 h to 4 h after ultrasonic cleaning. The effluent of the system could meet the standard of desulfurization wastewater treatment. The treatment system is feasible for FGD wastewater treatment at a laboratory scale. These findings proved that the combination of RO membrane and ultrasonic cleaning could be applied to FGD wastewater treatment. The study provided an efficient, cost-saving, and convenient way to develop the FGD wastewater treatment system.

1. Introduction

Coal dominates the energy structure of China, and about 63.22% of electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants [1]. The consumption of coal directly increases the emissions of dust, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen, causing severe atmospheric pollution. From 2011 to 2014, several national standards and plans were released to limit the pollution emissions from the energy industry, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems have become mandatory for ultra-clean flue gas treatment in coal-fired power plants [2]. The most widely applied treatment method is limestone gypsum wet flue gas desulfurization, which accounted for about 69% and 80% of market shares worldwide and in China [3]. This process generates gypsum saturated FGD wastewater, which needs further treatment to avoid environmental pollution. The content of total dissolved solids in FGD wastewater is relatively high, including large amounts of SO 4 2 , SO 3 2 and Cl . Therefore, treatment for FGD wastewater is necessary to improve water quality and reduce environmental concerns [4].
Technologies for FGD wastewater treatment include surface impoundments, chemical precipitation, biological treatments (anoxic/anaerobic), evaporation systems, constructed wetlands, zero-discharge systems, membrane separation, and others [5,6]. FGD wastewater is mostly treated via chemical precipitation in the world [7]. This method possesses deficiencies of significant investment, high maintenance cost, and harmful elements, which make it physically unable to meet the ever-increasing stringent standard for pollution emissions [7].
Considerable work was carried out in membrane separation technologies to realize the zero liquid discharge process, as it is broadly selected for FGD wastewater treatment [8]. High-performance technologies, like membrane distillation, forward osmosis, reverse osmosis, and high-efficiency reverse osmosis, have been investigated and reported. Among these technologies, pressure-driven membranes like reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are promising alternatives for FGD wastewater treatment with the potential to meet the standards [6]. RO membrane has been considered for a wide range of wastewater treatments and reuses, from the steel industry to the food industry to personal care products, and almost all the core reuse technologies are based on reverse osmosis [9,10,11,12]. It is also one of the most widespread methods for water purification and seawater desalination [13]. By applying external pressure, the RO membrane could overcome the osmotic pressure, separate solutes (i.e., micro-pollutants, organic-inorganic matter colloids, salt, and pathogens) from liquid streams, and produce high-quality water [14,15]. The simple design, convenient operation, and other merits have cut down the energy consumption when producing freshwater with RO membranes [16,17]. In the revised Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines released by U.S. EPA, a combination of microfiltration (pretreatment) and RO membrane technologies is listed as a voluntary incentive program to achieve the discharge limits [18]. RO membranes are also the main membrane processes that have been widely applied for FGD wastewater advanced treatment [3]. However, the mechanism of the RO membrane has brought a performance limitation. As the RO process proceeds, the solute particles will potentially accumulate on the feed side of the membranes, leading to a more severe concentration polarization phenomenon and membrane fouling [19]. Membrane fouling is also the main obstacle that limits the application of membrane separation technologies in FGD wastewater treatment [20].
Physical and chemical methods are widely applied to membrane cleaning, but these methods have both advantages and limitations [21]. Physical cleaning methods, like backwashing, are environmentally friendly. The interruption to the membrane filtration process brings inconvenience and has further limited its practical application [22]. Although chemical cleaning is more effective in permeability recovering and irreversible fouling movement, the consumption of chemicals like acids and alkalis has increased the operation cost and possibly the secondary pollution [23]. Frequent chemical cleaning may also destroy the membrane structure and reduce the membrane lifetime [24]. In addition, the above membrane cleaning methods both require suspending operation, lowering the efficiency of membrane cleaning and the whole process of wastewater treatment.
Recently, new technologies for membrane cleaning, such as membrane cleaning using saturated CO2 solution, CO2 nucleation, steam cleaning, air bubbles, and ultrasonic cleaning have been investigated and reported [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Among these methods, ultrasonic cleaning has been paid more attention to in recent investigations due to the consistency of the membrane filtration process and no consumption of chemicals. Ultrasound application provides an alternative technique for membrane fouling control and membrane cleaning in desalination and wastewater treatment.
In this study, a treatment system was developed by combing the RO membrane with ultrasonic cleaning, and the system was applied to FGD wastewater treatment. The optimal operating conditions of the system were examined for better treatment effect. The actual FGD wastewater was also induced to the system to test the feasibly for its actual application. The design of the treatment system provided an efficient, cost-saving, and convenient way for FGD wastewater treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

All chemicals were of analytical reagent grade. The Na2SO4 solution was freshly prepared with deionized water.

