DESWNATION

ELSEVIER Desalination 141(2001) 39-51

www.elsevier.comAocate/desal

On the feasibility of urban wastewater tertiary treatment by

membranes: a comparative assessment

E. Alonso*, A. Santos, G.J. Solis, P. Riesco

Centre for the New Water Technologies, Ma de la Cartuja, A&. de Europa, s/n. Pabelldn de1 Agua,
41092 Seville, Spain
Tel. +34 (95) 4460251; Fax i-34 (95) 446-1252; email: ealonso@cica.es

Received 12 March 2001; accepted 28 May 2001

Abstract
Efforts aiming at the application of membrane-based technologies in the field of wastewater treatment have focused
on tertiary treatment so as to obtain a high-quality final effluent that can be reused for different purposes. Nevertheless,
while technical viability of membrane filtration is very well documented, its implementation is constrained by the high
investment and operational costs involved. Numerous studies have been carried out at a pilot scale for the selection of
membranes and for the optimisation of operational conditions. In this paper two membrane filtration techniques,
microfiltration and ultrafiltration, applied to the secondary effluents of a conventional wastewater treatment plant, were
compared. The operations within the pilot plant were evaluated, as well as the operational costs linked with them and
the quality of the water output.

Keywora!s: Microfiltration; Municipal wastewater; Operational costs; Pilot plant; Ultrafiltration; Water reuse

1. Introduction requirements, or easy transport of the treatment

units. In addition, diverse effluent types may be
Filtration processes through membranes are
subject to membrane treatment: waters from
being increasingly used as an alternative to fresh
sludge dewatering, wastewater and pre-potable
water and wastewater treatments [l-6], antici-
water.
pating future requirements on quality standards
Membrane systems (basically microfiltration,
[7,8]. The objectives implicit in this trend can be
ultrafiltration and nanofiltration) have been used
classified as: reuse, reduced environmental
in the last years as substitutes for secondary
impact of the treated effluents, reduction of space
settling basins in conventional activated sludge
treatment plants, thus eliminating decantation
*Corresponding author. problems and making it possible to work with

001 l-9164/01/$- See front matter Q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
PII:SOOll-9164(01)00387-3
40 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination
high biomass concentrations in the biological
reactors: the advantage is a reduction in the
reactor volume while ensuring the same treatment
efficiency. Additional space economy is achieved
through the replacement of a settling basin by an
infiltration unit, Immersed membranes in the
biological settling basins have also been used to
produce a clarified effluent by means of inter-
mittent suction. But in both cases, numerous
problems arise, which tend to give rise to speedy
membrane plugging. Besides, the use of mem-
brane systems in connection to (or in replacement
of) secondary settling basins gives rise to a new
concept of the treatment plant layout which is
difficult to deal with [g-12].
Therefore, efforts aiming at the application of
membrane-based technology in the field of
wastewater treatment have focused on the tertiary
treatment in order to obtain a high-quality final
effluent that can be reused for different purposes
[ 13-161. Basically, these technologies aim at: a
reduction of suspended matter; organic pollution
abatement; reduction of potential toxic com-
pounds associated with the solid fraction; and
wastewater disinfection, free from the risk of
organochloride build-up associated with chloride
treatment. Nevertheless, even though technical
feasibility is very well documented, their
implementation is limited because of the high
investment and operational costs involved. The
unitary price of membranes, their replacement
frequency and the electrical energy consumed are
the most important factors influencing the global
costs of the processes [ 17,181. Thus, it is
important to select an adequate membrane type as
well as to optimize the operational conditions of
the preceding treatment stage (usually, activated
sludge) for each particular case.
Under these premises, numerous studies have
been carried out at a pilot scale for the selection
of membranes and for the optimisation of the
operational conditions. In this paper two
techniques of filtration through membranes,
microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF),
141 (ZOOI) 39-51
applied to the secondary effluents of a conven-
tional wastewater treatment plant, were com-
pared. The operations of each pilot plant were
evaluated, as well as the operational costs linked
with them and the quality of the resulting water.
Within each of these membrane types (MF
and UF), different technical solutions are avail-
able in the market, and a comprehensive com-
parison between then would require assessing the
operation of the most representative varieties. In
particular, this would amount to studying the
main typologies and ordering them on the basis
of their cleansing principle (air or chemical,
backwash or injection) or their geometry. Such
an endeavour far exceeds the limits of our
research, which has focused on (a) selecting two
well known membrane types as representatives of
MF and UF technologies; (b) carrying out
rigorous comparison of their operation and per-
formance and (c) interpreting the results.
2. Experimental
The experimental installation [ 19,201 located
at CENTA’s experimental plant in the Northern
Wastewater Treatment Plant I of Seville, was
basically composed of the following three stages
(see Fig. 1): prefiltration, MF and UF. The
operational combinations available were the
following: prefiltration and MF and prefiltration
and UF.
2.1. Prejltration
This unit consisted of a basket-type, self-
cleansing filter, with two optional filtering
thresholds of 400 and 30 pm. The selection of
either of these depends on the influent water
characteristics (basically on its composition of
suspended solids), and on the adopted configu-
ration (MF or UF, respectively). Cleansing was
performed in a counter-current mode by means of
the prefiltered water. Its mission was essentially
 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51 41

