Energy-saving potential of cross-flow ultrafiltration with

inserted static mixer: Application to an oil-in-water emulsion

a,∗ b,1 c,2 c,2
Darko M. Krstic´ , Wilhelm Hoflinger , Andras´ K. Koris , Gyula N. Vatai
a
Faculty of Technology, University of Novi Sad, Bulevar Cara Lazara 1, Novi Sad 21000,
b
Serbia and Montenegro Mechanical Process Engineering and Air Pollution Control
Techniques, Institute of Chemical Engineering,
Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9/166, A-1060 Vienna, Austria
c Department of Food Engineering, Corvinus University of Budapest, M´enesi St. 44, H-1118
Budapest, Hungary

Abstract
Ultrafiltration has been accepted as a highly attractive separation process to treat oily wastewaters. The use of
ultrafiltration is particularly interesting for the treatment of stable oil-in-water emulsions, such as cutting oil emulsions,
since the value of the recovered solid oil waste is high. However, the efficiency of ultrafiltration is limited by membrane
fouling and concentration polarisation, resulting in a permeate flux decrease, and therefore, increasing energy consumption
of the process. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential for energy saving in cross-flow ultrafiltration of a stable
oil-in-water emulsion by using a static mixer as a turbulence promoter. Experimental investigations were performed on a
TM
zirconia membrane with a nominal pore size of 20 nm using the Kenics static mixer as a turbulence promoter. The
reduction of the specific energy consumption of over 40% accompanied by the flux increase of up to 600% has been
observed during ultrafiltration of fresh cutting oil. Furthermore, the results showed the way how operation parameters
should be selected in order to achieve optimal process performance of the ultrafiltration with inserted static mixer.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cross-flow ultrafiltration; Energy saving; Turbulence promotion; Static mixer; Oil-in-water emulsion

