Ilan Wilf

New Membrane Research and Development Achievements,

But the Best is Yet to Come

Membrane R&D, Key to Evolution & Use of Membranes

Technology makes the world go round . This statement is not only valid in general, but
is also a true representation of the future of membranes in the field of the water treatment.
Since their introduction in the late 1950 s, reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration and
microfiltration membranes have been increasingly used for a multiple of different applications in
the field of water treatment. From the early development work of Sourirajan and Loeb on the
spiral wound cellulose acetate membrane and the invention of capillary technology, to the
introduction of a low fouling composite (LFC) spiral RO membrane and the backwashable
capillary ultrafiltration membrane in the late 1990 s, membrane research and development has
proven key to the evolution and continuation of the use of membranes in all aspects of life.
Within the past 40 years, the evolution of membrane development has improved performance,
reliability and contributed to lower operating costs, making membranes the preferred technology
in the water treatment industry. The evolution of membrane technology can be categorized in
two specific avenues; the first being spiral wound reverse osmosis and nanofiltration technology
and the second capillary ultrafiltration and microfiltration technology. Both technology
categories have evolved through the years and are equally important in understanding what has
been achieved up to this point and what the future may hold. The treatment of fluids with
membrane technology is about to take on a new meaning as technology charges forward and
reshapes the use of membranes, as we know them today.

Recapping the technological advancements of the 20th century, with respect to the
treatment of fluids with membranes, one can see a significant shift from the traditional aspects of
membrane treatment, to a more technologically refined process, where one can maximize ones
resources and achieve higher quality and performance, all at less cost than what could have been
previously achieved. The research and development efforts put forth in the 20th century have
paved the way to a new family of future products and applications. This article will concentrate
on three distinct developments in the field of membrane technology, and how each development
will contribute and redefine the use and application diversity of membranes in water and waste
water industries.
Low Fouling Technology

The first technological advancement came in the late part of 1998, with the introduction
of the Low Fouling Composite (LFC) membrane. This membrane is not only characterized with
the same or better flux rate of most composite membranes, but also with a higher or equivalent
salt rejection. This membrane is primarily suited for the treatment of difficult feedwaters,
municipal wastewater and other unique feedwater, which up to now required significant
pretreatment prior to subjecting them to any composite RO membrane. When treating surface
water or municipal effluents, RO membranes, even with conventional pretreatment, foul very
readily. This phenomena is generally characterized by the formation of a dense layer on the
membrane surface, comprising of an excess layer of dissolved organics and suspended organic
matter near the membrane surface. The rate of which fouling matter converges on the membrane
surface is directly proportional to the permeate flux. The rate of formation of a fouling layer and
its bondage to the membrane surface depends, in addition to the flux rate, on the affinity of the
membrane surface to the dissolved organic matter. Conventional composite RO membranes,
using the aromatic polyamide polymer, are strongly hydrophobic. Therefore, they are prone to
high fouling rates and significant reduction in permeate flux, during the treatment of feedwaters
containing high concentration of organic matter.
To significantly reduce this fouling tendency, an LFC membrane was developed. The
LFC is characterized by a low surface charge and a hydrophilic membrane surface characteristic.
Figure 1 presents the difference between the surface charge potential of a conventional
composite polyamide RO membrane and the new LFC membrane, both as a function of pH.

Figure 1

LFC membrane surface charges

15
Surface potential, mV

10
5
LFC technology
0
-5
-10
Conventional
-15
Technology
-20
-25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Solution pH

The surface charge of the LFC membrane is significantly less negative (more neutral) as
compared to the surface charge of conventional composite membranes. This characteristic can
be directly translated to the affinity of the LFC membrane to dissolved organic constituents.
Figure 2 demonstrates this quite effectively. When subjected to a wide range of surfactants, the
LFC retained its flux significantly better than conventional RO membranes.
 Figure 2

LFC membrane exposure to surfactants

120
LFC technology
100
Flux retention, %

80

60

40 Conventional
membranes
20

0
Cationic anionic amphoteric neutral
Surfactant type

To confirm this observation, the LFC membrane was operated opposite a conventional
low pressure composite polyamide membrane. Both membranes were subjected to municipal
effluents treated by ultrafiltration capillary membrane technology at Water Factory 21, CA.