polypropylene tibres with a filtering threshold of

0.2 urn and a unitary surface of 15 m*. Filtration
was carried out by using a dead-end configu-
ration. Removal of the particles accumulating on
the surface of the membranes was carried out
initially through the action of compressed air in
counter-current. This process is based on the
I application of air pressure to the interior of the
0
I
I,# El..“.l”#

_____
,rh.n “..d,
_______
I
J
fibres (600 kPa) and a subsequent instantaneous
decompression; this gives rise to a pressure
Fig. 1. Pilot plant general scheme (microfiltration and hammer, eliminating any obstruction of its
ultrafiltration). external side; after this, the particles are removed
from the module by the feed water. It is important
to note that it is precisely during these cleansing
Table 1 cycles with air that a reject flow is generated in
General characteristics of the microfiltration and ultra- MF.
filtration stages Next, a soaking stage was defined, whose only
aim was to eliminate occasional bubbles trapped
Microfiltration Ultrafiltration
in the pores by displacement of the pressurized
Trademark MEMCOR HYDRANAUTICS liquid. In addition, the set-up had an automatic
Type of Hollow fiber Spiral control system (clean in place, CIP) triggered by
membrane pressure signals, so that a chemical cleansing
Pore size 0.2 pm 50,000 MWCO cycle was set in motion when the membranes
Membrane Synthetic Hydrophilic began to lose effectiveness after several cleansing
material propylene polyolephine cycles with compressed air. In addition, the
Filtration area 30m’ 23.2 m* module had a panel-view terminal allowing the
Flow type Dead-end Cross-flow operator to control and regulate the system since
Cleansing Physical (air) Physical (cross- all functions were set from this interface.
methods and chemical flow) and chemical The operational conditions were chosen as
Transmembrane 100 kPa 200 kPa follows: continuous operation, steady input flow
pressure (about 1.6 m3/h) regulated with a frequency
variator, filtration time of 22 min, retro-cleansing
and soaking stage of 1.9 min. The total experi-
protective, avoiding in this way premature ment lasted for about 1000 h. Transmembrane
membrane plugging and, as a result, reducing the pressure fluctuated around 40 kPa, peaking before
number of required cleansing cycles. each CIP operation.
Table 1 shows the general characteristics of
the MF and UF stages.
2.3. UltrajZtration
Its main component was a spiral membrane,
2.2. Microjiltration
made out of hydrophilic polyolephine with a
Its design was based on compact, easily molecular weight cut-off (MWCO): the molecu-
transportable units. It was formed by two units of lar weight above which the membrane prevents
microporous membranes, formed by hollow the flow of an element) of 50,000 and an active
42 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination
surface of 23.2 m’. The filtration mode was
cross-flow, thus avoiding, mainly thanks to the
entrainment of particles, the deposition of solid
matter on the membrane.
The main UF operation stages may be
summed up as follows: cross-flow, chemical
cleansing, rinsing and rejection. A rinsing stage
takes place before and after each stage of
chemical cleansing. Its goal is to clear the
prefiltered water in the system and whatever
amount of residual chemical product remaining
in the plumbing circuit and the membrane before
filtration. While filtration is taking place, the
concentrate produced is continuously recirculated
to the feed tank so that the concentration in the
tank keeps increasing. In order to avoid this
increasing concentration of feed water, a percen-
tage of the total volume to be filtered is
periodically rejected.
The operational conditions were as follows:
no regulation was imposed on input flow; feed
pressure was set at a fixed value. Chemical
cleansing was triggered by the permeate flow
dropping below a threshhold value (0.2 m3/h).
The experimentation was carried out over three
periods: the first, lasting 115 h, with a feed
pressure of 260 kPa; the second for 395 h and
650 kPa; the third for 83 h and 520 kPa.
A safety control was established in the set-up:
above an input pressure of 700 kPa or above an
input temperature of 40°C, filtration was auto-
matically discontinued. Permeate flow was not
regulated, and it fluctuated on a short-scale basis
(filtration cycles), as well as on a long-scale basis
(the whole experimentation period - probably
on account of inevitable clogging of the mem-
branes). A representative value was 0.4 m3/h.
3. Results
3. I. Operational results
Different operational configurations were
analyzed in order to predict the influence of the
I41 (2001) 39-51
basic operational variables on the electric and
chemical consumption of the MF and UF sys-
tems. As far as MF was concerned, the amount of
suspended matter, temperature and flow rate of
influent wastewater obviously had an effect on
the transmembrane pressure, which is the
threshold value triggering membrane cleansing.
In the case of UF, the quality of water to be
filtered was the main factor to bear in mind for
the exploitation of the plant since no flow regu-
lation was included in this module.
The main factor of influence in both systems
was the suspended matter content of the feed
water. This effect was more evident in the case of
UF and in the influent water flow phase in the
stage of MF.
The efficiency of each of the processes is
given in Tables 2 and 3, showing the average
experimental values found in optimal operational
conditions for each filtration. From the tables, a
clear deduction is at hand: MF, combined with
cross-current air cleansing, requires smaller input
consumption (both electrical energy and chemical
reactives) than UF. In addition, the frequency of
chemical cleansing operations is reduced in MF.
This amounts to a less expensive operation. In the
process of UF, the need for a chemical cleansing
as the only way to clean the membrane enor-
mously increased the consumption of acid and
basic solutions, and it also raised the electrical
consumption for these operations. Thus, it is
clear that, from an operational point of view, MF
offered very superior advantages compared to
UF. With a cost of 0.062 US $/kWh, 1.5 US $/L
of basic reagent and 1.65 US $/I., of acid reagent,
the total cost of the MF operation was 0.093
US $/m3, while an estimated cost of 0.92 US $/m3
resulted for the UF process.
The consumption of electricity and chemical
products was considerably smaller in the MF
module as compared to the UF module. This was
due to the typology of cleansing and water
recirculation adopted in each module and thus
may not be a general feature of all UF and MF
 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination I41 (2001) 39-51 43

