2007:029

MASTER'S THESIS

Evaluation of Membrane Filters Experiment

at Gäddvik Drinking Water Plant, Luleå

Kenneth Ifeanyi Nwosu

Luleå University of Technology

Master Thesis, Continuation Courses

Environmental Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Division of Water Resources Engineering

2007:029 - ISSN: 1653-0187 - ISRN: LTU-PB-EX--07/029--SE

 MASTERS THESIS

EVALUATION OF MEMBRANE FILTERS EXPERIMENT AT

GADDVIK DRINKING WATER PLANT, LULEÅ.
BY

Kenneth Ifeanyi Nwosu

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAMME

Department of Environmental Engineering

Division of Sanitary Engineering
 Preface
Interdependence they say is certainly more valuable than independence. In this thesis
project, I have had the opportunity to be accompanied, and supported by many people.
It is therefore pleasing that I have this opportunity to express my gratitude to some of
them.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my project supervisor Professor Jorgen
Hanaeus, the head of the division of Sanitary Engineering of Luleå University of
Technology for his help and the time he spent in introducing me to the field work and
his guidance, encouragement, sound advice, good teaching and lots of good ideas. I
salute him.
I would also like to use this opportunity to thank warmly Helena Almqvist for her
assistance and the operators of the plant, Patrik Fahlen, Lars –Olof Eriksson, Borje
Lantto, for their assistance and the useful information they told me all over those six
months. Furthermore, I am grateful to Kerstin Nordqvist, and other staffs of the
division of Sanitary Engineering of Luleå University of Technology. My sincere
gratitude also goes to my love ones Bede, John, Emeka, Stella, Obinna, Kelechi, Ijeoma
Opara, chinedu, Uche, Victor, Iyke and others.
This six months work is part of the partial fulfillments of my master degree award
Certificate.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering I

 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to God Almighty for his sufficient grace and with love to my
Sponsors Mr. and Mrs. L.C. Nwosu, Mrs. Beatrice Ukah Nwosu and my beloved
brother Bede Anele Nwosu.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering II

 Table of Content
PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................. I
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................................................II
TABLE OF CONTENT ......................................................................................................................... III
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................. IV
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................. V
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ VI
CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................................................ 1
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 AIM OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................. 4
1.3 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT......................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER TWO....................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 MEMBRANE FILTRATION ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Membrane filters ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Microfiltration (MF) ............................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Reverse Osmosis (RO) ........................................................................................................... 9
2.1.4 Ultrafiltration (UF)............................................................................................................. 11
2.1.5 Nanofiltration (NF) .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 MEMBRANE SCALE FORMATION .................................................................................................. 13
2.2.1 The common scalants:....................................................................................................... 14
2.3 MEMBRANE FOULING.................................................................................................................. 15
2.3.1 Kinds of membrane fouling. .............................................................................................. 17
2.3.2 Characteristics of Natural Organic Matter (NOM) .............................................................. 18
2.3.3 Gel layer formation............................................................................................................... 18
2.3.4 Pore blocking/plugging......................................................................................................... 19
2.3.5 Concentration polarization ................................................................................................... 19
2.3.6 Membrane fouling consequences ......................................................................................... 19
2.3.7 Ways to minimize membrane fouling .................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER THREE................................................................................................................................. 21
3.1 NF AND UF PILOT PLANT MEMBRANES CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................... 21
NF - membrane plant ....................................................................................................................... 21
UF – membrane plant ..................................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 WELL WATER SAMPLE ................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 RIVER WATER SAMPLES ............................................................................................................... 30
4.4 ENERGY CONSUMPTION RATE ...................................................................................................... 41
6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 47
6.1 SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE WORK ...................................................................................... 47
REFERENCE: ......................................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................. 52

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering III

 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Shows sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-09

Table 2 Shows sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-13

Table 3 Shows sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-21

Table 4 Shows sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-23

Table 5 Shows sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-03-05

Table 6 Shows sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-03-12

Table 7 Shows sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-03-20

Table 8 Shows sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-03-23

Table 9 Shows sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-04-03

Table 10 Shows sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-04-10

Table 11 Shows sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-04-16 with anti scale
0f 10 ml to1 litre of water.
Table 12 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-16 with anti scale of
10 ml to 1 litre of water.
Table 13 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-02-23

Table 14 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-03-05

Table 15 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-03-20

Table 16 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-03-23

Table 17 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-03

Table 18 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-10

Table 19 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-16

Table 20 Shows sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-19

Table 21 The ion analysis of the UF plant running with well water 2007-04-19

Table 22 Energy consumption of NF plant from 2007-02-12 to 2007-03-16

Table 23 Energy consumption of NF plant from 2007-03-19 to 2007-04- 19

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering IV

 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 shows a sketch of Gaddvik drinking water plant

Figure 1.2 shows the useful ranges of various separation processes

Figure 1.3 shows the micro filtration. Membrane set up

Figure 1.4 shows the reverse osmosis membrane set up

Figure 2 shows the complex deposits from surface water on a membrane

Figure 2.1 Nanofiltration set up at Luleå drinking water plant Bjorks rostfria, 2006

Figure 2.2 Ultra filtration set up at Luleå drinking water plant Mercatus, 2006

Figure 2.2.1 A sketch of operating principle of membrane technology.

Figure 3 shows the turbidity variation with well water in Exp 1 of table 1.

Figure 4 shows the turbidity variation with well water in Exp1 of table 1

Figure 5 shows the turbidity variation with well water in Exp 1 of table 1

Figure 6 shows the turbidity variation with river water in table 7, Exp 2

Figure 7 shows the turbidity variation with river water in table 10, Exp 1

Figure 8 shows the turbidity variation with river water in table 16, Exp 1

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering V

 ABSTRACT

The following pages report the evaluation of Nanofiltration (NF) and Ultrafiltration
(UF) membrane filters experiment at Gaddvik drinking water plant, Luleå
(Sweden).Recently, concepts of direct use of membrane technology, a minimized
process for the treatment of surface waters to portable water; have aroused more and
more interest. In Gaddvik drinking water plant experiments with this technology were
carried out, UF membrane filter and NF membrane filter were used. In the pilot plant
experiments were also investigated the effect of filtration on the membrane fouling and
the removal efficiency of natural dissolved organic matter in which the turbidity values
of the well water before and after the filter membranes were 0.5 NTU and 0.05 NTU
respectively. It is observed that filtration prior to membrane filtration process decreased
the membrane fouling problems and increased the removal efficiency of natural
dissolved organic matter.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering VI

 CHAPTER ONE

1 INTRODUCTION
As water resources become more limited and waste discharge becomes increasingly
problematic, the concept of water reuse is becoming important (Buckley et al,
2000).The global consumption of water is doubling every 20yrs, more than twice the
rate of human population growth. According to the United Nations, more than one
billion people already lack access to fresh drinking water. If the current trend persists
by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise by 56% above the amount of
water that is currently available. Water needs in Europe are usually satisfied but water
quality is still a major concern. Standards concerning all the parameters are severely
controlled by the different states, the limits tolerated are always decreased to improve
water security regarding to health.

Sweden is in a favorable position with regard to average fresh water availability.

Around 90% of the population as well as industries, schools, hospitals and so on are
connected to central water and waste water handling systems. More than half of the
Swedish drinking water comes from surface water and the remainder, in about equal
parts from virgin and artificially infiltrated groundwater (Malmqvist, 1999).
Absolutely pure water is rarely found in nature, the impurities occur in three
progressively finer states – suspended, colloidal and dissolved. Different methods of
treatments are required for their removal or reduction to acceptable level (Smethurst,
1988).

As a pressure driven process, membrane filtration is able to provide water of much

higher quality, be it to meet municipal drinking and waste water quality requirements or
industrial specification for water reuse. Moreover dramatic reduction of prices of
membrane water treatment technologies in the last few years has further served to
promote the technology as a cost effective alternative of water treatment (Anonymous,
2007).

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 1

Membrane filtration has several advantages over other conventional methods such as
superior water quality, easier control of operation, and space saving. Low pressure
membranes for Ultra filtration (UF), Micro filtration (MF) and Nanofiltraton (NF) have
been widely used in drinking water treatment for the removal of suspended particles
including microorganisms from surface waters and ground waters. However, there are
critical factors limiting the use of membrane filtration, this includes an insufficient
removal of soluble organic and inorganic matter such as metals, and synthesized and
natural organic matters (NOM) and the membrane fouling which is caused by NOM ,
suspended particles and metal oxides forming cake layers ( Jones and O´Melia,
2001;1999;Jacangelo et al.,1995b; Fane et al., 1987).This can be overcome by different
application of processes in combination with the membrane filtration such as
coagulation, ozonation, biological oxidation and use of activated carbon. Adsorption
has been combined with the membrane filtration (Chan et al., 1998; 1998; Guigui et al.,
2000)

1.1 BACKGROUND

Description of Gaddvik drinking water plant

The process of the Gaddvik water plant is based on artificial recharge of the aquifer by
the water coming from Lule River. Figure 1 below presents the different steps of the
process which takes place at Gaddvik plant. It produces water for 65,000 people and the
average volume of water treated is 20,000 m3/[Link] is pumped from the close lulea
river and goes to the plant where there is rapid sand filtration to remove large particles
as shown in figure 1 from the filters.