1. Introduction
Cutting oil fluids are extensively used in metal-
working industry for cooling, lubrication, surface
cleaning and corro-sion prevention. Depending on
specific application, the cutting oil fluid can consist of up
to 97% water, the rest being a com-plex mixture of free
and emulsified oils, surfactants, antifoaming agents,
bactericides, rust inhibitors and other additives [1]. The
temperature of the cutting oil fluid is usually between 30
and
Presented at the 5th European Meeting on Chemical Industry
and Environ-ment (EMhIE), Vienna, Austria, 3–5 May 2006.
∗ sions can be classified as chemical, mechanical and thermal [2].
Corresponding author. Present address: Novel Technologies
(Malta) Ltd., 2 Zinja, Triq il-Kappara, Marsascala ZBR12, Malta.
Tel.: +356 21 63 3737; fax: +356 21 63 3737.
E-mail addresses: dakrstic@eunet.yu
(D.M. Krstic),´
whoeflin@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at (W.
Hoflinger),¨ gyula.vatai@uni-corvinus.hu
(G.N. Vatai).
1
Tel.: +43 1 58801 15910; fax: +43 1 58801 16699.
2
Tel.: +36 1 37 26 234.
◦
90 C [1] because of the heat it removes from the metal surfaces.
Therefore, cutting oil fluids need to be replaced periodically
because of the effects of thermal degradation, contamination by
particles and biological contamination. Used cutting oil flu-ids
produce a large amount of oil-in-water emulsion wastes which are
considered hazardous industrial wastes and require further
treatment before its disposal. Cutting oil wastes, together with oily
wastewaters, represent two of the main pollutants dis-charged to
the water environment. They cannot be discharged to the sewer
because of a high oil content and high residual organic pollution.
Hence, they have to be treated in order to obtain an oily phase as
concentrated in oil as possible in order to reuse the oil and an
aqueous phase in accordance with the regulation levels for
industrial wastewater.
The conventional methods for treatment of cutting oil emul-
The chemical methods involve chemical pretreatment of
emulsified oil to destabilize the emulsion followed by gravity
separation. The mechanical and thermal methods are primary
based on the phenomenon of gravitational and thermal emulsion
 D.M. Krsti´c et al. / Separation and Purification Technology XX (2007) XXX-XXX
beaking. However, the conventional methods for treatment of
emulsions have several disadvantages, such as a low effi-ency,
operational difficulties and high operation costs. Used tting oil
emulsions may contain inorganic, organic and bio-gical
contaminants. Generally, cutting oil wastes have a high OD
−1
level (more than 300 g L ), with the total oil content 1–10%,
and conventional treatment is usually not effective ough to meet
new regulations levels for industrial wastewater
−1 −1
g O2 L and 15 mg oil L ) [3,4].
To address this problem membrane processes, such as
micro-tration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse
osmosis, have en increasingly investigated for treating oil
emulsions. For ore than 25 years, ultrafiltration has been
considered as an ractive method for the separation of stable
oil-in-water emul-ns. The use of ultrafiltration for treatment
of cutting oil ulsions has been reported in the literature [5–
10]. This pro-ss has proved to be more effective then
conventional methods, cause it produces a water phase of
higher quality and oil phase hich can be recycled.
In recent years, ultrafiltration employing ceramic membranes
being increasingly used to treat oil emulsions. Ceramic mem-
anes have gained popularity due to their better mechanical,
ermal and chemical stability over polymeric membranes, spite
that the available pore size range is still limited. However, e
efficiency of ceramic ultrafiltration membranes is reduced by
embrane fouling. Oil-in-water emulsions induce three kinds
fouling mechanisms: oil drop deposit, concentration polar-tion
and adsorption of dissolved organic compounds [3]. embrane
fouling results in substantial decline in initial mem-ane
hydraulic permeability leading to a permeate flux decline er
time, and therefore increased energy consumption is nec-sary in
order to maintain a required membrane productivity. uling and
permeate flux behaviour of ceramic membranes dur-g
ultrafiltration of oil emulsions have been the focus of several
dies [9–12]. Since a sufficiently high value of the permeate x
can assure lower investment costs and the operation at lower
ergy consumption, the research work has been mostly focused
membrane fouling reduction and flux enhancement. Koris et
−2 −1
[11] have reported flux values of about 90 L m h dur-g
ultrafiltration of 5% (w/w) stable oil-in-water emulsion with 20
nm zirconia membrane. Benito et al. [12] have reported x
−2 −1
values as high as 250 L m h when ultrafiltering oil--water
emulsion with a 50 nm zirconia membrane. However, tration
and demulsification followed by centrifugation were ed as
pretreatment steps and more than 95% of the oil was moved
from the feed before the ultrafiltration step. Viadero Jr. al. [9]
have shown that high-shear rotary ultrafiltration allows
ncentration of oil beyond the typical operating limitations of
nventional ultrafiltration modules. Limiting flux values of up
−2 −1
550 L m h have been reported in the experiments with
rmeate recirculation to the feed tank.
Among the different ways to improve the permeate flux in
rafiltration of oil-in-water emulsions, another interesting tech-
que is the use of static turbulence promoters. Although they
duce hold-up in the feed channel, static turbulence promoters
crease wall shear rates and may produce secondary flows and
stabilities, and the significant flux enhancements compared to
1
a conventional cross-flow process have been reported [10,11].
TM
Krstic´ et al. [10] have shown that the use of the Kenics static
mixer as a turbulence promoter during ultrafiltration of a sta-ble
oil-in-water emulsion with a 20 nm zirconia membrane can provide
−2 −1
flux values of almost 300 L m h ; about five times higher
compared to the fluxes obtained during operation without using the
static mixer. However, the increase in pressure drop along the
membrane module due to presence of the static mixer resulted in
the increase in energy consumption. In the experiment involving
the feed concentration with a 5 nm titania membrane, an increase in
the specific energy consumption was around 90% at a volumetric
concentration factor of 6, despite of flux improve-ment of more
than 300% obtained at this concentration factor by using the static
mixer.
The results obtained during ultrafiltration with an inserted
static mixer suggest that the principles of process intensification
should be applied in order to improve membrane productivity
with substantial reduction in energy consumption, and therefore
operating costs. The aim of this study was to investigate the
potential for energy saving in cross-flow ultrafiltration of a
stable oil-in-water emulsion by using a static mixer as a
turbulence promoter.
2. Materials and methods
The experiments were carried out in cross-flow mode using a
conventional ultrafiltration set-up with a laboratory tubular single-
channel membrane module (Fig. 1). The membrane used was a
ZrO2 membrane (Exekia, Pall, USA) with a nominal pore size of
20 nm, length of 250 mm and diameter of 6.8 mm.
TM
The Kenics static mixer (FMX8124-AC, Omega, USA),
consisting of 38 mixing elements with a diameter of 6.35 mm,
was placed in the membrane (Fig. 2). Detailed characteristics of
the static mixer can be found elsewhere [13].
A stable oil/water emulsion was prepared from a non-used
water-soluble cutting oil (Unisol, Mol, Hungary) in batches of 8 L.
The oil concentration in the emulsion was 5% (w/w). All
◦
experiments were carried out at 50 C. The density and dynamic
−3
viscosity of used emulsion were ρ = 992.3 kg m and µ = 1.278
−3
× 10 Pa s, respectively. The feed was pumped from a tank to
the membrane module and then recirculated. The vol-ume flow rate
(Q) and transmembrane pressure (TMP) were controlled by means
of regulation valves. The permeate flux
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up: (1) feed tank; (2) circu-
lation pump; (3) pressure gauge; (4) membrane module; (5) liquid flow meter.
 D.M. Krsti´c et al. / Separation and Purification Technology XX (2007) XXX-XXX