Figure 3 represents the operation of both membrane types with respect to feed pressure
and temperature versus time. The specific flux of the LFC is lower than the specific flux of the
low pressure RO membrane, therefore the initial feed pressure was about 90 psi, which is slightly
higher than the initial pressure of the low pressure membrane at similar operating conditions.
However, almost immediately, the low pressure membrane permeate flux decreased very rapidly,
almost doubling, within the first 2000 hours of operation. The feed pressure had to be increased
from approximately 70 psi (5 bar) to more than 160 psi (11 bar), to maintain a constant permeate
flux of 10 gfd (17 l/m2-hr). The LFC membrane, on the other hand, operating at an even higher
permeate flux rate of 12 gfd (21 l/m2-hr) remained very stable at a level of 90-100 psi (5-6 bar)
for the duration of the operating period.
 250

Std. Feed Pressure, psi and Temperature, deg. C

Permeate Flux Rate: 11 GFD 12 GFD 12 GFD 16GFD
200

Low Pres. Membrane

150

Pressure, psi
100

Low Fouling
Membrane
50
Temperature, deg. C

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Operating Time, hours

Results point to the fact that the LFC membrane experienced little to no fouling when
operated on municipal effluent, which are generally considered problematic for conventional RO
membranes. The LFC membrane was not cleaned, during the 8 month operating period, due to
the phenomenal performance stability. After the completion of the field test, The LFC s
resistivity to fouling was confirmed by testing the performance of the elements at standard test
conditions. The results, depicted in Table 1, indicate that after 8 month of operation without any
cleaning, the average flux decline was only about 10%-20% as compared to the ex-factory test
data. After flushing the LFC membrane elements with a high pH cleaning solution, the permeate
flux was restored completely, back to the original ex-factory values. The effective restoration of
the permeate flux indicates a weak bonding effect between the dissolved organic matter and the
membrane surface, a characteristic of hydrophilic surface character.

Table 1: Performance change of 4 inch LFC on UF treated Municipal Effluent

Flux, gfd Flux, m3/d Rejection, %

Ex-Factory 2082 7.88 99.6
After Cleaning 1578 5.97 99.6
Operation
After Cleaning 1708 6.46 99.2
 Combining the attributes of a neutral surface charge and hydrophilicity, the LFC
membrane is by far superior to any other conventional polyamide membrane in the treatment of
what until now has been considered difficult feed water sources. The most significant
improvement is the major reduction in cleaning costs, providing increased membrane and system
stability. This type of quality can significantly increase the overall life of the system, improving
operating efficiency and reducing down time, which translates to resources and money saved.
This technology has only began to evolve and in the future will be applied to a variety of
membrane surfaces, therefore changing completely system design and operating guidelines.

Reversible Spiral Technology

The second significant advancement is the introduction of the low pressure Reversible
Spiral (RS) membrane. This innovative and unique product is truly a revolution in the
membrane industry with significant bearing on the design of pretreatment systems in the future.
The RS was developed to either act as pretreatment to spiral wound RO membrane elements or
as the primary treatment for surface water and waste water applications. This element type is
based on the unsurpassed reliability of the spiral wound design, but constructed in such a way
that utilizes a filtrate backwash mechanism that allows the membrane to operate at a dead end
mode, rather than the traditional cross flow configuration. This quality provides extraordinary
benefits with respect to operating efficiency, membrane stability and overall improved system
performance.
Spiral wound membrane elements have traditionally utilized cross-flow operational
mode. Under this mode of operation the highest single element recovery achievable is 15%,
with system recovery at 90%. Limitations are governed by hydraulic considerations, economics
and spiral wound RO element configuration. Operating an RO system outside these limits
contributes to an increase in membrane fouling, by the formation of a boundary layer on the
membrane surface, and potentially completely plugging the element flow channels. Currently,
the only method to attempt and either reduce or remove the colloidal fouling layer in a
membrane element is by cleaning using chemicals and traditional cross flow methods. A
cleaning solution is pumped from the feed channel, to concentrate and permeate channels.
Wouldn t it be beneficial and more effective to backwash a membrane from the permeate
side (pressurizing water through the permeate core tube) and therefore pushing the colloidal
and suspended matter from the membrane surface to the outside and then to drain? This
operation method, called backwashing has not been a reality using traditional membrane element
configuration. When applying more than 10 psi (0.5-1 bar) from the permeate side, one runs the
extensive risk of bursting the membrane envelope inside the membrane and delaminating the
membrane itself, rendering the element useless. Once this occurs, there is no barrier between the
feed/concentrate and the permeate channels.
In the quest for continuous process improvement, innovation and cost awareness, the
Reversible Spiral (RS) has been designed. This technology can successfully replace
conventional pretreatment systems as they exist today. The RS was developed to either act as
pretreatment to spiral wound membrane elements or as the primary treatment method for surface
water and waste water applications. The RS has been thoroughly tested on a variety of surface
water conditions with unparalleled success.
 The RS element utilizes an ultrafiltration membrane, made of polysulfone, with
molecular cut-off (MWCO) between 20,000-750,000 Daltons. The ability to accommodate a
variety of MWCO membrane characteristics, each with a different barrier to colloidal matter,
makes the RS a versatile technology in treating multiple feed sources. With its unique
innovative membrane structure, the RS can be operated at a dead-end mode, with intermittent
backwash cycles. Therefore, a recovery of 95% is achievable with either one element or a
complete system. In addition, the membrane utilizes a barrier spacer, which is wrapped around
the element, rejecting the large colloidal particles. The ultrafiltration membrane rejects the
smaller suspended particles, which pass the first barrier layer.
The operation methodology of the RS is depicted in Figures 4 and 5. When operated
under regular filtration mode, feed enters the vessel and approaches the membrane element from
all directions, head-on and radial. Since the element does not incorporate a brine seal, feed flow
fully engulfs the membrane element and is able to filtrate from all directions. Typical feed
operating pressures range from 14-30 psi (1-2 bar) at flux rates of 25-50 gfd (48-85 l/m2 hr),
depending on feedwater characteristics. To reduce fouling potential and increased operation
efficiency, every 30 minutes or so, the RS is backwashed for approximately 30 seconds at a
pressure of 25 psi (1.7 bar) at a flux rate of 38-75 gfd (65-125 l/m2 hr). Filtrate is drawn from a
reservoir and pressurized from the filtrate core tube, causing the foulants to be displaced from the
membrane and barrier layer and flushed from the vessel itself and disposed to waste. The
backwash flow accounts from approximately 5% of the filtrate produced by the module.
Depending on the feed water characteristics, backwash can be performed with either just filtrate
or filtrate combined with hypochlorite, to be used as a disinfectant as well. The proposed
cleaning frequency for the RS is 4-6 times per year using conventional low and high pH cleaning
chemicals.