The water is sent by gravity to two infiltration ponds. The ponds have permeable
bottoms which allow water infiltration. The water reaches the groundwater and then
recharges the aquifer. This technique has been in use for a long time in Luleå.
Infiltration through the ground and bottom of the ponds has the same effect as a slow

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 2

sand filtration. When water has been infiltrated it stays several weeks in the ground.
The water table is monitored by the use of piezometers.
A number of wells pump water from the ground to the plant where it is treated. The
water quality after the passage through the ground is good in relation to the Swedish
standard 0.50 NTU turbidity value. No metallic ions in too big concentration, no big
amount of particles in suspension. Thus, no significant treatment is carried out. The
water is disinfected and two chemicals are added for corrosion control of the
distribution pipes.
Disinfection is accomplished by chlorination, by addition of sodium hypochlorite
(NaOCl). The two corrosion chemicals are slaked lime (Ca (OH) 2) and carbon dioxide
(CO2). Then the water goes to two low reservoirs at the plant and finally leaves the plant
by pump to fill the high reservoirs around the town before distribution.
Recently there has been an introduction of membrane filtration technology Ultra and
Nanofiltration membrane into the drinking water plant to investigate its performance in
dissolved organic matter removal and turbidity variation reduction and also the
membrane fouling effect.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 3

Figure 1 A sketch of Gaddvik drinking water plant

1.2 AIM OF THE PROJECT

The main goal of this project was to evaluate the UF and NF membrane filters
experiments at Gaddvik drinking water plant in terms of dissolved organic matter,
turbidity and conductivity removal, energy consumption rate and membrane fouling.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 4

1.3 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
This six months field works on evaluation of membrane filters of NF and UF
membranes pilot plant have produced sets of sample results from the well water and
river water sources. These two kinds of water sources were fed into the NF membranes
module only the well water was fed in the UF membranes module. The analysis of the
TOC content of the well water and river water before and after the filter membranes
was carried out by Alcontrol laboratory in Umeå and the water quality in feed water
stream; effluent water and reject water were studied in terms of turbidity, pH and
conductivity in relation to Swedish standard. The water quality at different samples test
on the NF and UF membrane filters are summarized in the results tables in chapter
three.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 5

 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 Literature Review

Literature materials were researched. Important information on the membrane
technology were obtained from both water science and technology journals, and other
related membrane technology textbooks.

2.1 Membrane Filtration

Membranes are very effective in removing a wide variety of water contaminants.
Therefore, the use of these processes in water purification to replace or to improve
conventional treatment has increased. The term filtration refers to the separation of
components from a fluid stream based primarily on size difference or separation of
solid immiscible particles from liquid or gaseous streams. The major role of a
membrane is to act as a barrier that should allow passage of certain components and
retain other components of a mixture.

Lakshminarayanaiah (1984) defined a membrane as a phase that acts as a barrier to

prevent mass movement but allows restricted or regulated passage of one or more
species through it. Membranes can also physically or chemically modify the permeating
species (as with ion-exchange or biofunctional membranes).Thus, a membrane may be
either passive or reactive depending on the membrane’s ability to alter the chemical
nature of the permeating species (Lloyd, 1985). Figure 1.2 below shows a
classification of various separation processes based on the particle size and the primary
factors affecting the separation process.

Water and waste water treatment membranes are typically classified in order of
decreasing pore size as Microfiltration (MF), Ultrafiltration (UF), Nanofiltration (NF)
and Reverse osmosis RO. As a general rule MF is suitable for retaining suspended
particles in the range of 0.1- 5 µm implying removal of suspended solids, including

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 6

larger microorganisms like protozoa and bacteria, while UF retains the macro
molecules or particles in the range of 0.001- 0.02 µm. UF is also useful for the removal
of viruses and organic macromolecules down to a size of around 20 nm, smaller organic
and multivalent ions may be removed by NF. RO is suitable for the removal of all
dissolved species (Wintgens et al, 2005). The various pressures driven membrane
processes and the separation characteristics of their membranes are shown in Figure 1.2
below.

Figure 1.2 Useful ranges of various separation processes (Cheryan, 1998)

2.1.1 Membrane filters

Filters are manufactured from a variety of materials using different methods, but they
can all be classified into two general categories: depth filters or screen filters. In depth
filters the particles removal occurs within the depth of the filter material. It consists of a
matrix of randomly oriented fibers that are bonded together to form a tortuous maze of
flow channels. The particles that are insoluble or colloidal in nature are removed from a
fluid by adsorption or entrapment to the filter matrix. The screen filters in contrast,

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 7

separates by retaining particles on its surface in much the same manner as a sieve. The
structure is usually more rigid, uniform and continuous, with pore size more accurately
controlled during manufacturing. Membrane filters fall into the screen filter category.
Unlike the depth filters, the screen filters are rigid, with little danger of material
migration and grow-through of microorganisms is not as frequent a problem in screen
filters. Another merit of screen filters is their defined pore size, and that the retained
particles are not lost in its depth and much higher recoveries of the retained material is
possible (Cheryan, 1998).

2.1.2 Microfiltration (MF)

Microfiltration (MF) is a low pressure cross flow membrane process for separating
colloidal and suspended particles in the range of 0.05 -10 microns and less than 2 bar
pressure making the process suitable for retaining suspension and emulsion.
Microfiltration membranes can be prepared from a large number of different materials
based on either organic materials (polymers) or inorganic materials (ceramics, metals &
glass). The inorganic membranes are used instead of polymer membrane because of
their outstanding chemical and thermal resistance. The technique of sintering,
stretching and phase inversion can be employed to prepare microfiltration membranes
from polymeric material. It is also important to note that scanning electron microscopy
is a very simple and useful technique for characterizing micro filtration membranes.

The main problem encountered when micro filtration is applied in laboratory or

industrial scale is the flux decline, which is caused by concentration polarization and
fouling at the membrane. (Mulder, 1996).
There are many applications of microfiltration including analytical application,
clarification of (beverages) , sterilization of (food /pharmaceuticals), ultra pure (semi-
conductor), cell harvesting and membrane bioreactor in( biotechnology), water and
waste water treatment ( Mulder ,1996).

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 8

Figure 1.3 Micro filtration. Membrane set up (Liquid Treatment Technologies Inc).

2.1.3 Reverse Osmosis (RO)

RO is a high-pressure asymmetric energy-efficient membrane technique for dewatering
process streams, concentrating low molecular weight substance in solution. It is used
mainly when low molecular weight solutes such as inorganic salts or small organic
molecules such as glucose and sucrose have to be separated from a solvent (Mulder,
1996).
Osmosis is a process where water diffuses from an area of higher to lower
concentration until equilibrium is achieved between two solutions. Reverse Osmosis
(RO) is achieved by an increase in osmotic pressure to the lower concentrated feed
water solution. The water molecules diffuse from an area of lower to higher
concentration.
A Reverse Osmosis membrane will remove up to 99% of all microorganisms, pyrogens,
total dissolved solids, and organics from the feed solution at a molecular weight of 200
or greater. Reverse Osmosis membranes have a pore size of 0.001 microns
([Link]).

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 9

The membrane used are semipermeable, meaning they allows the passage of solvent
but not of solute.
The membranes used for Reverse Osmosis have a dense polymer barrier layer made of
cellulose triacetate material.. In most cases the membrane is designed to allow only
water to pass through this dense layer while preventing the passage of the solute (salt).
This process requires that a high pressure be exerted on the high concentration side of
the membrane, usually 2 - 14 bar for fresh and brackish water and 40 - 70 bar for
seawater, which has around 24 bar natural osmotic pressure which must be overcome.
The major applications of reverse osmosis include; desalination of brackish and sea
water, production of ultra pure water, concentration of food juice and sugars in food
industry, concentration of milk in dairy industry, drinking water purification, and waste
water purification.

Figure 1.4 Reverse osmosis membrane set up (Liquid Treatment Technologies Inc.)

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 10

2.1.4 Ultrafiltration (UF)
This is the principle for one of the two pilot plants used in the project. The other one is
Nanofiltration and much emphasis will be laid on both of them in this work.
Ultrafiltration (UF) is an asymmetric porous membrane process whose nature lies
between NF and [Link] pore size ranges from 0.05 µm (on the MF side) to 1 nm (on
the NF side) and a pressure of 1-10 bar. UF is used to retain macro molecules and
colloids from a solution. However, UF and MF membranes can both be considered as
porous membranes where rejection is determined mainly by the size and shape of the
solutes related to the pore size of the membrane and where the solvent transport is
directly proportional to the applied pressure (Mulder, 1996).
Besides, most ultra filtration and micro filtration modules are operated in the cross-flow
mode, in which the feed is pumped across or tangentially to the membrane surface. In
this mode of operation, there is one stream entering the module and two streams leaving
the module the retentate and the permeate.
If the feed has relatively high solids content, or if the solids need to be removed easily,
cross flow is advantageous as it limits the build up of solids on the membrane surface
(Cheryan, 1998).
The ultrafiltration membrane materials used commercially are prepared from polymeric
materials by phase inversion processes; polysulfone, poly (vinylidene fluoride), and
cellulosics (e.g. cellulose acetate).
Ultra filtration applications are widely involved in situations where high molecular
components have to be separated from low molecular components. It can also be found
in the field of food and (milk, whey, cheese making) industry, pharmaceutical industry
(enzymes, antibiotics), textile industry (indigo), chemical industry, metallurgy (oil-
water emulsion), paper industry, leather industry and water treatment (Mulder, 1996).