the velocities during operation without the use of the static

mixer. Therefore, in order to compare these two modes of
operation at similar cross-flow velocity, the experiment
without using the static mixer had to be run at higher flow rate
than the one during SM mode of operation.
Volumetric concentration factor (VCF) during concentration of
the emulsion was determined as the ratio of feed volume at the
beginning of operation (Vfeed,i) to retentate volume in time t
(V ):
ret,t
V
feed,i
V
VCF = ret,t (2)
TM
Fig. 2. The Kenics static mixer. The membrane was cleaned according to the recommenda-
tion of the manufacturer prior to each experiment and the pure
(Jp) was calculated from the time needed to collect 10 mL of water flux of the cleaned membrane was measured. The clean-
permeate. The permeate side was opened to the atmosphere, so ing procedure was repeated until the original water flux was
TMP could be taken as the average of the gauge readings. The restored.
liquid flow rate was varied from 50 to 150 L h .
−1 Beside permeate flux, one of the most important parameter
from an economical point of view is the specific energy con-
Comparison of the process performances during operation
sumption (E) defined as the power dissipated per unit volume
without the use of the static mixer (NSM mode of operation) and
of permeate. The hydraulic dissipated power is directly related
when the static mixer was used (SM mode of operation) was
to the pressure drop along the membrane module (_P) and the
carried out in the conditions of total recirculation of the feed and
specific energy consumption can be calculated as [13]:
with volumetric concentration of the emulsion. The aim of
experiments with total recirculation was to determine the optimal Q_P
operation conditions (Q and TMP) for both modes of operation. JpA
E= (3)
On the other hand, the aim of experiments with vol-umetric
concentration was to demonstrate practical benefits of using a where Jp is the permeate flux and A is the membrane surface
static mixer in ultrafiltration of an oil-in-water emulsion. As area.
ultrafiltration systems are usually analysed via liquid veloc-ities Energy-saving potential of the configuration with the static
far more often than via liquid flow rates, the comparison of NSM mixer was checked through the reduction of the specific
and SM modes during volumetric concentration of the feed was energy consumption, determined as a relative reduction of E
carried out at the same cross-flow velocity. The liquid velocity is by using the static mixer compared to the value of E obtained
calculated as a superficial velocity: without the static mixer:
E E
NSM − SM
Q E 100 (4)
E
U= S (1) R= NSM
×
where S represents the effective cross-section area of the mem- 3. Results and discussion
brane tube.
However, when the static mixer was used, the effective cross- 3.1. Optimization of the operating conditions
section area was smaller for the value of a sectional area of the
static mixer than that of the empty tube. Different effective cross- The influence of transmembrane pressure and feed flow rate on
sectional areas resulted in about 20% higher velocities at the same the process performance with the inserted static mixer (SM mode
flow rates in the case of using the static mixer compared to of operation) was investigated during recirculation of the