2.2. Design of Laboratory-Scale Membrane System with Ultrasonic Cleaning

The experimental system combined a commercial reverse osmosis membrane with an ultrasonic cleaning apparatus. The membranes were commercial household reverse osmosis (RO) membranes (HP18122-50, Vontron Membrane Technology Co., Ltd., Guiyang, China), with a membrane area of 0.18 m2. The ultrasonic cleaning apparatus consisted of six ultrasound transducers (KMDcsb, Shenzhen, China) and a resonance cell. The transducers were connected to an ultrasound generator (KMDcsb, KMD-K1, Shenzhen, China) to precisely adjust the frequency and intensity of ultrasound. The feed for the pilot system was Na2SO4 solutions with specific concentrations for operating conditions optimization experiments and actual flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater for cleaning performance experiments. The feed was induced to the RO membrane via a high-pressure pump. A schematic of the system is shown in Figure 1a and photograph is shown in Figure 1b.

2.3. Optimization Experiments for RO Membrane Operation

Five parameters (feed flow rate, operating pressure, feed concentration, temperature, and pH) were evaluated separately to obtain the optimal operating conditions for the RO membrane. In each experiment, four factors were maintained constant to evaluate the effect of the remaining factor on RO membrane performance. The membranes were operated for 10 h under different operating conditions. Permeate flux and rejection were calculated according to the following equations to evaluate the performance of the RO membrane process:
J = Q p S ,
R = ( 1 C p C f ) ,
where J = permeate flux, Qp = permeate flow rate, S = membrane surface area, R = rejection, Cp = ions concentration in permeate flow, and Cf = ions concentration in feed flow.

2.4. Optimization Experiments for Ultrasound Generation Conditions

The optimal generation conditions for ultrasound were also examined to achieve better cleaning effects. As in the above experiments, frequency and intensity were adjust separately by the ultrasound generator to evaluate the influence of the two parameters on ultrasonic cleaning. The membranes were also operated for 10 h under optimal operating conditions and then cleaned for 10 min under different ultrasound generation conditions. Permeate flux and rejection after cleaning were also calculated according to the above equations to evaluate the cleaning effect.

2.5. Ultrasonic Cleaning Performance of RO Membrane after Actual FGD Wastewater Treatment

After determining the optimal conditions of membrane operation and ultrasound generation, the laboratory-scale membrane system was fed with actual FGD wastewater to evaluate the cleaning effect of ultrasonic cleaning. As the actual ion concentration was too high for the commercial household RO membrane treatment, the actual FGD wastewater was diluted 10 times to avoid membrane fouling. The system was operated for 10 h and cleaned for 10 min. The permeate flow was sampled and measured every 15 min in the first 2 h and then measured every 30 min. The ions concentrations in feed wastewater were measured before membrane filtration. Moreover, the concentrations of the ions were measured before ultrasonic cleaning and after cleaning.

2.6. Analytical Methods for Evaluation Parameters

Grab samples of permeate were collected and analyzed for inorganic constituents three times during each experiment. According to National Standard, the analyses were performed (GB/T 5750.5-2006, GB/T 15453-2008, GB/T 15452-2009, HJ 535-2009). The ion concentrations were analyzed via UV spectrophotometer. In optimization experiments for RO membrane operation and ultrasound generation conditions, sulfate was the only anion of interest. In the experiment of ultrasonic cleaning effect of RO membrane after actual FGD wastewater treatment, the anions of interest were calcium, magnesium, and ammonium and the cations of interest were sulfate and chloride.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effects of Operating Conditions on Membrane Performance