2.1.5 Nanofiltration (NF)

Nanofiltration membrane processing has been considered a promising technology for
drinking water production, wastewater treatment and water reuse. It is a composite

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 11

membrane processing that removes ions and organic chemicals and its treatment
efficiency and performances are stable and predictable. Nanofiltration and Reverse
osmosis can additionally remove DBP-precursors, colour, synthetic, organic chemicals
such as pesticides, hardness constituents and salts (Paassen et al 1998).
In fact, nanofiltration systems have been shown to be adequate for producing clear
water from various water sources (Lueptow et al, 2001).
The increasing use of membrane processes in drinking water treatment is as a result of
membrane treatment is cheaper than the conventional treatment because the undesirable
component can be removed with only one step where a conventional treatment would
require several different steps.
However, the separation capacities of NF allow the elimination of small dissolved
organic molecules (micropollutants, disinfection by-product precursors etc) and allow a
partial transmission of salts through the membrane. Nanofiltration has a pore size of
less than 2nm, with a driving force of 10-25 bar pressure (Mulder, 1996). Also the
passage of calcium and bicarbonate through NF can be an advantage because drinking
water distribution through a network should be saturated for calcium carbonate in order
to avoid corrosion. The most distinctive features of NF are;
The rejection of ions with more than one negative charge, like sulfate SO42- and
phosphate PO43- is virtually total
• The rejection of sodium chloride (NaCl) varies from about 70% down to 0%.
• The rejection of uncharged dissolved material and also of positively charged
ions in solution relate mostly to the size and shape of the molecule in question.
The NF separations frequently involve both size and charge interactions (Schafer et
al, 2005).

NF membrane selection is determined by the feed water composition and desired

permeate quality. The process performance of NF does not only depend on the
membrane performance but also on the system design especially in system recovery
including the pre and post treatment.
However, there are three major categories of nanofiltration membranes that are used in
drinking water production; flat sheet composite membranes in spiral wound modules,

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 12

flat sheet asymmetric membranes in spiral wound modules, and tubular membrane
modules. In most of the plants, especially medium and large scale plants, spiral wound
modules are used. It small size plant treating surface water, modules with tubular
membranes is often preferable in order to have a simple process.
Applications of nanofiltration include water treatment, water reclamation and
remediation, food industry, chemical processing industry, pulp and paper industry,
textile dye effluent (Schafer et al, 2005).

2.2 Membrane scale formation

A serious problem in NF, UF and RO systems and a limiting factor for their proper
operation is membrane scaling, resulting from increased concentration of one or more
species beyond their solubility limits and their precipitation onto the membranes
(Wiesner et al, 1992). Scaling, also scale formation or precipitation fouling, occurs in a
membrane process whenever the ionic product of sparingly soluble salts in the
concentrate stream exceeds its equilibrium solubility product. The term membrane
scaling is commonly used when the precipitate formed is a hard scale. In fact, scales are
hard mineral because scale formations are ubiquitous in most water environments. They
include calcium sulfate (CaSo4,), calcium carbonate (CaCo3) and Silica (Sio2) (Lueptow
et al, 2002). Scale formation is a complex process in which both crystallization and
hydrodynamic transport mechanisms are involved. Two pathways for crystallization
have been identified which include surface (heterogeneous) crystallization and bulk
(homogeneous) crystallization. In surface crystallization, flux decline result from the
blockage of the membrane surface by lateral growth of the scale deposit on the
membrane, while in the bulk crystallization, crystals formed in the bulk solution settle
on the membrane surface leading to a flux decline (Lee et al, 1999).

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 13

Also, concentration polarization plays an important role in scale formation in
membrane system. As concentration polarization increases, scale formation occurs
more through surface crystallization (Lee et al, 2000)

2.2.1 The common scalants:

• The calcium sulphate (CaSO4) scale; the most common form of this
scales and the polymorph that precipitate at room temperature is gypsum
(CaSO4.2H20).Gypsum is about 50 times more soluble than CaCO3 at
30oC.
One source of sulphate ions in some treated water is the addition of
sulphuric acid to the feed in order to control CaCO3 precipitation.
This method of scale control can lead to calcium sulphate deposition, if
excessive amounts of sulphuric acid are used for pH control.

• Silica scale
Amorphous silica is one of the major fouling problems in membrane
systems and in most processes involving water (Koo et al, 2001).
The silica content in most natural waters can reach 100 mg/l, since silica
is one of the primary components of the earth crust. Its solubility at
room temperature conditions is 100-150 mg/l in the pH range 5-8 and
increases with pH values higher than 9.5. Its solubility increases with
temperature and in most water treatment operations silica concentration
is limited to approximately 120-150 mg/l; excess precipitates as silica
sulphate and silicates .The silica scaling has serious consequences as the
cleaning of fouled membranes is costly and not without problems. The
solubility of silica minerals generally decrease with increasing ionic
strength, in contrast to the solubility of CaCO3, and sulphate salts.

• Calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) scale

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 14

 Almost all naturally occurring waters contain bicarbonate alkalinity and are
rich in calcium, making them prone to scaling problem. The potential for
CaCO3 scaling exists for almost all well, surface and brackish waters. It
forms a dense deposit and precipitation in membrane plant must be avoided.

Since, scale formation not only lowers the flux and rejection of NF, UF and RO
permeate but also shorten the membrane life; it has been recognized as a serious
constraint in designing and operating membranes. Scale formation can be reduced in
membrane system by increasing the fluid velocity (Lee et al, 2000) by adding anti
scalants (Belfort ,1984) , performing chemical pretreatments (Watson,1990),
combining a crystallizer with the membrane (Bremere et al,1998) and applying online
micro filter (Lee et al,1999).

2.3 Membrane fouling

Membrane processes are increasingly being used in drinking water treatment to
remove a large number of contaminants, essentially without chemical addition.
However, one of the shortcomings of this technology is deposition or accumulation of
material that reduces membrane permeability. This phenomenon is known as fouling.
In a constant pressure process membrane fouling causes a reduction in permeate flux,
while in constant flow rate filtration fouling produces an increased requirement of
pressure to drive the process. So, fouling not only results in an increase of costs of
capital when this reduced productivity is considered in the plant design, but also an
increase in energy that shortens membrane life and increases waste production
(Mosqueda-Jiminez and Huck, 2006). According to Koros et al (1996) fouling is the
process resulting in loss of performance of a membrane due to deposition of

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 15

 suspended or dissolved substances on its external surface; at its pore openings or
within its pores.
Membrane fouling is characterized by an irreversible decline in flux. Depending on
the system, the flux may decline in one or more stages, usually rapid in the first
minutes followed by a more gradual decline in flux. Membrane fouling is due to the
deposition and accumulation of feed compounds e.g, suspended particles,
impermeable dissolved solutes or even normally permeable solutes on the membrane
surface or within the pores of the membrane (Cheryan, 1998).
Staude (1992) summarized the possible origins of fouling as follows;
• Precipitation of substance that have exceeded solubility product.
• Deposition of dispersed fine or colloidal matter.
• Chemical reaction of solutes at the membrane boundary layer (e.g. .formation
of ferric hydroxides from soluble form of ions).
• Chemical reaction of solutes with membrane polymer.
• Adsorption of low molecular mass compounds at the membrane polymer.
• Irreversible, gel formation of macromolecular substances.
• Colonization by bacteria ( mostly hydrophobic interaction)
These mechanisms give an indication of the complexity of fouling as shown in figure 2
below.

Figure 2 Complex deposits from surface water on a membrane Adapted from Schafer
et al (2005).
.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 16

2.3.1 Kinds of membrane fouling.
A number of factors contribute to fouling and are strongly interlinked. Since nano/ultra
filtration membranes are being investigated in these projects which are susceptible to
fouling, pre-treatment steps, often used to resist fouling phase may include slow sand
filtration as being used in Luleå drinking water plant, or ozonation, sedimentation,
coagulation, filtration by activated carbon (Paassen et al, 1998).
The main fouling categories are organic, inorganic particulate and biological fouling.
Metal complexes (for example Al and Fe) and silica are also important. In most real
applications all the four types of fouling go hand in hand. Membrane fouling is the
worst enemy of membrane process applications and yet fouling goes hand in hand with
a successful filtration (Schafer, 2005).

Organic fouling
Organic fouling is the irreversible flux decline due to the adsorption or deposition of
dissolved or colloidal organic material. This can be adsorption at a molecular level,
formation of a gel on the membrane surface, the deposition or cake formation by
organic colloids or the pore restriction and blocking by molecules that can penetrate
into the membrane. It can be severe and persistent (Schafer, 2005). It was reported by
Roudman and DiGiano (2000) that even rigorous chemical cleaning failed to remove
some natural organic matter (NOM) from nanofiltration membranes. It depends on the
nature of the organics in the raw water and on the type and nature (charge) of the
membrane surface. Organic fouling results in constant flux decline and increase of the
feed concentration pressure drop of the membrane process (Koros et al, 1996).
The common organic foulants are predominantly composed of humic substances
(Schafer, 2001). Wiesner et al (1992) identified four NOM categories which are strong
foulants proteins, amino acids, polysaccharides and polyhydroxyaromatics.

Colloidal fouling
Deposition of suspended or colloidal particles on the membrane surface will result in a
loss of flow through the membrane. It is important to note that if the introduction of

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 17

oxygen can be avoided in the system no particle fouling of the membranes will occur
(Paassen et al, 1998). Oxygen might be introduced into the system to oxidize iron (ferro
to ferri). The oxidized iron is insoluble and many colloids are formed. The rapid sand
filters remove most of the iron but some particles still remains after rapid sand
filtration. Installing cartridge filters the feed water will reduce iron deposition onto the
membrane (Paassen et al, 1998).