Table 2 Table 3
Operational and consumption variables: microfiltration Operational and consumption variables: ultrafiltration
plant plant

Operation Consumption Operation Consumption

Retrocleansing: Chemical cleansing:

Duration, min 1.9 - Duration, min 182 -
Frequency, min 65 - Frequency, h 10-40 -

Chemical cleansing: Chemical products:

Duration, min 20 - Acid, L/1000 m3 - 37.1
Frequency, h 50-240 - Basic, L/1000 m3 - 22.5

Chemical products: Rejection: 15-20%

Acid, L/1000 m’ - 2.9 Total electrical consumption: 10.6 kWh/m’
Basic, L/1000 m3 - 22.5

Rejection: 15%
Total electrical consumption: 0.88 kWh/m3.
systems. On the other hand, the existence of an
intensive recirculation flow within the UF system
whose energy is not recovered also caused a
substantial increase in electrical consumption.
3.2. Water quality results
The average quality ofthe influent is shown in
Table 4. The average percentages of elimination
for each analytical parameter under control, as
well as the average final quality of the effluent
after the MF and UF stages, are shown in
Table 5. Elimination percentages are not shown
for those parameters where no decrease has been
observed or detected following filtration.
The following considerations were deduced
from the analytical results.
3.2. I. Non-speciJic parameters
Conductivity values were not affected by
these treatments. There was a noticeable elimi-
nation of suspended matter which was paralleled
by the results of dry residue and turbidity
parameters [2 1,221. The effluent values never
dropped below 2 to 4 turbidity units. This can be
due to the fact that water retains a high colora-
tion, especially so in the case of MF, while UF
gives rise to a more noticeable bleaching effect;
and it has an influence on the analytical deter-
mination of turbidity.
3.2.2. Parameters indicating organic pollu-
tion
A decrease of organic matter was observed in
all samples, around 50% in COD and 80% in
BOD,, following both filtration processes. These
elimination rates occur because the organic
fraction is mostly in suspended form, and
scarcely any dissolved organic matter is to be
found. The fact that no significant difference is
reported in COD or in BOD elimination for both
UF and MF (in spite of the much larger pore size
in MF) can be explained by the fact that the
average particle size in suspended matter is well
above both pore sizes, so that even the larger
pore is enough to filter them.
Slight differences in the elimination percenta-
ges associated with the diverse organic pollution
indicators (COD, BOD, and oxydability KMnO,)
can be explained by methodological differences
between the corresponding determination
44 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-5I

Table 4
Influent characterisation

Non-specific parameters

Analytic parameters Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

PH 7.9 7.4 8.2 8.3 7.6 8.6

Temperature, “C 16.6 15.4 18.6 22.9 19.5 26.1
Conductivity, us/cm 1748 1654 1951 1486 1312 1642
Total suspended solids, mg/L 16 11 27 21 17 24
Turbidity, NTU 51 41 54 73 62 80
Colour, Hz 28 25 32 28 22 32
Dry residue, mg/L 1158 1035 1267 1229 1095 1381
Alkalinity, mg CaCO,/L 351 345 407 286 136 332

Parameters indicating organic pollution

Analytic parameters Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 8.1 7.9 8.8 7.0 6.4 7.8

COD, mg 0,/L 51 42 66 80 61 96
Filtrated COD 0.45 urn, mg 0,/L 30 19 36 26 19 32
BOD,, mg 0,/L 47 42 56 61 41 96
Oxydability, KMnO, mg 0,/L 17 15 22 24 12 36

Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds

Analytic parameters Microtiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Total nitrogen, mg/L 34 28 39 43 38 55

NH:-N, mg/L 29 24 32 18 12 25
NO;-N, mg/L 0.20 co.05 0.30 0.10 co.05 0.22
NO;-N, mg/L 0.50 0.10 0.72 9.00 6.90 11.3
Total phosphorus, mg/L 8.8 7.6 9.1 9.5 8.2 9.9
PO:--P, mg L-’ 6.4 5.7 6.9 4.2 3.0 4.5

Inorganic components

Analytic parameters Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Cl-, mg/L 230 206 251 190 107 296

SO:-, mg/L 257 231 266 138 99 168
 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51 45

Table 4, continued

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Cl,, mg/L co.05 - - co.05 - -

SiO,Si, mg/L 5.9 5.1 8.1 7.0 5.2 9.9
HS‘, mg/L co.02 - - co.02 - -
F-, m@ co.1 - - co.1 - -
CN-, g/L co.002 - - co.002 - -

Organic components

Analytic parameters Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Detergent, mg/L 1.3 0.9 1.8 3.8 2.1 5.8

Phenol, mg/L 0.62 0.54 0.69 0.79 0.21 1.10
Pesticides, mg/L NI* - - NI* - -
PAH, rig/L 616 551 728 771 312 992

Microbian pollution

Analytic parameters Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Total coliforms, colony/100 mL 448,600 395,100 510,800 514,300 471,000 598,500

Faecal coliforms, colony/100 mL 111,700 57,800 187,200 125,600 87,100 210,100
Faecal streptococcus, colony/l 00 mL 93,600 25,100 145,600 88,700 54,100 121,900
Nematode eggs, units/L 0 - - 0 - -
Coliphagi, colony/100 mL 330 120 460 390 160 430
Adenoviruslrotavirus, units/L 0 - - 0 - -

Metals (mg/L)

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

B 1.10 0.62 1.24 0.68 0.26 1.32

Na 137 126 171 121 94 203
Ca 133 125 143 93 71 115
Mg 43.0 39.6 45.9 27 11 41
Al 0.42 0.21 0.54 0.12 0.01 0.16
As co.05 - - co.05 - -
Be <0.0003 - - <0.0003 - -
Cd co.003 - - co.003 - -
46 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51