Five parameters (feed flow rate, operating pressure, feed concentration, temperature, and pH) were studied to optimize the operating conditions, as they influence the wastewater treatment effect of the reverse osmosis (RO) membrane [34]. Feed flow rate, operating pressure, temperature, and pH are the essential parameters that directly determine the overall operating conditions. The optimization experiment on feed concentration was to testify the concentration range of wastewater that the system can handle. The experiment results (permeate flux and rejection) could also testify the feasibility of using the RO membrane for FGD wastewater.
Permeate flux and rejection versus feed flow rate are shown in Figure 2. Both permeate flux and rejection increased with feed flow rate and reached maximum (36.19 L·m−2·h−1 and 96.15%, respectively) at a feed flow rate of 35.00 L·h−1, representing the best performance of wastewater treatment. The improvement of membrane performance was related to the mitigation of membrane fouling. Higher feed flow rate increased the flow velocity and provided a better mass transfer coefficient [35]. The improved flow velocity and mass transfer coefficient further reduced the ion concentration near the membrane surface and diminished the concentration polarization and membrane fouling.
High operating pressure increased the permeate flux and rejection (Figure 3). The increment of permeate flux was expected, as RO membranes are pressure-driven membranes. An increase in the rejection with increasing pressure was achieved until a constant and steady rejection of ca. 96.10% at 0.35 MPa was obtained. The trend of rejection variation was similar to the experimental results of Gur-Reznik Shirra [36]. The variation of rejection may be attributed to the path change of the high content of salts with the permeate, which decreases the salt rejection efficiency [37]. The maximum permeate flux and rejection were obtained at 0.50 MPa (37.25 L·m−2·h−1 and 96.16%, respectively). In this study, 0.50 MPa was applied to the membrane system for higher experimental efficiency, while 0.35 MPa could be applied for cost-saving purpose.
The high concentration feed resulted in reducing the wastewater treatment effect (Figure 4). Compared with other experiments under the same operating conditions, both the value of permeate flux and rejection declined to the minimum (30.15 L·m−2·h−1 and 85.44%) under high concentration. The highly concentrated feed contained more polluting particles at fixed feed flow. These particles will deposit on the surface or the pores of the membrane, resulting in membrane scaling and the decrease of permeate flux and rejection [34]. The feed concentration suitable for RO membrane treatment was 1000.00 to 3500.00 mg·L−1 in this study, as the rejection value remained at ca. 95.00%.
Since this study evaluates the feasibility of simplifying desulfurization wastewater treatment by combining RO membrane treatment with ultrasonic cleaning, the laboratory-scale experimental system was built with commercial RO membranes to save on experimental costs. The results above indicate that the commercial RO membranes showed inadequacy to high concentration (above 3500.00 mg·L−1) wastewater. The actual FGD wastewater (25,000.00 mg·L−1) was diluted 10 times to avoid poor membrane treatment effects under high feed concentrations. In future research, this deficiency could be made up when applying the industrial RO membrane to the system.
Feed temperature had the opposite effects on permeate flux and rejection (Figure 5). The permeate flux increased linearly with temperature, while the rejection declined slightly at high temperatures. The rising trend of permeate flux is similar to previous studies, with a 60% increase in the permeate flux when the feed temperature increased from 20 to 40 °C [38]. The high temperature increased the pore size of the membrane because of thermal expansion, allowing more water to pass through. With the increment of temperature, the solubility of the solute also increased, and a higher diffusion rate of solute through the membrane is possible, causing the decrease of rejection at high temperature [39]. According to the experimental results, the optimal temperature for membrane operation was 25.00 °C (maximum rejection value of 96.17%). Considering the heating cost, the operating temperature for the system was 18.00 °C.
The effect of feed pH on membrane performance was negligible, as the rejection value remained at about 96.00% (Figure 6). However, the variation trend of permeate flux and rejection is similar to Hoang’s experiment [40]. Alkaline wastewater may cause membrane structure deformation or damage, leading to permeate flux decline at high pH values. The impact of feed pH on RO membrane structure may require further studies. Since the pH of actual FGD wastewater is often acidic, the RO membrane can treat it without membrane damage. In this study, the optimum operating condition of pH was 7 because of the maximum value of permeate flux and rejection (35.97 L·m−2·h−1 and 96.14%).
To determinate optimal membrane operating conditions, permeate flux and rejection are the key factors. According to the experimental results above, the optimal conditions (feed flow rate, 35.00 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.50 MPa; feed concentration, 2500.00 mg·L−1; feed temperature, 18.00 °C; feed pH, 7) for the RO membrane operation in this study were fixed. The permeate flux and rejection results also proved that the RO membrane was capable of FGD wastewater treatment.