Biofouling
Bio fouling or biofilm formation is the growth of biological species on the membrane
surface or in the case of spiral wound membranes on the feed spacer as well as the
membrane surface. Biofilm reduces productivity and increases the feed concentrate
pressure drop. Also it is noteworthy that once a biofilm starts it is very hard to control
and strong restrictions of the feed water must be made. Biofouling can be used to
describe all instances of fouling where biologically active organisms are involved
(Lappin et al, 1998). Membrane biofouling is caused by bacteria and to a lesser degree,
fungi (Flemming, 1997). The consequence of biofilm formation in membrane system is
the typical symptom of fouling, flux decline (Schafer et al, 2005).

2.3.2 Characteristics of Natural Organic Matter (NOM)

Natural organic matter (NOM) is the main components of organic carbon in aquatic
systems. It is a complex, difficult to separate mixture of similar organic macro
molecules, derived from the degradation and decomposition of biological organism,
with a spectrum of functional groups, sub-structures and molecular weight distribution,
strongly depending on its origin and genesis (Stevenson, 1982).

2.3.3 Gel layer formation

Gel formation occurs when the solubility of a non crystalline solute is exceeded. This is
often the case when organic molecules flocculate in the presence of salts and at neutral

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 18

charge conditions (Nystrom et al, 1995) such as when the surface concentration
increases due to concentration polarization.

2.3.4 Pore blocking/plugging

Pore blocking is determined mostly by the size of the organic molecules and the pore
size of membranes. In fact, adsorption can play an important role in pore blocking,
where the pores are initially restricted due to adsorption of molecules which penetrate
into pores. This is also referred to as pore narrowing (Landau et al, 1999). Pore
plugging may occur when the retention of solutes is incomplete. Pore blocking would
be expected to occur for compounds which are small enough to penetrate into the
membrane structure and yet large enough to experience hindrance within this structure
.Thus, flux declines has been observed up to 59% with organics in solutions with
concentration of about 1g/l (Van der Bruggen et al, 2002).

2.3.5 Concentration polarization

In the nanofiltration process, retention of ionic species result in a concentrated layer of
ions at the membrane surface, known as salt concentration polarization, which creates
an osmotic pressure drop across the membrane. It is also the process of accumulation of
retained solutes in the membrane boundary layer (Sabani et al, 2001).

2.3.6 Membrane fouling consequences

An obvious consequence of fouling is a higher capital expense caused by the lower
average flux over a process cycle. In addition, depending on the nature and extend of
fouling , restoring the flux may require powerful cleaning agents which may reduce the
operating life of the membrane especially the cellulose membrane CA which have a
limited pH, temperature and chlorine tolerance. Also reject and yield may be affected.
If the build-up of solids on the membrane is significant enough, it may act as a

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 19

secondary membrane and change the effective sieving and transport properties of the
system (Cheryan, 1998).

2.3.7 Ways to minimize membrane fouling

In order to reduce or eliminate fouling it is necessary to identify the foulants. This can
be achieved by a characterization of the fouled membrane (membrane autopsy) or by
fouling studies in the laboratory. According to Fane et al (2000). The strategies to
ensure that membrane fouling is minimized are summarized as follows
• Feed pre-treatment
• Membrane selection (non fouling material/coating, suitable surface charge,
porosity, chlorine compatibility, hydrophilicity, surface roughness)
• Module design and operation mode
• Cleaning.
Fouling often requires frequent cleaning of membranes and consequently reduces
the membrane lifespan. In some cases fouling causes membrane biodegradation and
loss of integrity (Choi et al, 2002).The most effective way to minimize fouling is a
study of the nature of the fouling process. In some cases feed pre-treatment is the
most effective way to minimize fouling. In other cases the adjustment of the
operating conditions may work better (Cheryan, 1986).

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 20

 CHAPTER THREE

3 EXPERIMENTAL SET UP

3.1 NF and UF Pilot plant membranes characteristics

Pilot plants of NF and UF membranes were used in the Gaddvik drinking water
treatment plants experiments. The characteristics of their membranes are
summarized below

NF - membrane plant

Figure 2.1 Nanofiltration set up at Luleå drinking water plant (picture taken by
Kenneth)

This membrane was manufactured and delivered to Gaddvik plant by Bjorks Company
(Stainless Steel). The characteristic includes;
• A membrane plant containing 2 horizontal tubes, each with 2 8-inches
membranes
• Spiro-winded membranes trade mark: Dow film Tech

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 21

 • Capacity 3-3.5 m3/h Plant size Lx W x H = 2500x1000x1800mm
• Pretreatment: Patrone filter, 10 micrometer openings.
The NF plant was active since 2006-12-08 to 2007-04-12 and loaded with artificial
groundwater from wells and with river water at Gaddvik plant.

UF – membrane plant

Figure 2.2 Ultrafiltration set up at Luleå drinking water plant (picture taken by
Kenneth)

The UF membranes were manufactured and delivered to the Gaddvik plant by Mercatus
Engineering. Its characteristic includes;
• Hollow fibre membrane and fibres made out of cellulose acetate
• Pipe connections in PVC and the module in fibre reinforced plastics material
• Cut-off: 150kD (kilo Dalton) /and 1 module with a membrane area of 5.3m2
• Length about 1100mm and diameter 100mm and Size LxBxH ,
1200x800x1500
• Capacity 0.425-0.85m3/h

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 22

 • Operation and backwash automatized. A possible backwash with chemical
agent must be done manually. Operational power supply of 230 V is needed.
The UF plant was active since 2007-01-11. to 2007 -04-19

Also, the analysis of the TOC content of the well water and river water before and after
the filter membranes was carried out by Alcontrol laboratories in umeå and the water

Quality issues in terms of feed water stream, effluent water and reject water were
studied in terms of turbidity, pH and conductivity in relation to Swedish Standard.
Several well and river water samples were taken from the feed water, reject water and
effluent water of the UF and NF plants which were analyzed in terms of experimental
Variables mentioned above. As shown in the figure 2.2 1 below

MEMBRANE

Feed water flow

NF Effluent
water
(permeate)

Reject water
Figure 2.2.1 A sketch of operating principle of membrane technology.

The following parameters were used to calculate the turbidity and conductivity balances
from the sampling and analysis.

Turbidity balance:
QF TF = QP Tp + QrTr ……… ……………………… (1)

A hydraulic balance yields

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 23

QF = Qp + QR ………………………………… (2)

Conductivity balances
QF βF = QP βP + QR ……………………………………………………………………………………………… (.3)
For the turbidity and the conductivity in the water flows around the membrane units
balances were established. The initial assumptions were:
- No dissolution of particles during passage of the membrane.
- No transfer of dissolved substances in solids during passage.
- Accumulation of material on the membrane can be ignored.

Where QF = feed water flow, Tp = permeate turbidity, Tr = reject turbidity, βF = feed

water conductivity, βp= permeate conductivity, βr = reject water conductivity. Qp =
permeate flow, Qr = reject water flow.
An example of balance calculations:
From the water sample analysis on 2007-02-09 with inflows: QF = 4.02 m3 /h feed water
stream, outflows permeate : Qp= 3.15m3/h permeate water, QR= 0.87m3/h reject water,
Tf= sample A, Tp=sample C, TR= sample D

The turbidity mass balance for 2007 -02-09 will be

4.02 *0.46= 3.15*0.05+ 0.87*0.9
1.83 = 0.94 …… remaining 0.89
Conductivity mass balance will be 4.02*136.4 = 3.15*106.9+ 0.87*245 548 =549
………good balance

This procedure generate the balance results of turbidity and conductivity in the table
below.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 24

 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS
Measurements on turbidity, pH and conductivity were carried out on the various well
water and river water samples during the investigations. The experiments were carried
out from 2007-02-09 to 2007-04-12. The following samples notations were used in the
membrane explanations.

NF –Plant

sample A Before the prefilter membrane

sample B After pre- filter
sample C Effluent water (permeate)
sample D Reject water
sample E Anti-scaling solution

4.1 Well water sample

The water quality from the first sampling in experiment 1,2 is given in
table 1.

Table 1 Sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-09

Exp 1
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm OC
A before pre- filter 0.45 8.20, 7.7OC 137.8, 8.0 OC
B after pre- filter 0.43 8.20, 8.4 0C 141 , 8.9 OC
C effluent water 0.05 8.18, 8.8 0C 108.8, 9.1 OC
D reject water 0.9 8.20, 9.5 0C 252, 10 OC

The wells running on 2007-02-09 were well no (1,2,3,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)

The turbidity balance for Exp 1 gives inflow 1.80 and outflow 0.94, while the
conductivity balance gives inflow 566 and outflow 562. The turbidity variations shown
in figure 3 below.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 25

 Turbidity variation (NTU)

1
Turbidity

0.8
0.6
Turbidity
0.4
0.2
0
A bef ore B af ter C ef f luent D reject
pre- f ilter pre- f ilter w ater w ater
Sam ple s

Figure 3 Turbidity variations for well water through the NF plant.

Exp 2
Turbidity Conductivity
Samples (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm, O
C
A before pre- filter 0.46 8.20, 7.4 0C 136.4, 7.7OC
B after pre- filter 0.45 8.18, 7.5 0C 138.8, 8.20C
C effluent water 0.05 8.23, 7.7 0C 106.9, 8.00C
0
D reject water 0.9 7.95, 8.3 C 245, 8.30C

Exp 2 gives 1.83 inflow and 0.94 outflow for turbidity and 548 inflows and 549
outflow conductivity.

