UF and RO alone, and together

Use these two membrane technologies to complement each other.

Author: Katalin Vasarhekyi, Ph. D. and Andrew Warnes The market for membrane-based water treatment is booming. Respected market researchers Frost & Sullivan estimated that reverse osmosis (RO) comprises 45 percent of revenues for the residential under-the-sink water treatment equipment market and had predicted that this segment would experience a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.7 percent from 2004 through 2008. The same market research company estimated a CAGR of 12.9 percent for hollow-fiber ultrafiltration (UF) membrane revenues through 2010.* Newcomer to residential For years, RO membrane technology for residential and commercial water treatment has been widely used and accepted. Other well-known applications for RO include seawater/brackish water desalination and ultrapure water production for industrial processes. UF membrane technology only recently has been used for residential water treatment, although it has been proven and accepted in municipal markets for many years. UF is widely used for municipal drinking water and wastewater treatment as well as in the dairy, beverage and food production industries. Here well compare the two membrane technologies to show where they can be used and how they can be combined. Although both RO and UF have applications in which each can excel, in many instances RO and UF are complementary technologies and are not competitive at all.

Cross-section of a UF membrane, magnified 500 times.

Difference is in pore sizes Both RO and UF are processes based on pressure-driven membranes. The fundamental

difference between them is the pore size of the membranes. Both types of membranes contain millions of pores per square inch, but those on an RO membrane are much smaller than those of a UF membrane. RO pore sizes are generally 0.001 micron or smaller; UF pore size ranges from 0.001 to 0.1 micron. RO technologies use dense non-porous membranes; UF uses asymmetric porous membranes as a separations barrier (see accompanying photos). RO membranes reject dissolved and suspended materials (including monovalent salts) and permit relatively few substances to pass. UF membranes remove particles which are bigger than the pore size of the membranes and leave almost all the dissolved substances in the permeate (product water). The separation performance of the RO membranes is often described in terms of their rejections of certain minerals (mainly NaCl). UF membranes are characterized by their nominal pore size or molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) because the separation is based almost entirely upon the differences between the pore size of the membrane and that of the particles themselves. UF membranes can also be characterized by their log reduction capacities for bacteria, cysts and viruses.

Operating pressures Due primarily to the difference in relative pore sizes between RO and UF membranes, the required operating pressure for RO is usually much higher than that of UF. Less pressure is required to force water through the larger pores of UF membranes. RO is often utilized in the cross-flow filtration mode, which means that only a portion of the feedwater actually passes through the membrane to produce permeate. The rejected materials are flushed away in a stream called concentrate or retentate. UF generally works in dead-end filtration mode that is, all the water that enters the membrane surface is forced through the membrane. Some solids and components will stay behind on the membrane while water flows through. See Tables 1 and 2 for comparisons of RO and UF characteristics. Different applications

Because of its relatively low operating pressure requirements and water waste, UF membrane technology is preferred for separation processes where the undesired materials present do not include dissolved solids. In these situations the investment and operation costs of UF are much lower and the sensitivity of the membrane to many contaminants is also lower. Some examples of the contaminants for which UF demonstrates greater operational and economic benefits are: bacteria, cyst and virus reduction; suspended solid removal; and colloidal materials removal from water. Very often UF is used as RO pretreatment. The longevity and efficient operation of RO membranes often depend upon on the quality of the feedwater. UF membranes are relatively insensitive to upsets caused by high turbidity or variable raw water quality and can consistently produce RO feedwater with a turbidity of less than 0.1 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) and a low silt density index (SDI), often less than 2.5. UF can also be used as post-treatment for RO applications where bacteriological disinfection is desired. See Table 3 for examples of RO and UF applications.

Each can improve the other Despite the fact that both RO and UF are membrane treatment technologies, the two are quite different in terms of performance characteristics and claims.

In most applications either one or the other will be most suitable, though in many applications RO and UF complement each other, and the two technologies can be combined to provide additional benefits to customers:

UF can improve RO performance and longevity when used as pretreatment for RO membranes. RO can reduce the dissolved substances that UF cannot. UF can be used on water from variable sources (municipal, ground or surface water supplies) without significant pretreatment, while RO generally cannot.

When used before or after RO, UF can add bacteriological claims as an additional benefit. Relatively few UF membranes can make an independently tested and certified bacteriological purification claim. (The authors are aware of only one brand of UF membrane in widespread use today that can do this.) Due to the many differences in membrane types and membrane qualities currently in use, water treatment professionals should communicate with membrane manufacturers to

determine if the claims being made have been independently tested and certified by a wellknown and trusted organization like the WQA Gold Seal Program or NSF International.

*Frost & Sullivan, United States UF, NF and RO Element Markets (2004), and United States Residential Water Treatment Equipment Markets (2005). More information is available at: www.frost.com. Dr. Katalin Vasarhelyi is the international sales and marketing Manager for GE Homespring ultrafiltration systems. She holds a Ph.D. in separation science and can be reached at +3630-680 76 12, or at katalin.vasarhelyi@ge.com. Andrew Warnes is product manager for GE Homespring ultrafiltration systems. He can be reached at (847) 274-0595, andrew.warnes@ge.com, or www.homespring.com.