3.2. Effect of Frequency and Intensity on Membrane Cleaning

Since RO membranes are vulnerable and have complex and composite structures, cleaning conditions are vital to membrane lifetime extension. Operational factors of ultrasound generation can influence the effectiveness of ultrasonic treatment [32]. This study examined the effect of frequency and intensity on the ultrasonic cleaning effect. All membranes ran for 10 h using 2500.00 mg·L−1 Na2SO4 under optimal operating conditions (feed flow rate: 35.00 L·h−1, operating pressure: 0.50 MPa, temperature: 18.00 °C, pH: 7). The time of ultrasonic cleaning was 10 min.
Both permeate flux and rejection reduced with increasing ultrasound frequency, indicating the cleaning efficiency decreased under high frequencies (Figure 7). This result is consistent with previously published literature, in which high-frequency treatment led to low permeate flux [41,42,43,44]. The findings further support that lower ultrasound frequencies have higher cleaning efficiencies [45]. The foulant on the membrane surface was removed by collapses of microbubbles generated by ultrasound [46]. Under high frequencies, the rarefaction and compression cycles of cavitation bubbles formation were reduced, lowering the lifetime and the size of the microbubbles before collapse [47]. The energy contained in microbubbles was also reduced. The diminished energy cannot generate powerful collapses for pollutant cleaning, resulting in a poor membrane cleaning effect. The optimal frequency for ultrasonic cleaning is 25 kHz in this study, as the permeate flux and rejection reached the maximum (45.26 L·m−2·h−1 and 97.37%).
By increasing the intensity of ultrasound, the permeate flux and rejection after cleaning reached the maximum (45.26 L·m−2·h−1 and 97.37%), indicating that the cleaning effect improved (Figure 8). In accordance with the present results, previous studies have demonstrated that higher intensity will provide better cleaning effect and greater permeate flux, and the permeate flux increased nearly linearly with intensity [41,42,43,48]. Contrary to the influence of frequency on the cleaning effect, an increment of intensity will increase the acoustic pressure amplitude and generate more powerful ultrasonic bubbles [47]. More pollutants on the membrane surface can be removed under high intensities. The optimal intensity for RO membrane cleaning was 3.10 W·cm−2 in this study.
According to the experimental results above, the optimal conditions (frequency, 25 kHz; intensity, 3.10 W·cm−2) for ultrasound generation in this study were also fixed. In summary, for ultrasonic cleaning of the membrane module, the optimal conditions for ultrasound generation should be low frequency and high intensity. This could be guiding advice when applying the ultrasonic cleaning technology to other membrane technologies.

3.3. Treatment of Actual FGD Wastewater and Ultrasonic Cleaning of the Fouled Membrane

After determining the optimal conditions for membrane operation and ultrasound generation, the system was fed with actual FGD wastewater (diluted 10 times) to evaluate the treatment effect of RO membrane combined with ultrasonic cleaning. The flux data during the experimental process were examined and presented in Figure 9. After 6 h of filtration, the flux decreased from 47.78 to 34.55 L·m−2·h−1. Then the flux increased to 41.07 L·m−2·h−1 after 10 min of ultrasonic cleaning. The permeate flux recovered for 49% of the reduced value within 10 min of cleaning, suggesting that ultrasonic cleaning can efficiently remove pollutants on the membrane surface. Although the recovery rate of permeate flux (49%) was only about half of the physical cleaning (ca. 93%), the cleaning time (10 min) was only one-third of physical cleaning (30 min) [49]. The ultrasonic cleaning was more efficient than physical cleaning without consuming a large amount of clean water. The recovered flux was also higher than the chemical cleaning of sugar-fouled reverse osmosis membrane with some chemical agents (i.e., 1% HNO3, 1% NaOH, 1% HCl, 1% CTAB) [50]. After another 4 h of filtration, the flux declined to 36.40 L·m−2·h−1. The decline rate of flux slowed down, as the flux declined to 36.41 L·m−2·h−1 within only 2 h in the first 6 hours of filtration. This result indicated that ultrasonic cleaning extended the lifetime of the membrane. The cleaning may loosen the foulant layer on the membrane surface and diminish the speed of layer formation. Table 1 shows the variation of permeate concentration and rejection before and after ultrasonic cleaning. Rejections increased by 2–3% after cleaning, suggesting that the ultrasonic cleaning slightly improved the treatment effect. As the rejection value was at a high level (ca. 95.00–97.00%) after cleaning, ultrasonic cleaning was beneficial to maintain wastewater treatment performance. The effluents also met the standard of desulfurization wastewater treatment during the whole experimental process. These results proved that ultrasonic cleaning is an efficient method for fouled RO membrane. Furthermore, combining RO membrane treatment with ultrasonic cleaning can extend the lifetime of the membrane and improve the wastewater treatment effect.