Table 4, continued

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

co <7 - - <7 - -
Cr 0.02 <0.005 0.06 0.01 co.005 0.03
cu 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 co.005 0.02
Fe 0.71 0.57 0.89 0.34 0.07 0.61
Li co.002 - - co.002 - -
Mn 0.040 0.010 0.060 0.040 0.007 0.06
MO co.008 - - co.008 - -
Ni <O.OlO - - 0.016 <O.OlO 0.018
Pb co.04 - - 0.05 co.04 0.07
Se co.07 - - co.07 - -
V co.007 - - co.007 - -
His co.03 - - co.03 - -
Ba <O.OOl - - <O.OOl - -
Zn 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.16

*Non-identified.

and by the quantity of organic bio-degradable
matter in water.
3.2.3. Nitrogenous and phosphorous forms
UF increased the percentage of total phos-
phorus elimination as compared with MF,
reaching values of 26%. In the same way, some
elimination of total nitrogen was observed in the
ultrafiltrated water. This was not detected in the
MF. No significant change was observed in the
rest of phosphorous and nitrogenous forms.
This may be explained as an effect of the P-
and N- association with organic macromolecular
compounds. Such compounds are to be found in
coloidal suspension in wastewater. The UF
membrane causes their retention while the MF
membrane (with a large pore size) does not.
3.2.4. Inorganic components
No clear effect was produced concerning
inorganic salts abatement. Some tendencies
towards the decrease of certain salts were
observed in the ultrafiltrated water. Nevertheless,
the trend cannot be guaranteed with absolute
certainty since this decrease could lie within the
standard deviations of the analytical methodol-
ogies applied for its determination.
3.2.5. Organic components
Considerable amounts of detergents and
phenols were detected in the influent water. Both
compounds decreased an estimated 40% follow-
ing filtration. The remaining components were
found in amounts sufficiently small as to prevent
quantification of their elimination rate (PAH,
pesticides).
3.2.6. Metals
There was a significant elimination of the
following metals: Fe, Zn, Al, Cr, Cu and Mn.
Occasionally there were other heavy metals
undergoing significant reduction. The association
 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51 47

Table 5
Average elimination percentages and quality produced effluent

Non-specific parameters

Analytic parameters MF, % UF, % Effluent characterisation

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

PH - - 7.9 6.3 8.5 8.1 7 8.6

Temperature, “C - - 19 17.1 22.2 23.6 19.3 25.1
Conductivity, us/cm - - 1808 957 2158 1657 1523 2155
Total suspended solids, mg/L 100 100 0 -- 0 --
Turbidity, NTU 92 92 4 3 6 6 2 7
Colour, Hz 18 42 22 17 33 16 8 20
Dry residue, mg/L 3 8 1124 852 1654 1131 957 1540
Alkalinity, mg CaCO,/L - - 369 255 412 284 122 352

Parameters indicating organic pollution

Analytic parameters MF, % UF, % Effluent characterisation

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L - - 8 7.3 9.0 7.5 6.9 8.7

COD, mg OJL 47 46 33 17 42 43 37 55
Filtrated COD, 0.45 urn, 0,/L 16 - 32 15 39 - - -
BOD,, mg 0,/L 83 81 8 6 12 17 12 22
Oxydability KMnO,, mg 0,/L 33 - 12 8 27 - - -

Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds

Analytic parameters MF, % UF, % EMuent characterisation

Microfdtration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Total nitrogen, mg/L - 12 35 12 56 38 32 41

NH;-N, mg/L - - 25 17 33 19 15 52
NO;-N, mg/L - - 1.1 0.8 1.7 1.3 1.1 2.1
NO;-N, mg/L - - 3.2 3.1 7.5 12 3.1 14
Total phosphorus, mg/L 14 26 7.6 2.1 12.1 7.0 5.2 17.0
PO:--P, mg/L 9 - 5.9 4.7 7.1 4.0 3.3 7
48 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51

Table 5, continued

Inorganic components

Analytic parameters MF, % UF, % Effluent characterisation

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Cl-, mg/L - - 228 125 325 197 113 250