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, 2, 3 is given in table

2

Table 2 Sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-13

Exp 1
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.43 8.69, 7.6 0C 137.9, 8.2 0C
B after pre- filter 0.43 8.42, 8.6 0C 141.8, 9.1 0C
C effluent water 0.05 8.42, 8.6 0C 110.2, 9.5 0C
D reject water 0.82 7.99, 10.3 0C 254, 10.6 0C

The turbidity mass balance in Exp 1 gives 1.72 inflows and 0.86 outflows. While
conductivity mass balance gives 550 inflows and 576 outflows. The same procedure is
used in Exp 2 and Exp 3 belo

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 26

 Turbidity variation (NTU)

1
0.8
Turbidity

0.6
Turbidity
0.4
0.2
0
A bef ore B af ter C ef f luent D reject
pre- f ilter pre- f ilter w ater w ater
Sam ple s

Figure 4 The turbidity variation for well water through the NF plant

Exp 2
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.46 8.51, 7.2 0C 138, 8.0 0C
B after pre- filter 0.42 8.36 , 7.9 OC 141.5, 9.1 0C
C effluent water 0.04 8.27, 8.8 OC 109.6, 9.4 0C
D reject water 0.63 7.98, 9.1 0C 252, 10.2 0C

Exp 3
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.46 7.9, 11.6 0C 153.8, 12 0C
B after pre- filter 0.43 7.81, 13.5 0C 159.2, 13.5 0C
C effluent water 0.08 7.95, 12.4 0C 121.1, 13 0C
D reject water 0.73 7.70, 12.8 0C 274, 13.4 0C

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, is given in table 3

Table 3 Sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-21

Exp 1
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH ,temp OC µS/cm, O
C
A before pre- filter 0.43 8.62, 6.2 0C 121.2, 6.40C
B after pre- filter 0.46 8.56, 6.5 0C 123, 6.70C
C effluent water 0.06 8.49, 6.3 OC 92.4, 6.60C
D reject water 1.4 8.25, 6.7 0C 217, 7.40C

The running wells on 2007-02-21 were the same as 2007-02-13.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 27

The turbidity balance gives 1.72 inflows and 1.50 outflows. While the conductivity
balance gives 493 inflows and 497 outflows.

Turbidity Variation

1.6
1.4
1.2
Turbidity

1
0.8 Turbidity
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
A before pre- B after pre- C effluent D reject water
filter filter water
Samples

Figure 5 The turbidity variation for well water through the NF plant

Also, this was similar in the subsequent tables below, showing the variation in turbidity
with respect to different sampling points in the NF plant

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, 2 is given in table 4.

Table 4 Sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-02-23

Exp 1
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, O
C
A before pre- filter 0.45 8.56, 6.3 0C 125.9 , 7.6 0C
B after pre- filter 0.45 8.49, 6.3 0C 130.8, 7.6 0C
C effluent water 0.05 8.49, 6.3 0C 98.3, 7.6 0C
D reject water 1.1 8.01, 7.6 0C 228, 8.2 0C

Exp 2
Conductivity
O O
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH C µS/cm, C
0
A before pre- filter 0.45 7.79, 9.4 C 139.4, 10 0C
B after pre- filter 0.46 7.79, 9.7 0C 138.9, 10 0C
C effluent water 0.06 7.76, 9.7 0C 106, 10.2 0C
D reject water 0.68 7.61, 10.6 0C 247, 11.0C

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 28

The running wells on 2007-02-21 were well no (1,2,3,8,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)
The turbidity mass balance gives 1.72 inflows and 1.50 outflows. While the
conductivity mass balance gives 493 inflows and 497 outflows.

The water quality from the sampling in experiments 1, 2, 3 is given in table

5
Table 5 Sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-03-05
Exp 1
Turbidity Conductivity
Samples (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, O
C
A before pre- filter 0.46 8.38, 8.3 0C 108, 8.5 0C
B after pre- filter 0.45 8.46, 8.3 0C 108.8, 8.6 0C
C effluent water 0.05 8.49, 7.4 0C 82.5, 8.2 0C
D reject water 1.12 8.11, 9.3 0C 181, 9.5 0C
Exp2
Turbidity Conductivity
Samples (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.49 8.65, 9.6 0C 164.8, 10 0C
B after pre- filter 0.49 8.49, 5.9 0C 163. 4 0C
C effluent water 0.05 8.42, 9.2 0C 124.4, 10.3 0C
D reject water 0.9 8.30, 12.1 0C 275, 11.2 0C

The running wells on 2007-03-05 were well no (1,2,3,,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)

The turbidity balance gives 1.84 inflows and 1.25 outflows. While the conductivity
balance gives 433 inflows and 427 outflows.

Exp3
Turbidity Conductivity
Samples (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.45 8.08, 8.4 0C 108.6, 8.5 0C
B after pre- filter 0.46 8.02, 8.6 0C 108.4, 9.2 0C
C effluent water 0.05 8.12, 8.1 0C 83.0, 8.5 0C
D reject water 0.8 7.92, 9 .0C 181.4, 8.9 0C

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 29

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, is given in table
6
Table 6 Sample analysis of NF well water on 2007-03-12

Exp 1
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.47 8.84, 8.5 0C 182.6, 8.9 0C
B after pre- filter 0.5 8.68, 9.5 0C 187.2, 10 OC
C effluent water 0.05 8.81,9 OC 135.4, 7.4 0C
D reject water 1.14 8.44, 10.2 0C 311, 11 0C

The running wells on 2007-03-12 were well no (1,2,3,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)

The turbidity balance gives 1.88 inflows and 1.26 outflows. While the conductivity
balance gives 732 inflows and 710 outflows.

Exp 2
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.46 8.57, 15.4 0C 218, 16 0C
B after pre- filter 0.5 8.57, 15.5 0C 218, 16 0C
C effluent water 0.05 8.55, 8.7 0C 140, 9.3 0C
D reject water 1.09 8.38, 8.5 0C 298, 9.2 0C

4.2 River water samples

The result of river water analysis is presented in the tables below. Sampling runs from
2007-03-19 to 2007-04-10 period.

Table 7 Sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-03-20

Exp 1
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.42 8.55, 13.5 0C 28.7, 13.9 0C
B after pre- filter 0.39 8.49, 13.2 0C 27.8, 13.4 0C
C effluent water 0.07 8.61, 12.4 0C 16.6, 12.9 0C
D reject water 0.9 8.26, 13.1 0C 57.2, 13.6 0C

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 30

Exp 2
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.4 8.89, 4.0C 22.2, 4. 0C
0
B after pre- filter 0.45 8.92, 4.5 C 23.2, 5.1 0C
C effluent water 0.05 9.02, 4 .0C 12.28, 4.2 0C
D reject water 1.7 8.70, 4.5 0C 46.7, 4.7 0C

The running wells on 2007-03-12 were well no (1,2,3,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)

The turbidity balance gives 1.88 inflows and 1.26 outflows. While the conductivity
balance gives 732 inflows and 710 outflows.

Turbidity Variation

1.5
Turbidity

1 Turbidity

0.5

0
A before pre- B after pre- C effluent D reject w ater
filter filter w ater
Sam ples

Figure 6 The turbidity variation for river water through the NF plant

The water quality from the sampling in experiments 1,2 is given in table 8.
Table 8 Sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-03-23

Exp 1
Conductivity
Samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.42 8.55, 13.5 0C 28.7, 13.9 0C
0
B after pre- filter 0.39 8.49, 13.2 C 27.8, 13.4 0C
C effluent water 0.07 8.61, 12.4 0C 16.6, 12.9 0C
D reject water 0.9 8.26, 13.1 0C 57.2, 13.6 0C

The running wells on 2007-03-23 were well no (1,2,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 31

The turbidity balance gives 1.34 inflows and 0.9 outflows. While the conductivity
balance gives 73.83 inflows and 64 outflows.

Exp 2
Conductivity
samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm, OC
A before pre- filter 0.45 8.98, 7.2 0C 23.3,7.7 0C
B after pre- filter 0.5 8.92, 8.1 OC 23.5, 8.6 0C
.0
C effluent water 0.04 9.05, 8 C 12.07, 8.9 0C
D reject water 1 8.58, 9.9 0C 66 , 10.6 0C

The water quality from the sampling in experiments 1, 2 is given in table 9

Table 9 Sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-04-03

Exp1
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm , OC
A before pre- filter 0.5 9.28, 4.5 0C 21.8, 4.5 0C
B after pre- filter 0.5 9.19, 4.6 0C 22.4, 4.8 0C
C effluent water 0.05 9.35, 4.2 0C 10.17, 4.5 0C
D reject water 1.2 9.03, 4.8 0C 40.8, 5.4 0C

The running wells on 2007-04-03 were well no (1,2,3,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)

The turbidity balance gives 1.60 inflows and 1.3 outflows. While the conductivity
balance gives 69.76 inflows and 65.30 outflows

Exp 2
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp oC µS/cm ,oC
A before pre- filter 0.44 8.86, 7.3 0C 23.4, 8.0C
B after pre- filter 0.46 8.81, 8. 0C 25.1, 8.3 0C
C effluent water 0.06 9.17, 6.3 0C 10.61, 6.8 0C
D reject water 1.31 8.93, 5.6 0C 41.9, 6.1 0C

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1 is given in table 10

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 32

Table 10 Sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-04-10
Exp 1
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp oC µS/cm ,oC
A before pre- filter 0.43 9.36, 5.6 0C 22.9, 5.6 OC
B after pre- filter 0.41 9.26 5,7 0C 23.0, 6.9 OC
C effluent water 0.04 9.19, 6.7 OC 9.63, 6.9 0C
D reject water 1.42 8.85, 6.6 0C 43, 7.3 0C
D reject water 1.6 8.72, 7.3 0C 43.0, 7.3 0C

The running wells on 2007-04-10 were well no (1,2,3,9,10,12,19,24,25,28)

The turbidity mass balance gives 1.34 inflows and 1.74 outflows. While the
conductivity mass balance gives 73.3 inflows and 69.9 outflows.