4. Conclusions

In this work, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater was treated by a laboratory-scale treatment system with the combination of reverse osmosis (RO) membrane and ultrasonic cleaning. The optimization experiments on operating parameters proved that the commercial RO membrane was capable of FGD wastewater treatment. The investigation of optimal ultrasound generation conditions has shown that ultrasound generated under low frequency and high intensity had the best cleaning effect on the fouled membrane. These findings provide the optimal conditions for RO membrane operation (feed flow rate, 35.00 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.50 MPa; feed concentration, 2500.00 mg·L−1; feed temperature, 18.00 °C; feed pH, 7) and ultrasound generation (frequency, 25 kHz; intensity, 3.10 W·cm−2). The feasibility of the system was also tested.
The introduction of ultrasonic cleaning improved the cleaning efficiency of membrane fouling. The permeate flux recovered 49% of the reduced value within 10 min of cleaning, which is more efficient and cost-saving than physical cleaning and some chemical cleaning methods. Furthermore, the time for permeate flux decline after cleaning had doubled (from 2 h to 4 h), suggesting that the ultrasonic cleaning can delay the formation of membrane fouling and extend the lifespan of the RO membrane. The treatment effects were maintained as the rejection values were high (95.00–97.00%). The effluent of the system also met the standard of FGD wastewater treatment.
Overall, the study indicated that the treatment system is capable of FGD wastewater treatment at a laboratory scale. The combination of RO membrane and ultrasonic cleaning sheds new light on building a system for FGD wastewater treatment in a more efficient, cost-saving, and convenient way. Further research should focus on applying this system at a factory-scale experiment by changing the commercial membrane to industrial membrane.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.L., L.M. and S.X.; methodology, S.X.; formal analysis, X.C.; data curation, X.C.; writing—original draft preparation, X.C.; writing—review and editing, X.C., T.L. and X.D.; visualization, X.C.; supervision, T.L., X.D.; project administration, T.L., L.M. and S.X.; funding acquisition, T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Xi’an Hanshow Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd., contract number 2016-366.