Filtrat

Feed
Elemen

Figure 4
 Backwas
with

Backwas
Dispos

Figure 5

The RS ultrafiltration membrane is currently being installed as pretreatment for a large

seawater project in Adur, Bahrain. The RS membrane system is designed to treat 142,000
m3/day of raw seawater from an open intake and generate filtrate with an SDI of less than 3
prior to the RO membrane system. This technology competed against both capillary UF and
conventional pretreatment, and was chosen as the technology of choice taking into account
process and economical considerations.

Backwashable Capillary Technology

The third significant advancement is the introduction of backwashable capillary

ultrafiltration membrane. For many years, the treatment of surface water sources has been
performed with conventional pretreatment. The reduction in suitable water sources and recent
government regulations have forced municipalities to upgrade their existing systems and install
new systems to conform to the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) quality drinking water
standard. This has opened up a whole new market for using backwashable capillary membrane
technology as a direct replacement to conventional pretreatment in treating highly fouling
surface water and municipal effluents as the primary treatment or as pretreatment to RO for
ground water recharging, water recycling and potable water applications. Even though capillary
technology has been utilized for years, only recently, the ability to backwash a capillary fiber has
opened the doors to a whole range of new applications. This technology and its direct
application are boundless and its impact on the water treatment industry will be tremendous.
Capillary technology, as it exists today, is based on either using ultrafiltration or
microfiltration membrane technology. Both membrane types provide a certain barrier to
colloidal particles, viruses and pathogens. The SWTR requires a minimum removal efficiency of
2-log reduction for Giardia and Cryptosporidium and 1-log virus removal. Based on independent
challenge tests performed by a third party, ultrafiltration membrane technology has been credited
with achieving greater than 4-log removal (99.99%) for Giardia and Cryptosporidium as well as
viruses. Compared with microfiltration, which has only been able to achieve 3-log removal on
Giardia and Cyrptosporidium and 0.5-2-log removal on viruses. This data is presented in Table
2. This difference translates to increased efficiency by producing the highest quality filtrate
possible. By exceeding the SWTR requirements, ultrafiltration has been recognized by
Department of Health Services and NSF as being a viable technology for the treatment of surface
water sources.

Table 2: Log Removal efficiency of UF and MF membranes

Membran Giardia Cryptosporidium Virus credit

e Type credit credit
UF 4 4 4
MF 1 3 3 0.5
MF 2 3 3 2

The capillary ultrafiltration membrane is made using a chlorine tolerant Hydrophilic

polyether sulfone polymer, which has an average MWCO of 150,000 Daltons. The membranes
strong hydrophilic characteristic and the ability to tolerate up to 200 ppm of chlorine, makes it
ideal for the treatment of surface water sources. The module is constructed of several thousand
hollow fibers arranged in parallel. The module is operated at either dead-end (direct flow) mode
or cross-flow, generally guided by the turbidity value of the feedwater source. By operating at
dead-end mode, one can achieve greater than 90% system recovery. 10% of the filtrate produced
will be used for backwash operation. The flow pattern is inside-out; that is to say that the feed
water flows through the inside of the fibers and filtrate passes radially outward through the
membrane wall. Typical operating flux range for this membrane is 36-75 gfd (60-130 l/m2 hr) at
a trans-membrane pressure range of 4-22 psi (0.3-1.5 bar). This is primarily dependent of the
characteristics of the feed water being treated. During operation, particulate, including but not
limited to suspended solids and microorganism, build up on the membrane surface, causing some
fouling to occur. To restore initial flux and reduce long term fouling potential, the water flow
direction is reversed using an innovative backwash operation mechanism. Similar to the RS
technology, every 30-60 seconds backwash water, using filtrate, is pressurized into the filtrate
side of the module at 185 gfd (315 l/m2 hr) and 35 psi (2.4 bar) and is removed out of either the
feed or concentrate side, using an alternating pattern. The backwash duration ranges from 30-60
seconds, depending on the severity of the foulant formation layer. During this cycle,
Hypochlorite is generally introduced with the filtrate to increase the backwash efficiency.

Summary

The RS and capillary membranes are the technologies of the future for meeting SWTR
guidelines. The following are the extraordinary benefits realized with the use of either
technology as compared to conventional pretreatment:

1. Significantly better Filtrate Quality — through the use of ultrafiltration membrane technology
with respect to membrane chemistry and module design, the quality of the filtrate achieved is
significantly better as compared to conventional pretreatment. The reasons for this
difference can be attributed to the fact that:
a) All colloidal particles are removed using ultrafiltration membrane technology. Due to the
presence of the ultrafiltration membrane, as a filtration barrier, the membrane, producing
colloidal free filtrate will reject all colloidal matter.
b) Filtrate quality produced is independent of the raw feed water conditions. Therefore, any
variations in raw water quality posses a reduced impact on the overall plant operation.
c) Due to the ability to consistently produce good filtrate quality, raw feedwater conditions
do not affect the RO membrane system availability.
d) Good quality filtrate is produced immediately upon startup, thereby increasing the
operational efficiency of the overall plant.
e) The ability to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of floculants and flocculation aids.
The advantage translates to reduced chemical consumption, handling and the elimination
of the auxiliary equipment necessary to support this process.
f) Disposal of backwash is much less problematic. With the elimination or significant
reduction in floculant consumption, backwash disposal becomes a less significant issue.
2. Increased efficiency of RO system design and membrane operation. RO membrane
operation is dependent on the quality of the filtrate produced by the pretreatment system.
The better the filtrate quality from the pretreatment, the better the RO membranes will
operate. Since the filtrate quality is significantly improved using ultrafiltration membrane
technology, one will realize the following operational improvements:
a) Increased membrane stability. Using ultrafiltration as pretreatment, the fouling rate of
the RO membranes is reduced significantly. As a consequence, the cleaning frequency is
reduced as well. Both of these factors lend themselves to prolonging membrane stability
and life over time.
b) Reducing capital and operational costs. Ultrafiltration technology provides the ability to
operate the RO membranes at optimal design conditions. Depending on the required
operating conditions, one may choose to design the RO system at a higher flux rate,
therefore reducing the number of membranes, pressure vessels and piping required
initially.

All of the technological advancements described above are important in their own right.
However, when one integrates one technology with the next, then one can significantly
maximize the efficiency of a treatment process, expanding the possibilities and achieving the
greatest return on investment. This process is termed Integrated Membrane Solutions (IMS TM)
and will become an industry standard in the near future. The first rule of a successful technology
company is understanding the implications and application of a specific technology. Through
IMSTM one can do just that. IMSTM can be a powerful tool in the treatment of a variety of
feedwaters. Where in the past one had to utilize a combination of conventional treatment and
membrane technologies to treat a certain feedwater characteristic, already today and even more
so in the future, we have the ability to completely utilize membranes for this same process. The
advantages of this concept can be realized in performance and process improvement, cost
savings, systems reliability, and ultimately the ability to treat more applications than ever before.

The 21st Century signifies a new era in membrane technology. Membranes have always
been considered the heart of the system. Without this technology all the other auxiliary
equipment is meaningless. Therefore, it is critical we invest heavily in R&D efforts, which will
produce viable products and solutions to existing problems.

Ilan Wilf — Biography:

Ilan Wilf is the Marketing Manager at Hydranautics Corporation. Ilan has over 10 years of sales,
technical and management experience in the water treatment industry. He has worked for
multiple OEM s, a pressure vessel manufacturer and has recently returned to Hydranautics. He
received a B.S degree is Chemical Engineering from the University of California Santa Barbara
and an MBA specializing in Technology Management from the University of Phoenix in San
Diego.