Turbidity Variation

1.6
1.4
1.2
Turbidity

1
0.8 Turbidity
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
A before B after pre- C effluent D reject
pre- filter filter water water
Samples

Figure 7 The turbidity variation for river water through the NF plant

Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC
A before pre- filter 0.39 8.85, 5.5 0C 23.1, 5.5 0C
0
B after pre- filter 0.41 8.81, 4.6 C 25, 4.8 0C
C effluent water 0.05 8.97, 3.6 0C 12.0, 3.6 0C
D reject water 0.86 8.61, 4.2 0C 39.8, 4.5 0C
D reject water 0.78 8.64, 5.1 0C 8.64, 5.1 0C

Table 11 Sample analysis of NF river water on 2007-04-16 with anti scale of 10ml
to 1 litre of water.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 33

 Conductivity
Samples with river water Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC
Before anti-scaling 1.7 8.30, 3.3 0C 20.2, 3.4 0C
After anti scaling 1 2.1 9.17, 4.8 0C 920, 5.5 0C
After anti scaling 2 2.1 8.99,4.7 0C 940, 4.8 0C

Table 12 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-16 with anti scale of 10ml to
1 litre of water.

Conductivity
Samples with well water Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC
Before anti-scaling 0.5 8.91, 4.9 0C 209, 6 0C
After anti scaling 1 0.74 9.50, 7.8 0C 1178, 8.1 0C
After anti scaling 2 0.65 9.21, 7.8 0C 1124, 8.0C

4.3 UF Plant

UF -Plant
sample A Before the filter
sample C Effluent water
sample D Reject water

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, 2 is given in table 11

Table 13 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-02-23

Exp 1
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.44 8.66, 6.8 0C 129.5, 7.4 0C

C Effluent water 0.07 8.46, 7.5 0C 135.6, 8.4 0C

D Reject water 0.92 8.04, 7. 0C 130.4 , 7.4 0C

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 34

Exp 2
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.44 8.05. 6.3 0C 126.2, 6.5 0C

C Effluent water 0.05 8.07, 6.6 0C 128, 6.8 0C

D Reject water 0.93 8.04, 7.6 0C 134.0, 8.2 0C

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, is given in table 11

Table 14 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-03-05

Exp 1
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC
A Before the filter 0.05 8.37, 12.8 0C 174.1, 13.3 0C
C Effluent water 0.07 8.65, 8.4 0C 191.1, 9.9 0C
D Reject water 0.7 8.58, 10. 0C 200, 11.2 0C

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, 2 is given in table 15

Table 15 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-03-20

Exp 1
Turbidity Conductivity
Sample (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.45 8.61, 8.6 OC 192.3, 9.7 0C

C Effluent water 0.07 8.65, 8.4 0C 191.1, 9.9 0C

.0
D Reject water 0.7 8.58, 10 C 200, 11.2 0C

Exp 2
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.45 8.7, 13.0C 212, 13.5 0C

C Effluent water 0.1 8.52, 13.5 0C 213, 14.2 0C

D Reject water 0.5 8.45, 13.8 0C 220, 14.9 0C

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 35

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1, 2 is given in table
16.

Table 16 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-03-23

Exp 1
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.43 8.72, 7.9 0C 188.3, 8.5 0C

C Effluent water 0.06 8.61, 8.9 0C 197.2, 9.8 0C

D Reject water 1.39 8.93, 7.2 0C 188.5, 8.2 0C

Exp 2
Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.45 8.55, 10.6 0C 205, 11.7 0C

C Effluent water 0.04 8.48, 11.7 0C 212, 12.7 0C

D Reject water 1.36 7.91, 14. 0C 221, 14.7 ,0C

Turbidity v araition (NTU)

1.6
1.4
1.2
Turbidity

1
0.8 Turbidity (NTU)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
A Bef ore the C Ef f luent D Reject w ater
f ilter w ater
Sam ple s

Figure 8 The turbidity variation for well water through NF plant

The water quality from the sampling in experiment 1 is given in table 17.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 36

Table 17 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-03

Exp 1
Conductivity
samples Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.39 8.52, 10.5 OC 210, 13.1 OC

C Effluent water 0.05 8.47, 12.5 OC 189.7, 10.3 OC

D Reject water 3.14 8.76, 9.7 OC 192, 9.8 OC

The water quality from the sampling in experiment is given in table18.

Table 18 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-10

Conductivity
O
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp C µS/cm , OC
A Before the filter 0.43 8.51, 9.5 OC 204, 10.4 OC
C Effluent water 0.06 8.53, 8.7 OC 194.5, 8.7 OC
D Reject water 3.5 8.41, 11.3 OC 217, 11.5 OC

The water quality from the sampling in experiment is given in table 19.
Table 19 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-16

Conductivity
samples Turbidity (NTU) pH , temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.41 7.44, 7.6 0C 226,13.2 OC

C Effluent water 0.05 7.17, 7.6 0C 224, 13 0C

D Reject water 2.2 7.24, 14.3 0C 250, 12.7 0C

The water quality from the sampling in experiment is given in table 20

Table 20 Sample analysis of UF well water on 2007-04-19

Conductivity
Sample Turbidity (NTU) pH, temp OC µS/cm , OC

A Before the filter 0.4 8.58, 10.4 0C 228, 11.7 0C

C Effluent water 0.05 8.64, 8.8 0C 216, 9.5 0C

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 37

 D Reject water 0.6 8.40, 11.0C 242, 11.9 0C

The ion analysis of Fe concentration in the UF plant was carried out to find the
concentration level of the Fe compound, since it was speculated that it may be
responsible for the fouling experienced in the early stage of the operation. Table 21
below shows the various levels of Fe concentration which indicates that some Fe is
being trapped on the membrane surface, and later become backwashed as reject water.

Table 21 The ion analysis of well water through UF plant 2007-04-19

Samples Before the filter Effluent water ( Fe) Reject water (Fe)
(Fe)
1 0.02 mg/l 0.01 mg/l 0.08 mg/l
2 0.03 mg/l 0.01 mg/l 0.04 mg/l

Table 22 Result of Al-control analysis for raw water (well water) and treated (NF,
UF) river water during the experiment period.

Aluminum Turbidity Chloride Sulphate pH Conductivity Alkalinity Hardness Fe Ca

o
mg/l NTU mg/l mg/l mS/m dH mg/l mg/l
2006- Raw
09-06 water 0,034 0,29 26 6,2 6,9 15 18 1,5 0,043 6,1
2006- Raw
10-03 water 0,025 0,59 22 5,8 6,9 14 17 1,5 0,029 6
2006- Raw
12-06 water 0,021 0,39 41 7,1 6,9 21 18 1,9 0,019 7,4
2007- River
01-03 water 0,046 0,58 1,5 3,5 6,9 3,4 11 0,71 0,18 3,7
2007- Raw
01-03 water 0,29 0,4 44 8 7 21 17 2,1 0,018 7,9
2007- Raw
02-14 water 0,029 0,34 40 7,8 7 21 17 1,9 0,18 7,5
2007-
02-14 NF <0,01 <0,1 36 <1 6,8 16 11 1,1 <0,01 4,5
2007- Raw
02-21 water 0,023 0,32 37 7,3 7,1 19 16 1,7 17 6,6
2007-
02-21 NF <0,01 <0,1 33 <1 6,9 15 9 1 <0,01 4,1
2007- Raw
02-28 water 0,024 0,33 37 7,5 7,5 21 16 1,9 0,019 7,5
2007-
02-28 NF <0,01 <0,1 33 <1 7,1 19 8,1 1,2 <0,01 4,5
2007-
02-28 UF <0,01 <0,1 38 7,5 7,5 21 17 1,9 <0,01 7,5

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 38

2007- Raw
03-06 water 0,023 0,37 50 8,2 6,9 23 17 2,1 0,073 76
2007-
03-06 NF <0,01 <0,1 40 <1 6,8 18 9,4 1,3 <0,01 4,9
2007-
03-06 UF 0,014 <0,1 49 8,1 7 23 17 2,1 0,015 7,9
2007- Raw
03-21 water 0,021 0,38 55 9,7 6,8 28 17 2,5 <0,01 9,4
2007-
03-21 UF 0,018 <0,1 55 8,9 7 28 19 2,5 0,04 9,5
2007- River
03-21 water 0,022 0,33 60 8,9 7 28 19 2,5 0,015 9,4
NF,
2007- river
03-21 water <0,01 <0,1 1,4 <1 6,7 1,6 5,4 0,22 <0,01 1,1
2007- Raw
04-04 water 0,018 0,31 51 8,9 7 27 19 2,3 <0,01 8,6
2007-
04-04 UF <0,01 <0,1 51 8,9 7,1 28 18 2,3 <0,01 8,7
2007- River
04-04 water <0,01 0,35 1,5 2,6 7 3,5 10 0,59 0,086 3,2
NF,
2007- river
04-04 water <0,01 <0,1 1,2 <1 6,7 1,5 4,9 0,2 <0,01 1