Data Availability Statement

All data are provided as tables and figures.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to Xi’an Hanshow Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd., for funding this research work through the project number 2016-366.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Statistical Review of World Energy 2021. Available online: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2021).
  2. Han, X.; Zhang, D.; Yan, J.; Zhao, S.; Liu, J. Process development of flue gas desulphurization wastewater treatment in coal-fired power plants towards zero liquid discharge: Energetic, economic and environmental analyses. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 121144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zheng, L.; Jiao, Y.; Zhong, H.; Zhang, C.; Wang, J.; Wei, Y. Insight into the magnetic lime coagulation-membrane distillation process for desulfurization wastewater treatment: From pollutant removal feature to membrane fouling. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 391, 122202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Han, X.; Chen, N.; Yan, J.; Liu, J.; Liu, M.; Karellas, S. Thermodynamic analysis and life cycle assessment of supercritical pulverized coal-fired power plant integrated with No.0 feedwater pre-heater under partial loads. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1106–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Blázquez, E.; Baeza, J.A.; Gabriel, D.; Guisasola, A. Treatment of real flue gas desulfurization wastewater in an autotrophic biocathode in view of elemental sulfur recovery: Microbial communities involved. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 657, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wales, M.D.; Gebremichael, E.; Wang, X.; Perea, E.; Jayaweera, P.; Jayaweera, I. Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Wastewater Treatment Using Polybenzimidazole (PBI) Hollow Fiber (HF) Membranes. Membranes 2021, 11, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shuangchen, M.; Jin, C.; Gongda, C.; Weijing, Y.; Sijie, Z. Research on desulfurization wastewater evaporation: Present and future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 1143–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gingerich, D.B.; Grol, E.; Mauter, M.S. Fundamental challenges and engineering opportunities in flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment at coal fired power plants. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2018, 4, 909–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Colla, V.; Branca, T.A.; Rosito, F.; Lucca, C.; Vivas, B.P.; Delmiro, V.M. Sustainable Reverse Osmosis application for wastewater treatment in the steel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 130, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wenten, I.G.; Khoiruddin. Reverse osmosis applications: Prospect and challenges. Desalination 2016, 391, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, M.; Dong, J.; Sun, C.; Chen, G. Removal of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) from Municipal Waste Water with Integrated Membrane Systems, MBR-RO/NF. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Shi, J.; Huang, W.; Han, H.; Xu, C. Review on treatment technology of salt wastewater in coal chemical industry of China. Desalination 2020, 493, 114640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gao, L.X.; Rahardianto, A.; Gu, H.; Christofides, P.D.; Cohen, Y. Novel design and operational control of integrated ultrafiltration—Reverse osmosis system with RO concentrate backwash. Desalination 2016, 382, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Salvador Cob, S.; Beaupin, C.; Hofs, B.; Nederlof, M.M.; Harmsen, D.J.H.; Cornelissen, E.R.; Zwijnenburg, A.; Genceli Güner, F.E.; Witkamp, G.J. Silica and silicate precipitation as limiting factors in high-recovery reverse osmosis operations. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 423–424, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Qasim, M.; Badrelzaman, M.; Darwish, N.N.; Darwish, N.A.; Hilal, N. Reverse osmosis desalination: A state-of-the-art review. Desalination 2019, 459, 59–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Alsarayreh, A.A.; Al-Obaidi, M.A.; Farag, S.K.; Patel, R.; Mujtaba, I.M. Performance evaluation of a medium-scale industrial reverse osmosis brackish water desalination plant with different brands of membranes. A simulation study. Desalination 2021, 503, 114927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ahmad, G.E.; Schmid, J. Feasibility study of brackish water desalination in the Egyptian deserts and rural regions using PV systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2002, 43, 2641–2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Anderson, W.V.; Cheng, C.-M.; Butalia, T.S.; Weavers, L.K. Forward Osmosis–Membrane Distillation Process for Zero Liquid Discharge of Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater. Energy Fuels 2021, 35, 5130–5140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jafari, M.; Vanoppen, M.; van Agtmaal, J.M.C.; Cornelissen, E.R.; Vrouwenvelder, J.S.; Verliefde, A.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Picioreanu, C. Cost of fouling in full-scale reverse osmosis and nanofiltration installations in the Netherlands. Desalination 2021, 500, 114865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Conidi, C.; Macedonio, F.; Ali, A.; Cassano, A.; Criscuoli, A.; Argurio, P.; Drioli, E. Treatment of Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater by an Integrated Membrane-Based Process for Approaching Zero Liquid Discharge. Membranes 2018, 8, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Lin, J.C.-T.; Lee, D.-J.; Huang, C. Membrane Fouling Mitigation: Membrane Cleaning. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2010, 45, 858–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, H.; Amy, G.; Cho, J.; Yoon, Y.; Moon, S.