SOf, mg/L - - 259 97 312 140 85 175
Cl,, mg/L - - co.05 - - co.05 - -
SiO,-Si, mg/L - - 6.5 4.3 7.9 7.2 5.5 9.2
HS-, mg/L - - co.02 - - co.02 - -
F-, mg/L - - 0.23 0.12 0.35 0.16 0.10 0.22
CN-, mg/L - - 0.006 <O.OOl 0.008 0.008 0.003 0.009

Organic components

Analytic parameters MF, % UF, % Effluent characterisation

Microtiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Detergent, mg/L 40 30 0.6 0.2 0.8 2.7 1.9 3.1

Phenol, mg/L 33 42 0.42 0.25 0.65 0.46 0.23 0.55
Pesticides, mg/L - - NI* - - NI* - -
PAH, rig/L - - - - - - - -

Microbian pollution

Analytic parameters MF, % UF, % Effluent characterisation

Microfiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

Total coliforms, colony/100 mL 100 100 0 -- 0 --

Faecal coliforms, colony/l 00 mL 100 100 0 -- 0 --
Faecal streptococcus, 100 100 0 -- 0 --
colony/100 mL
Nematode eggs, units/L - - 0 0 --
Coliphagi, colony/100 mL 100 100 <lo - - <lo - -
Adenovirus/rotavirus, units/L - - 0 -- 0 --
 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51 49

Table 5, continued

Metals, mg/L

Analytic parameters MF, % UF, % EMuent characterisation

Microtiltration Ultrafiltration

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

B - - 1.09 0.5 1.22 0.7 0.2 1.1

Na - - 147 85 157 126 96 137
Ca - 163 112 211 111 77 189
Mg - 42.0 17.1 65.4 33.4 12.1 55.7
Al 61 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.08
AS - co.05 - - co.05 - -
Be - <0.0003 - - <0.0003
Cd - co.003 - - co.003
co - co.007 - - co.007
Cr 50 - 0.01 co.005 0.05 0.01
cu 50 43 0.01 0.009 0.03 0.01
Fe 76 48 0.17 0.08 0.22 0.18
Li - - co.002 - - co.002
Mn 25 27 0.03 co.005 0.09 0.03
MO - co.008 - - <0.008
Ni - co.01 - - co.01
Pb co.04 - - co.04
Se co.07 - - co.07
V co.007 - - co.007 -
Hg - co.03 - - co.03 - -
Ba - - <O.OOl - - co.00 1 - -
Zn 43 46 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.07
-
* Non-identified.