K Si Mg Mn Na
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
2006-09-
06 Raw water 1,8 2,4 2,9 0,011 16
2006-10-
03 Raw water 1,8 2,4 2,7 0,013 14
2006-12-
06 Raw water 2 2,2 3,9 0,004 25
2007-01-
03 River water 0,59 16 0,85 0,036 1,5
2007-01-
03 Raw water 2,3 2,4 4,2 0,013 26
2007-02-
14 Raw water 1,8 2,3 3,7 0,034 24
2007-02-
14 NF 1,4 2,1 2,1 0,006 19
2007-02-
21 Raw water 1,7 2,1 3,3 0,012 20
2007-02-
21 NF 1,5 2 2 0,005 17
2007-02-
28 Raw water 1,9 2,2 3,8 0,012 23
2007-02-
28 NF 1,5 2,1 2,2 0,007 19
2007-02-
28 UF 19 2,2 3,9 0,01 23
2007-03-
06 Raw water 2,2 2,3 4,5 0,014 25

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 39

 2007-03-
06 NF 1,7 2,1 2,6 0,006 22
2007-03-
06 UF 2,1 2,3 4,4 0,009 26
2007-03-
21 Raw water 2,1 2,2 5,2 0,009 33
2007-03-
21 UF 2,2 2,2 5,2 0,01 33
2007-03-
21 River water 2,2 2,2 5,3 0,009 34
2007-03- NF, river
21 water 0,3 1,1 0,25 <0,002 0,87
2007-04-
04 Raw water 2,2 2,1 4,7 0,016 30
2007-04-
04 UF 2,3 2,1 4,8 0,0007 31
2007-04-
04 River water 0,53 1,2 0,66 <0,002 1,2
2007-04- NF, river
04 water 0,35 1,1 0,24 <0,002 0,86
2007-04-
11 Raw water 2 2,2 5,1 0,009 32
2007-04-
11 UF 2 5,1 0,008 32

Al-control result analysis

The results from Al-control laboratories on NF and UF plant for river water as shown
in table 22 shows that larger ions (Al2+, Fe2+, and Mn2+) were reduced by both
membranes while smaller ions (Ca2+, K+ ,Mg2+, Si , Cl-, SO42- and Na+ ) were reduced
by NF plant alone which maybe due to pore size charge and molecular weights. It is
interesting to note also that there was little or no change in alkalinity value with the UF
plant which was good for the plant operations since HCO3- is needed in the plant, while
there was reduction in alkalinity with the NF plant. There was good reduction of
turbidity value from 0.58 NTU to less than 0.1 NTU by both plants. Also, the
conductivity and hardness changed in the NF plant while in the UF plant remains the
same. It is also interesting to note that there was an occasional
raw water value of Fe ion as 17 mg/l on 2007-02-21 which are quite different from
previous range values of 0.089 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 40

4.4 Energy Consumption Rate
The electricity consumption of the NF plant was recorded and related to the effluent
water production in (m3) in table 21 and table 22. The energy consumption rate show
that the NF plant consumes 0.48 kWh/m3 to 0.50kWh/m3 which was stable through out
the experiments.

Table 21 Energy consumption of NF plant with well water from 2007-02-12 to 2007-
03-16
Well water
Dates Total Effluent water (m3) Electricity (kWh-meter)
2007-02-12 5386,51 00000
2007-02-13 5469,84 33
2007-02-15 5638,83 120
2007-02-16 5723,11 162
2007-02-19 5976,31 283
2007-02-22 6229,16 408
2007-02-23 6311,37 447
2007-02-28 6732,28 660
2007-03-01 6817,51 701
2007-03-02 6900,37 741
2007-03-14 7912,88 1245
2007-03-15 7997,30 1287
2007-03-16 8082,00 1333

Table 22 Energy consumption of NF plant with river water from 2007-03-19 to 2007-
04-10
River water
Dates Total Effluent water (m3) Electricity (kWh-meter)
2007-03-19 8302,73 1470
2007-03-20 8357,51 1448
2007-03-21 8441,91 1560
2007-03-22 8526,46 1531
2007-03-23 8610,61 1563
2007-03-26 8860,70 1664
2007-03-27 8945,64 1701
2007-03-28 9028,61 1730
2007-03-29 9113,63 1777
2007-03-30 9198,35 1822
2007-04-02 9450,35 1953
2007-04-04 9617,65 2035
2007-04-05 9701,93 2069
2007-04-10 10124,20 2261

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 41

Energy Consumption Rates and Costs

Well water sources.

The energy consumption rates and costs for well water were evaluated at different
periods:

To 2007-02-16 the volume treated was 5723.11m3

(5723.11-5386, 51) m3 = 336.6m3. 162 kWh were used.
Therefore, we have 162kWh divided by 336.6 m3 which gives 0.48 kWh/m3.
Gaddvik water plant produces approximately 20,000m3/[Link] production consumes
20,000m3/d, x 0.48kwh/m3 =9600kwh/day and since 1kWh costs about 1SEK, the
monthly costs will be 9600 x30 = 288,000SEK.

To 2007-02-28 the volume treated was 6732.28 m3

(6732.28-5386, 51) m3 = 1345.77m3. 660 kWh were used.
Therefore, we have 660kWh divided by 1345.77 m3 which gives 0.49kWh/m3.
Gaddvik water plant produces approximately 20,000m3/[Link] production consumes
20,000m3/d, x 0.48kwh/m3 =9600kwh/day and since 1kWh costs about 1SEK, the
monthly costs will be 9600 x30 = 294,000SEK.

To 2007-03-14 the volume treated was 7912.88m3

(7912.88-5386, 51) m3 = 2526.37 m3. 1245 kWh were used.
Therefore, we have 1245kWh divided by 2526.37 m3 which gives 0.49kWh/m3.
Gaddvik water plant produces approximately 20,000m3/[Link] production consumes
20,000m3/d, x 0.49kwh/m3 =9600kwh/day and since 1kWh costs about 1SEK, the
monthly costs will be 9600 x30 = 294,000SEK.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 42

River water sources,
To 2007-03-07 the volume treated was 8357.31m3
(8357.31-5386, 51) m3 = 2970.8m3. 1407kWh were used.
Therefore, we have 1407kWh divided by 2970 m3 which gives 0.49kWh/m3.
Gaddvik water plant produces approximately 20,000m3/[Link] production consumes
20,000m3/d, x 0.49kwh/m3 =9600kwh/day and since 1kWh costs about 1SEK, the
monthly costs will be 9600 x30 = 294,000SEK.

To 2007-03-23 the volume treated was 8610.61m3

(8610.61-5386, 51) m3 = 3224.1m3. 1563 kWh were used.
Therefore, we have 1563kWh divided by 3224.1m3 which gives 0.48kWh/m3.
Gaddvik water plant produces approximately 20,000m3/[Link] production consumes
20,000m3/d, x 0.48kwh/m3 =9600kWh/day and since 1kWh costs about 1SEK, the
monthly costs will be 9600 x30 = 288,000SEK.

To 2007-03-29 the volume treated was 9113.63 m3

(911.63 -5386, 51) m3 = 3727.12m3. 1777kWh were used.
Therefore, we have 1777kWh divided by 3727.12 m3 which gives 0.48kWh/m3.
Gaddvik water plant produces approximately 20,000m3/[Link] production consumes
20,000m3/d, x 0.48kwh/m3 =9600kwh/day and since 1kWh costs about 1 SEK, the
monthly costs will be 9600 x30 = 288,000SEK.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 43

 5 DISCUSSION
A direct treatment of surface waters with UF membrane is not yet realized in Gaddvik
plant due to considerable fouling and scaling effects caused by water contaminants on
the membrane surface. Therefore, the deposits from wells water at Gaddvik on the
membrane cannot be eliminated by conventional backwashing. The first UF membrane
clogged within the first week of operation, when the backwash ceased to function, this
lead to fast decrease in membrane performance. However, cleaning with NaOCl first
and then with citric acid was tested. It did not help, so the plant was closed on 2007-01-
24 and new membrane was installed on 2007 -02-24. So the process cannot be driven
economically by this fouling problem. NF with pretreatment was active since 2006-12-
08 to 2007-04-07 and loaded with artificial groundwater from the wells and river water
without encountering obvious fouling problems as in UF membrane. This was in
accordance to these references (Jones and O´Melia, 2001; 1999; Jacangelo et al.,
1995b; Fane et al., 1987).

Flux Performance
Obviously, there was a flux decline in the NF plant when river water was used as feed
when compared to well water. In fact, there was about 20% loss of flux in the NF plant.
while the UF plant used well water only as a feed source and there was also loss of flux
due to membrane fouling. The balances of turbidity and conductivity as being
calculated in chapter 4 show that there is a good balance in conductivity but effluent
loses in turbidity probably due to fouling membrane surfaces

Rejection of multivalent ions by UF and NF

Salts containing monovalent anions, with small solvent ionic radii exhibited small
retention and salts containing polyvalent anions exhibited high rejections. In the UF
plant, a major rejection was Al .About 0.036 mg/l was retained in the membrane filter
from 0.046 mg/l in feed to 0.010 mg/l in permeates. Also, Fe was about 0.17mg/l
retained from 0.18mg/l in the feed to 0.01mg/l in permeate. There was also retention of
Mn about 0.026 mg/l in membrane filters with 0.036mg/l in feed to less than 0.010mg/l

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 44

in permeating, decrease in color from 20 mg/l Pt to less than 5 mg/l Pt and decline in
turbidity values from 0.58 NTU to less than 0.1 NTU.
Thus, Al, Fe, Mn, and other ions may be responsible for the clogging of the UF Plant
with decline in flux as an experience in this plant.
In fact, the NF membrane completely removed the microbial content; reduced COD to
an appreciable extent and TOC below the detection limit in all the NF permeates.