−1 −1
Fig. 3. The variations of the permeate flux with TMP during NSM and SM modes of operations. Feed flow rate: (A) 100 L h ; (B) 150 L h .
 D.M. Krsti´c et al. / Separation and Purification Technology XX (2007) XXX-XXX

−1 −1
Fig. 4. Specific energy consumption vs. TMP during NSM and SM modes of operations. Feed flow rate: (A) 100 L h ; (B) 150 L h .

rmeate to the feed tank. Furthermore, in order to compare
sults, for a given flow rate, the experiments were carried
out thout using the static mixer (NSM mode of operation).
The eudo-steady state permeate flux values obtained at
−1
different MPs for the feed flow rates of 100 and 150 L h
are shown in g. 3.
Fig. 3 shows that the use of the static mixer provided a sig-
ficant flux enhancement compared to the operation without e
static mixer. Positive effect of the static mixer on perme-e flux
during ultrafiltration of an oil-in-water emulsion has eady been
reported in the literature [10,11]. The flow field nerated by the
static mixer induces hydraulic turbulence and creases the wall
shear stress in the vicinity of the membrane hich minimizes
the effect of concentration polarisation as well decreasing the
potential for membrane fouling. However, the ain limitation of
the configuration with the static mixer is the crease of pressure
drop along the membrane module (_P). ccording to Eq. (3), an
increase of pressure drop along the embrane at a given flow
rate through the module leads to an crease in dissipated power
and energy consumption. There-re, the specific energy
consumption (E) during the operation th the static mixer
should be checked as it is directly propor-nal to the operating
costs. Fig. 4 shows the variation of E with MP at flow rates of
−1
100 and 150 L h during both NSM and M modes of
operation.
Despite the significant flux enhancement, the energy con-
−1
mption was even higher at a flow rate of 150 L h during the
M mode of operation due to a high-pressure drop along the
embrane compared to the one without using the static mixer.
owever, the results from Fig. 4A show that certain energy sav-
−1
g can be obtained at a flow rate of 100 L h by using the tic
mixer. The values of the reduction of the specific energy
nsumption (ER) and flux enhancement achieved during the
operation in NSM and SM modes at the same feed flow rate are
shown in Table 1.
From Table 1 it is clear that the static mixer is more efficient at
higher TMPs; significant flux enhancement, and therefore lower
specific energy consumption were obtained when the static mixer
was used at higher TMPs. The reduction of the spe-cific energy
consumption of over 40% accompanied by the flux increase of up to
600% has been observed during the operation at a TMP of 300 kPa
−1
and flow rate of 100 L h .
The results presented in Figs. 3 and 4, as well as in Table 1,
suggest that the pressure drop along the membrane is too high
−1
during the operation in SM mode at a flow rate of 150 L h , and
that the use of the static mixer is unlikely favourable from the
energetic point of view at this flow rate. On the other hand, the flow
field generated by the static mixer enables a high degree of
turbulence near the membrane surface at low cross-flow veloci-ties.
In order to examine which value of cross-flow velocity can provide
considerable energy saving during the operation with the inserted
static mixer, the main process parameters were deter-mined at
several feed flow rates. Fig. 5 shows the variations of the permeate
flux and specific energy consumption with TMP at the feed flow
−1
rates in the range from 50 to 150 L h , which
correspond to the cross-flow velocities in the range from 0.46 to
−1
1.4 m s .
From Fig. 5 it can be noticed that the limiting flux was achieved
at a TMP as low as 200 kPa during the operation at a flow rate of 50
−1
L h . Although low energy consumption was observed at this flow
rate, the vortices generated by the static mixer cannot efficiently
scour the membrane surface, especially at higher transmembrane
pressures. On the other hand, a high pressure drop along the
−1
membrane at a flow rate of 150 L h lead to increased energy
consumption, despite high permeate fluxes. The permeate flux of
−2 −1
over 300 L m h , with the spe-

Table 1
mparison of NSM and SM modes of operation at different TMP and flow rates

P (kPa) ER (%) Flux enhancement (%)

−1 −1 −1 −1
Q = 100 L h Q = 150 L h Q = 100 L h Q = 150 L h
0 −37 −139 206 109
0 10 −86 334 193
0 35 −35 521 285
0 42 0 607 430
 D.M. Krsti´c et al. / Separation and Purification Technology XX (2007) XXX-XXX

Fig. 5. The variations of permeate flux (A) and specific energy consumption (B) with TMP during the operation with the static mixer at different feed flow rates.
−3
cific energy consumption lower than 2 kWh m , obtained at a flow
−1
rate of 100 L h are very promising results. The spe-cific energy
−3
consumption of 3.2 kWh m has been reported during
conventional ultrafiltration of oil-in-water emulsion [3]. Therefore,
−1
it seems that a flow rate of 100 L h , which cor-responds to a
−1
cross-flow velocity of 0.92 m s , could be the optimal feed flow
rate for improved process performance with inserted static mixer.
The improved performance of cross-flow microfiltration of skimmed
milk by using the same static mixer inserted in the membrane with
the same geometric characteris-tics has been reported at cross-flow
−1
velocities around 1 m s [10]. These results suggest that the
geometric characteristics of used static mixer and membrane
determine the efficiency of the configuration with static mixer more
than membrane pore size, in the cases when surface fouling is
predominant.
−1
velocity (1.2 m s ). In addition, TMP of 160 kPa proved to be too low to
obtain any significant values of permeate flux during NSM mode of
operation, so TMP of 200 kPa was used throughout this experiment. It
−2
should be emphasized that the per-meate fluxes not higher than 75 L m
−1
h were obtained during the operation without the static mixer at cross-
−1
flow velocities as high as 2 m s [10]. On the other hand, despite opera-
tion at lower TMP the static mixer provided the initial flux of over 300 L
−2 −1 −2 −1
m h with the flux of around 130 L m h at a VCF of 5 during the
−1
operation at a cross-flow velocity of only 0.92 m s , resulting in lower
specific energy consump-tion (Fig. 6B); the flux enhancement of 314%
with the reduction

3.2. Volumetric concentration of oil/water emulsion

The experiments with the recirculation of the permeate pro-

vided the guidelines of how ultrafiltration involving the use of
static mixer should be carried out in order to improve the
permeate flux and concurrently reduce energy consumption. Fur-
thermore, the previous results obtained during the use of the
same configuration [10] suggest that the static mixer is even
more effective at higher oil concentrations. Therefore,
volumetric con-centration of the feed using the ultrafiltration
configuration with the static mixer was carried out at a flow rate
−1
of 100 L h . For comparison, the experiment without using the
−1
static mixer was carried out at a flow rate of 150 L h to
compensate the “loss” of effective cross-section area and
increased turbulence due to presence of the static mixer. An
increase of pressure drop along a membrane and consequently
increase of TMP is usually indicated as the main disadvantage of
a configuration with an inserted static mixer. To demonstrate
opposite, volumetric con-centration of the emulsion in SM mode
of operation was carried out at TMP as low as 160 kPa. The
variations of the permeate flux and specific energy consumption
with VCF are shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Permeate flux (A) and specific energy consumption (B) as a func-tion of
The permeate flux decreased due to fouling and increasing of the −1
VCF for NSM and SM modes of operation. NSM: Q = 150 L h ; TMP = 200 kPa;
viscosity as the feed is concentrated. Low permeate flux during −1
SM: Q = 100 L h ; TMP = 160 kPa.
NSM mode of operation can be explained by insufficient turbulence
near the membrane surface at the given cross-flow
 D.M. Krsti´c et al. / Separation and Purification Technology XX (2007) XXX-XXX
the specific energy consumption of 44% was achieved at a
CF of 2.
The experiments involving volumetric concentration of
the ed indicated that the appropriate use of static mixer
could sult in significant energy saving and improved
ultrafiltration oil/water emulsion.
Conclusions
The present study clearly shows the energy-saving poten-l of
TM
cross-flow ultrafiltration with the Kenics static mixer
serted in the membrane tube. The results obtained with a sta-e
oil-in-water emulsion as a feed demonstrated that the use the
−1
static mixer at operating cross-flow velocities as low as m s
is crucial in order to achieve the improved process per-
rmance. Considerable energy saving and higher fluxes were
hieved compared to those obtained with a conventional cross-
w ultrafiltration without using the static mixer.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Ministry for Science d
Environment Protection, Republic of Serbia (project no.
2045), CEEPUS Foundation (network no. H-0158-04/05)
and e Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture,
Repub-of Austria (Ernst Mach Grant).
References
] S.H. Lin, W.J. Lan, Waste oil/water emulsion treatment by membrane
processes, J. Hazard. Mater. 59 (1998) 189–199.
[2] M. Cheryan, N. Rajagopalan, Membrane processing of oily streams.
Wastewater treatment and waste reduction, J. Membr. Sci. 151 (1998) 13–
28.
[3] G. Ducom, H. Matamoros, C. Cabassud, Air sparging for flux enhance-
ment in nanofiltration membranes: application to O/W stabilised and non-
stabilised emulsions, J. Membr. Sci. 204 (2002) 221–236.
[4] A.Y. Tremblay, H. Peng, D.E. Veinot, Design and performance of an inor-
ganic MF/polymeric UF hybrid system for the treatment of a difficult
waste stream containing both colloidal and micron size particles,
Desalination 149 (2002) 151–152.
[5] M. Belkacem, D. Hadjiev, Y. Aurelle, A model for calculating the steady
state flux of organic ultrafiltration membranes for the case of cutting oil
emulsions, Chem. Eng. J. 56 (1995) 27–32.
[6] X.G. Hu, E. Bekassy-Molnar, Gy. Vatai, Study of ultrafiltration behaviour of
emulsified metalworking fluids, Desalination 149 (2002) 191–197.
[7] D.A. Masciola, R.C. Viadero Jr., B.E. Reed, Tubular ultrafiltration flux
pre-diction for oil-in-water emulsions: analysis of series resistances, J.
Membr. Sci. 184 (2001) 197–208.
[8] X. Hu, E. Bek´assy´-Molnar,´ A. Koris, Study on modelling
transmembrane pressure and gel resistance in ultrafiltration of oily
emulsion, Desalination 163 (2004) 355–360.
[9] R.C. Viadero Jr., D.A. Masciola, B.E. Reed, R.L. Vaughan Jr., Two-phase
limiting flux in high-shear rotary ultrafiltration of oil-in-water emulsions, J.
Membr. Sci. 175 (2000) 85–96.
[10] D.M. Krstic,´ A.K. Koris, M.N. Tekic,´ Do static turbulence promoters
have potential in cross-flow membrane filtration applications, Desalination
191 (2006) 371–375.
[11] A. Koris, D. Krstic, X. Hu, Gy. Vatai, Ultrafiltration of oil in water emul-
sion: flux enhancement with static mixer, in: Proceedings of the Membrane
Science and Technology Conference of Visegrad Group—PERMEA 2005,
Polanica Zdroj,´ Poland, September 18–22, 2005.
[12] J.M. Benito, G. R´ıos, E. Ortea, E. Fernandez,´ A. Cambiella, C. Pazos, J.
Coca, Design and construction of a modular pilot plant for the treatment of
oil-containing wastewaters, Desalination 147 (2002) 5–10.
[13] D.M. Krstic,´ M.N. Tekic,´ M.D. Caric,´ S.D. Milanovic,´ Static turbulence
promoter in cross-flow microfiltration of skim milk, Desalination 163
(2004) 297–309.