of metals to suspended matter and to macro-
molecules in wastewater plays a leading role in
the effectiveness of filtration concerning these
elements.
3.2.7. Microbial pollution
Microbial pollution was totally eliminated by
both techniques. This was to be expected since
bacterial sizes are higher than the pore diameter
adopted.
However, given the fact that nutrient content
is not eliminated from the water, a disinfection
process is to be recommended in order to avoid
later re-emergence of microbial pollution. Disin-
fection is particularly convenient in cases where
the treated water is stored for posterior reuse in
potentially hazardous applications (garden irriga-
tion, horticulture, etc.).
Neither nematode eggs nor virus (adenovirus
or rotavirus with a human origin) were identified.
This absence may be due either to their absence
50 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51
in the influent water or to the previous filtration
of 400 pm, which eliminates a high content of
suspended matter to which these organisms, par-
ticularly nematodes [23], are usually associated.
A slight decrease of coliphagi was observed;
this hints at the positive effect of the filtration
systems for these organisms.
3.3. Other observations
Membranes performance is shown to be sensi-
tive to the quality of feed water. Therefore, the
choice ofthe preliminary wastewater treatment is
important for the final quality output. For
instance, should the wastewater treatment plant
include nutrient elimination, filtering through the
membranes would open the door to alternative
reuse options (e.g., in the chemical industry).
The scope of the experimental procedure
applied does not allow for estimating the lifetime
of the MF and the UF units; indeed, our testing
times were well below the usual lifetime of
membranes.
4. Conclusions
Generally speaking, the effectiveness of these
processes is enhanced when applied to waste-
water. The reason is that many of the pollutants
are associated with suspended matter, which
provides a hospitable substrate for them.
Summing up, several factors endow
permeated water with excellent properties for its
application in an irrigation system [24]. The
following may be cited: high nutrient concen-
tration (nitrogen and phosphorus are practically
insensitive to filtration); low micropollutant
content; a favourable structure of concentration
for sodium, calcium and magnesium ions;
moderate salinity; and a lack of microorganic
pollution. Therefore, physical, chemical and
biological analytical attributes of permeated
water - by means of any of the two systems -
make it especially suitable for irrigation reuse,
when restrictions are slight or moderate, as well
as for reuse in park and sport field irrigation.
According to the analytical results obtained in
the filtered water, MF and UF basically gave rise
to the same quality output for the treated waste-
water. It was only possible to observe some slight
increases in the rates of color, phosphorus and
nitrogen elimination for ultrafiltrated water in
relation to microfiltrated water.
In addition, and within the framework of the
experimentation choices reported here, MF
provided some operational advantages over UF
while delivering water with a similar quality.
Hence, the use of MF is recommended for reuse.
Further research remains to be done on the
potential application ofthe reported abatement of
phosphorus and nitrogen content in the UF
module. Nutrient elimination could emerge as a
useful feature for specific reuse options.
References
PI S. Vigneswaran and C. Chen, in: T. Pondward,
C. Polprasert and K. Yamamoto, eds., Proc. Second
IAWPAC Asian Conference of Water Pollution
Control, Pergamon Press, 1988, pp. 613619.
PI S. Vigneswaran, B. Vigneswaran and R. Ben Aim,
Environmental Sanitation Rev., 31 (1991) 1844.
[31 R. Ben Aim and M. Peuchot, Wat. Supply, 9 (1991)
185.
[41 R. Ben Aim, M.G. Liu and S. Vigneswaran, Wat. Sci.
Tech., 27(10) (1993) 141.
PI P. Gosling and D. Brown, Wat. Sci. Tech., 27(56)
(1993) 439.
161 M. Kolega, S.G. Grohmann, R.F. Chiew and A.W.
Day, Wat. Sci. Tech., 23(79) (1993) 1609.
[71 HI. Shuval, Wat. Sci. Tech., 23( 10-12) (1991) 2073.
181
, M. Salgot and A. Pascual, Wat. Sci. Tech., 34(11)
(1996) 261.
[9] M. Peuchot and R. Ben Aim, 5th World Filtration
Congress, Nice, France, 1990, p. 488.
[lo] K. Shoichi, M. Yasumoto, I. Masaki and T. Osamu,
J. Membr. Sci., 102 (1995) 149.
 E. Alonso et al. /Desalination 141 (2001) 39-51 51

[ll] T. Bilstad and E. Espedal, Wat. Sci. Tech., 34(9) [ 181 G. Owen, M. Band, J.A Howell. and S.J. Churchouse,
(1996) 239. J. Membr. Sci., 102 (1996) 77.
[12] G.W. Meindersmaand M. Kuczynski, J. Membr. Sci., [19] T.A. Peters and F.S. Pedersen, 5th World Filtration
113(2) (1996) 285. Congress, Nice, France, 1990, p. 473.
[13] R. Ben Aim, M. Peuchot, S. Vigneswaran, K. [20] E. Alonso, J.C. Rodrigo, C. Rodriguez and
Yamamoto and S. Boonthanon, Wat. Pollution I. Fernartdez, Tecnoambiente, 72 (1997) 27.
Control, 6 (1988) 423. [21] G. Belfort, R.H. Davis and A.L. Zydney, J. Membr.
[14] T. Asano and A.D. Levine, Wat. Sci. Tech., Sci., 96(12) (1994) 1.
33(10-11) (1996) 1. [22] J.S. Chang, L.J. Tsai and S. Vigneswaran, Wat. Sci.
[15] J. D&rich, A. Gnirss, P. Frohlich and F. Sarfert, Wat. Tech., 34(9) (1995) 133.
Sci. Tech., 34(9) (1996) 125. [23] C. MC Gahey and V.P. Olivieri, Wat. Sci. Tech.,
[16] J.C. Rodrigo, C. Rodriguez and E. Alonso, Tecno- 27(34) (1993) 307.
logia del Agua, 168 (1997) 57. [24] World Health Organization, Health guidelines for the
[17] P. Thebault, M.R. Chevalier, C. Anselme and use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture,
P. Mazounie, Euromembrane 92, Paris, 1992, p. 127. Report of a WHO Scientific Group, Geneva, 1989.