Rejection of NOM by UF and NF

Rejection by UF membrane depends on the molecular weight volume and physical –
chemical characteristics of the organics. The results from the tables shows that the
NOM concentrations in the permeate decreased throughout the filtration period. This
preassumbly occurred because of gradual pore closure through out the filtration period
which is known as cake filtration. While the NF membrane also shows rejection of
NOM with continuous cleaning by backwashing of the membrane with anti scalants.
However, backwashing of UF membrane filters consumes about 10% of the treated
water.

Turbidity variation with well water NF membrane plant

The figure 5 shows turbidity variation with well water samples taken from the NF
membrane plant, at different sampling points .The turbidity values varies from 0.43
NTU in feed stream to 0.06 NTU in the permeate and 1.4 NTU in the reject. Any
permeate turbidity value of 0.5 NTU satisfy the drinking water standard when
compared with WHO drinking water standard in appendix 11

Turbidity variation with river water NF plant

The figure 7 shows turbidity variation with river water samples taken from the NF
membrane plant, at different sampling points. The turbidity value varies from 0.43
NTU in feed stream to 0.04 NTU in the permeate and 1.42 NTU in the reject. Any
permeate turbidity value of 0.05 NTU satisfy the drinking water standard when
compared with WHO drinking water standard in appendix [Link] can observe a
variation for the reject turbidity value.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 45

Antiscaling agents
The antiscaling agent are chemicals added to reduce membrane fouling and were used
only for the NF plant in Gaddvik .It was observed to be basic or alkaline in nature as
the pH value was around 8 - [Link] main functions was to help to minimize the
membrane fouling but the actual components of the antiscaling was not disclosed by the
company. It was observed during the study of its influence with 10ml of antiscale to 1
litre of water that antiscaling agent increased turbidity and conductivity values but
maybe help to minimize membrane fouling in the NF plant.

5.1.4 Energy Efficiency and the environment

For comparison a price of 1sek per 1kWh of electricity was used in the energy costs in
table 21 and table 22.
This gave a designed daily energy cost for a full scale membrane filter at Gaddvik.
Approximately within the range of (9,600 -9800 SEK per day and 288, 000 -294,000
SEK per month). This seems constant through out the well water and the river water
experiments. This energy cost seems considerable lower to the cost of the conventional.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 46

6 CONCLUSIONS

• The NF and UF pilot plants show satisfactory organic matter removal capacity
at a relatively moderate flux condition with good turbidity value of about less
than 0.1 NTU.
• The NF plant reduced hardness, COD, TOC and removed some microbial
content and it’s permeate quality was found comparable to Swedish drinking
water standard.
• The UF plant did not reduce hardness, conductivity, but especially preserved the
alkalinity ( HCO3-) which is needed in the drinking water plant.
• The conductivity balances show good compatibility between conductivity input
and output water quality.
• There was approximately 20% loss of water in NF plant as a reject water while
maybe 10-15 % loss in UF plant as reject water.
• Turbidity balances value shows a variation in the input and output water.
• The NF plant experienced no membrane fouling maybe probably due to the
presence of antiscaling agent while the UF plant experienced membrane fouling
in the early stage but was replaced a new membrane filter.
• The energy costs were estimated to 288, 000 SEK per month) in an full scale
NF application. The energy costs for the Gaddvik plant today are about 300,000
SEK per month.

6.1 SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE WORK

• There should be possibility of installing a pre-filter in the UF plant, which will
probably help to minimize the membrane fouling.
• There should be an understanding of the effect of antiscaling agents with the
fouling removal and water quality.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 47

Reference:
Bremere et al., (1998) Increasing conversion in membrane filtration systems using
super saturation unit to prevent scaling. Desalination, 119 199-204.

Belford, G. (1984) Synthetic Membrane Processes-Fundamentals and Water

Applications. Academic Press, New York,

Buckley, C.A., Broucaer, C.J and Rencken, G.E. (2000)

Waste water reuse: the South African experience. Water Science. Tech., 41(10-11) 157-
163.

Chang, Y.J, Choo, K.H., Benjamin, M.M. and Reiber, S. (1998).Combined adsorption
UF process increase TOC removal .Journal of American water works Association 90
(5), 90-102.

Cheryan, (1986) Ultra filtration Handbook, Technomic, Lancaster, PA, 1986.

Cheryan, (1998) Ultra filtration and Micro filtration Handbook, Technomic publishing
company, [Link].

Choi, J.H., Dockko, S., Yamamoto, K A (2002) novel application of a submerged Nano
filtration membrane bioreactor (NF MBR) for wastewater treatment, Desalination 146,
413

Daniella B. Mosqueda-Jimenez, Peter M. Huck: (2005) Characterization of membrane

foul ants in drinking water Treatment University of Waterloo, Canada.

Flemming H.C., Schaule, G. Griebe, [Link], J. Biofouling – the Achilles heel of

membrane processes desalination 113 (1997), 215-225

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 48

Fane, A.G and Fell, C.J.D (1987).A review of fouling and fouling control in ultration.
Desalination, 62, 117-136.

Fane A.G, Beatson, Li, P. H. (2002) Membrane fouling and its control in
environmental applications, water science and technology 41(10-11), 303-308.

Guigui, C. Bonnelye, V., Durand- Bourlier, L., Rough, J.C and Aptel, P. (2000).
Combination of coagulation and ultrafiltration for drinking water production: Impact of
process configuration and module design. In Proceedings of the conference on
membrane in drinking water and industrial water production, Vol. 1 Paris France, pp,
383-395.

Hwang, S. T and Kammermeyer, K. (1975) Membrane in separation, Wiley –

Interscience, New York

Huiting, H. Kappelhof, J.W.N.M. Bosklopper, T.G.J, (2001) Operation of NF/RO

plants: from reactive to proactive, Desalination 139 183-189.

Hanaeus, J. (2005) Drinking water treatment compendium

Div of Sanitary Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.

Jones, K.L and O`Melia, C.R (2001) Ultra filtration of proteins and humic substances;
effect of solution chemistry on fouling and flux decline. Journal Membrane Science
193, 163-173.

Jacangelo et al (1995 ) UF with pretreatment for removing DBP procusors .Journal of

the American water works Association, March 107-121.

Koros, W.J. Ma, Y.H. Shimizu, T. (1996) Terminology for membranes and membrane
processes- IUPAC recommendation 1996, Journal of membrane science 120, 149-159.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 49

Lee, S. and Lee, C.H. (2000) Effect of operating conditions on CaSO4 scale formation
mechanism in Nanofiltration for water so Rening. Water Res., 34(15) 3854-3866.

Lee, S. Kim, J. And Lee, C.H. (1999) Analysis of CaSO4 scale formation mechanism
in various Nanofiltration modules. Journal membrane. Science, 163(1) 63-74.

Lloyd, D.R. (1985). Material Science of synthetic Membranes. American Chemical

Society, Washington, DC.

Lindau, A.S, (1999). Adsorptive fouling of modified and unmodified commercial

polymeric ultrafiltration membranes, Journal of membrane science 160 65-76.

Lappin-scott, H.M, Costererton, J.W, (1998) Bacterial biofilms and surface fouling,
Biofouling , 323-342.

Malmqvist, (1999). Sustainable urban water management. Urbana VA-system,inst, for

VA –teknik, Chalmers, Goteborg.

Marcel, Mulder, (1996) Basic principles of membrane Technology Center for

membrane Science and Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Membrane Technologies (2007) Membrane filtration technologies tackle water

reuse and purification January.

Nystrom, M. Kaipia, L. Luque, (1995) Fouling and retention of Nanofiltration

membranes Journal of membrane 98 249-262.

Schafer, A.I, Fane, A.G, Waite, T.D. (2005) Nanofiltration - Principles and
Applications

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 50

Sherwood, T.K., Brian, P.L.T., Fisher, R.E (1965) Salt concentration at phase
boundaries in desalination by reverse osmosis, 4 , 113-118.

Smethurst, G. (1988) Basic water Treatment for application world-wide- second edition
Published by Thomas Telford Ltd,

Staude (1992) Membrane and membrane processes Grundlagen and Anwendungen

VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 1992.

Stevenson, F.J. (1982) Humus Chemistry, Wiley New York, 1982, pp. 337-354.

Van der Bruggen,B., Braeken, L.C. (2002)

Vandecasteele, flux decline in Nanofiltration due to adsorption of organic
compounds Separation and Purification Technology 29 , 23-31

Wingetens et al (2005) The role of membrane processes in municipal wastewater

Reclamation and reuse.” Department of Chemical Engineering, RWTH Aachen
University, Germany.

Watson, B.W. (1990) High recovery reverse osmosis desalination, 78 91-97.

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 51

APPENDIX

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 52

APPENDIX 2

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 53

APPENDIX 3

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 54

APPENDIX 4

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 55

APPENDIX 5

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 56

APPENDIX 6

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 57

APPENDIX 7

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 58

APPENDIX 8

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 59

APPENDIX 9

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 60

APPENDIX 10

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 61

APPENDIX 11

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 62

APPENDIX 12

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 63

APPENDIX 13

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 64

APPENDIX 14 NF results with well water source

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 65

APPENDIX 15 NF results with well water source

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 66

APPENDIX 16 NF results with well water source

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 67

APPENDIX 17 UF results with well water source

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 68

APPENDIX 18 UF results with well water source

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 69

APPENDIX 19 NF and UF plant Characteristics

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 70

APPENDIX 20 water quality standard

Nwosu, Division of Sanitary Engineering 71