-H.; Kim, I.S. Cleaning strategies for flux recovery of an ultrafiltration membrane fouled by natural organic matter. Water Res. 2001, 35, 3301–3308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Naddeo, V.; Borea, L.; Belgiorno, V. Sonochemical control of fouling formation in membrane ultrafiltration of wastewater: Effect of ultrasonic frequency. J. Water Process. Eng. 2015, 8, e92–e97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Siavash Madaeni, S.; Mohamamdi, T.; Kazemi Moghadam, M. Chemical cleaning of reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination 2001, 134, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alnajjar, H.; Tabatabai, A.; Alpatova, A.; Leiknes, T.; Ghaffour, N. Organic fouling control in reverse osmosis (RO) by effective membrane cleaning using saturated CO2 solution. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 264, 118410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ghamdi, M.A.; Alhadidi, A.; Ghaffour, N. Membrane backwash cleaning using CO2 nucleation. Water Res. 2019, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kang, J.S.; Park, S.G.; Lee, J.E.; Kang, S.Y.; Lee, J.J.; Quyen, V.T.K.; Kim, H.S. Steam cleaning for control of membrane fouling in ceramic membrane system. Desalin. Water Treat. 2019, 138, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ghadimkhani, A.; Zhang, W.; Marhaba, T. Ceramic membrane defouling (cleaning) by air Nano Bubbles. Chemosphere 2016, 146, 379–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harun, M.H.C.; Zimmerman, W.B. Membrane defouling using microbubbles generated by fluidic oscillation. Water Supply 2019, 19, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dayarathne, H.N.P.; Jeong, S.; Jang, A. Chemical-free scale inhibition method for seawater reverse osmosis membrane process: Air micro-nano bubbles. Desalination 2019, 461, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, R.; Huang, Y.; Sun, C.; Xiaozhen, L.; Bentian, X.; Wang, Z. Study on ultrasonic techniques for enhancing the separation process of membrane. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 55, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Aghapour Aktij, S.; Taghipour, A.; Rahimpour, A.; Mollahosseini, A.; Tiraferri, A. A critical review on ultrasonic-assisted fouling control and cleaning of fouled membranes. Ultrasonics 2020, 108, 106228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Thombre, N.V.; Gadhekar, A.P.; Patwardhan, A.V.; Gogate, P.R. Ultrasound induced cleaning of polymeric nanofiltration membranes. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 62, 104891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Jiang, S.; Li, Y.; Ladewig, B.P. A review of reverse osmosis membrane fouling and control strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 595, 567–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kotb, H.; Amer, E.H.; Ibrahim, K.A. Effect of operating conditions on salt concentration at the wall of RO membrane. Desalination 2015, 357, 246–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gur-Reznik, S.; Koren-Menashe, I.; Heller-Grossman, L.; Rufel, O.; Dosoretz, C.G. Influence of seasonal and operating conditions on the rejection of pharmaceutical active compounds by RO and NF membranes. Desalination 2011, 277, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amin, M.; Hafez, A.; Shaaban, A.; Abdelmonem, N.; Hanafy, M. Removal of Reactive Dyes from Dye-house Effluent Using Nanofiltration Membrane. Egypt. Soc. Chem. Eng. 2011, 37, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  38. Goosen, M.F.A.; Sablani, S.S.; Al-Maskari, S.S.; Al-Belushi, R.H.; Wilf, M. Effect of feed temperature on permeate flux and mass transfer coefficient in spiral-wound reverse osmosis systems. Desalination 2002, 144, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, Y.; Li, S.; Ghaffour, N. Evaluation of different cleaning strategies for different types of forward osmosis membrane fouling and scaling. J. Membr. Sci. 2020, 596, 117731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hoang, T.; Stevens, G.; Kentish, S. The effect of feed pH on the performance of a reverse osmosis membrane. Desalination 2010, 261, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Maskooki, A.; Shahraki, M.H.; Mohamadi, M. Effects of various frequencies and powers of ultrasound on cleaning of flat sheet membrane during and after microfiltration. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 57, 5376–5384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kobayashi, T.; Chai, X.; Fujii, N. Ultrasound enhanced cross-flow membrane filtration. Sep. Purif. Technol. 1999, 17, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lamminen, M.O.; Walker, H.W.; Weavers, L.K. Mechanisms and factors influencing the ultrasonic cleaning of particle-fouled ceramic membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 237, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cai, M.; Zhao, S.; Liang, H. Mechanisms for the enhancement of ultrafiltration and membrane cleaning by different ultrasonic frequencies. Desalination 2010, 263, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ahmad, A.L.; Che Lah, N.F.; Ismail, S.; Ooi, B.S. Membrane Antifouling Methods and Alternatives: Ultrasound Approach. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2012, 41, 318–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Arefi-Oskoui, S.; Khataee, A.; Safarpour, M.; Orooji, Y.; Vatanpour, V. A review on the applications of ultrasonic technology in membrane bioreactors. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 58, 104633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wu, T.Y.; Guo, N.; Teh, C.Y.; Hay, J.X.W. Advances in Ultrasound Technology for Environmental Remediation; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lamminen, M.O.; Walker, H.W.; Weavers, L.K. Cleaning of particle-fouled membranes during cross-flow filtration using an embedded ultrasonic transducer system. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 283, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jang, Y.; Cho, H.; Shin, Y.; Choi, Y.; Lee, S.; Koo, J. Comparison of fouling propensity and physical cleaning effect in forward osmosis, reverse osmosis, and membrane distillation. Desalin. Water Treat. 2016, 57, 24532–24541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Madaeni, S.S.; Sasanihoma, A.; Zereshki, S. Chemical cleaning of reverse osmosis membrane fouled by sugar solution. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2010, 5, 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic (a) and photograph (b) of the laboratory-scale membrane system.
Figure 1. Schematic (a) and photograph (b) of the laboratory-scale membrane system.
Water 14 00875 g001
Figure 2. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of reverse osmosis (RO) membrane after 10 h running at different feed flow rates ranging from 15 to 25 L·h−1. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7.
Figure 2. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of reverse osmosis (RO) membrane after 10 h running at different feed flow rates ranging from 15 to 25 L·h−1. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7.
Water 14 00875 g002
Figure 3. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different operating pressure from 0.30 to 0.5 MPa. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7.
Figure 3. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different operating pressure from 0.30 to 0.5 MPa. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7.
Water 14 00875 g003
Figure 4. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different feed concentrations from 1500 to 7500 mg·L−1. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7.
Figure 4. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different feed concentrations from 1500 to 7500 mg·L−1. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7.
Water 14 00875 g004
Figure 5. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different temperatures from 18 to 35 °C. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; pH, 7.
Figure 5. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different temperatures from 18 to 35 °C. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; pH, 7.
Water 14 00875 g005
Figure 6. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different pH from 3 to 11. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C.
Figure 6. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (green dot line) of RO membrane after 10 h running under different pH from 3 to 11. Operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C.
Water 14 00875 g006
Figure 7. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (orange dot line) of RO membrane after 10 min cleaning under different frequencies from 25 to 40 kHz. Before ultrasonic cleaning, the membrane had been running for 10 h under optimal operating conditions. Membrane operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7. Ultrasound generation conditions: intensity, 3.1 W·cm−2.
Figure 7. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (orange dot line) of RO membrane after 10 min cleaning under different frequencies from 25 to 40 kHz. Before ultrasonic cleaning, the membrane had been running for 10 h under optimal operating conditions. Membrane operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7. Ultrasound generation conditions: intensity, 3.1 W·cm−2.
Water 14 00875 g007
Figure 8. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (orange dot line) of RO membrane after 10 min cleaning under different intensities from 2.1 to 4.1 W·cm−2. Before ultrasonic cleaning, the membrane had been running for 10 h under optimal operating conditions. Membrane operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7. Ultrasound generation conditions: frequency, 25 kHz.
Figure 8. Permeate flux (black dot line) and rejection (orange dot line) of RO membrane after 10 min cleaning under different intensities from 2.1 to 4.1 W·cm−2. Before ultrasonic cleaning, the membrane had been running for 10 h under optimal operating conditions. Membrane operating conditions: feed solution, Na2SO4; feed concentration, 2500 mg·L−1; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7. Ultrasound generation conditions: frequency, 25 kHz.
Water 14 00875 g008
Figure 9. Permeate flux variation during the membrane running process. Before ultrasonic cleaning, membranes had been running for 10 h. After 10 min of ultrasonic cleaning, the membrane was kept running for another 4 h. Membrane operating conditions: feed solution, actual desulfurization wastewater diluted 10 times; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7. Ultrasound generation conditions: frequency, 25 kHz; intensity, 3.1 W·cm−2.
Figure 9. Permeate flux variation during the membrane running process. Before ultrasonic cleaning, membranes had been running for 10 h. After 10 min of ultrasonic cleaning, the membrane was kept running for another 4 h. Membrane operating conditions: feed solution, actual desulfurization wastewater diluted 10 times; feed flow rate, 35 L·h−1; operating pressure, 0.5 MPa; temperature, 18 °C; pH, 7. Ultrasound generation conditions: frequency, 25 kHz; intensity, 3.1 W·cm−2.
Water 14 00875 g009
Table 1. Permeate concentration and rejection variation before and after ultrasonic cleaning.
Table 1. Permeate concentration and rejection variation before and after ultrasonic cleaning.
IonInitial Concentration (mg/L)Permeate Concentration before Cleaning (mg/L)Rejection before Cleaning (%)Permeate Concentration after Cleaning (mg/L)Rejection after Cleaning (%)
SO 4 2 2333.90119.8694.86%94.8695.94%
2400.00120.2094.99%70.4197.07%
2499.90119.1195.24%69.3497.23%
Ca 2 + 48.322.5094.83%1.4696.98%
53.872.7394.93%1.5697.10%
59.552.6195.62%1.4797.53%
Mg 2 + 792.7043.6094.50%26.3296.68%
806.7443.6094.60%25.0496.90%
836.5142.7794.89%24.3397.09%
Cl 1350.0083.9793.78%66.6995.06%
1388.4885.1593.87%67.8495.11%
1440.3084.3394.14%54.4696.22%
NH 4 + 309.5818.8293.92%15.0695.14%
320.6319.1094.04%14.6095.45%
350.6718.2294.80%13.6296.12%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, X.; Li, T.; Dou, X.; Meng, L.; Xu, S. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Combined with Ultrasonic Cleaning for Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater Treatment. Water 2022, 14, 875. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060875

AMA Style

Chen X, Li T, Dou X, Meng L, Xu S. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Combined with Ultrasonic Cleaning for Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater Treatment. Water. 2022; 14(6):875. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060875

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Xingyu, Tianxin Li, Xiaomin Dou, Linglong Meng, and Shuiyang Xu. 2022. "Reverse Osmosis Membrane Combined with Ultrasonic Cleaning for Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater Treatment" Water 14, no. 6: 875. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14060875

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop