GRAHAMTEK RO RESEARCH PROGRAM

“SUSTAINING HIGH SYSTEM AVERAGE FLUX USING

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD (EMF) AND INTEGRATED

FLOW DISTRIBUTOR (IFD)”

Principal Investigator

HARVEY WINTERS

FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY

TEANECK, NEW JERSEY USA

1
Project Participants

Principal Investigator

Professor Harvey Winters

College of Natural Sciences
Fairleigh Dickinson University
1000 River Road
Teaneck, New Jersey, USA

Partners

Professor Tony Fane

UNESCO Center for Membrane Science & Technology
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia

Professor Hans Coster

University of Sydney
Sydney, Australia

Professor Greg Leslie

UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science & Technology
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia

Professor Adrian W.K. Law

Nanyang Technical University
Singapore, Singapore

Professor Ng How Yong

Division of Environmental Science & Engineering
National U university of Singapore
Singapore, Singapore

Mr. Bjarne Nicolaisen

Consultant
San Diego, CA, USA

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………… 4

1. ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………… 11

2. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………. 12

3. EMF AND CRITICAL FLUX STUDIES……………………………….. 17

4. INTEGRATED FLOW DISTRIBUTOR (IFD)………………………… 21

5. CROSSFLOW VELOCITY…………………………………………….. 23

6. CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………. 24

7. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………… 25

3
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GrahamTek RO technology integrates a number of technical improvements,

which significantly enhance and refine the conventional RO desalination technology. In
addition to employing a large diameter spiral wound membrane element (16” diameter)
and a tapered array of the pressure vessels, GrahamTek has incorporated two patented
devices, which appear to overcome the issue of membrane fouling while sustaining a high
system flux.
These technological devices are:
• The Integrated Flow Distributor (IFD)
• An Electromagnetic Field Device (EMF)
The GrahamTek RO Research Program was designed to explain how the GrahamTek
novel technology sustains the performance of the GrahamTek RO system in several
applications, such as desalination of seawater and reclamation of waste water.

I. The Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Effect and Understanding the Underlying

Mechanisms of the EMF Effect in RO.
A. The GrahamTek RO equipment incorporates pressure vessels with 4 elements,
16” diameter and 40” long, with electrical coils embedded in the wall in a
circular pattern surrounding the elements with three groups of coils for each
element. The coils are energized by alternating electric currents, which
induce alternating electro-magnetic fields in the feed solution.
B. The EMF operates in the audio frequency range at 2 kilohertz with the 3 coils
per element, 120 degrees out of phase.
C. The induced electric field alternates in a circular direction, 2000 times per
second, between a clockwise and anticlockwise direction depending on the
momentary direction of the magnetic field.
D. Due to the opposite charges of the anions and cations in the feed solution, they
will tend to move in opposite directions flowing tangentially to the membrane
surface.

4
 Conclusion: The continuous movement of the anions and cations in
opposite directions interferes with the formation of the concentration
polarization layer at the membrane surface and reduces the formation of
crystalline deposits (scale), thereby reducing the overall process of
membrane fouling.
E. The concentric circular patterns of the electric fields are not uniform in
intensity which leads to an additional effect known as “dielectrophoresis”.
This induces electric dipoles in particles which are known to cause fouling of
RO membranes. Due to the induced electric dipoles, particles will move in the
electric field, which may lead to an aggregation of particles and reduce the
potential for fouling of the membrane.
Conclusion: Aggregation of fouling particles makes it more readily for
them to be swept away by the crossflow of the feed or give rise to a higher
critical flux of the fouling particles. There also may be a correlation
between crossflow velocity and aggregation of particles caused by EMF.
As crossflow velocity is increased, the removal of aggregated particles
from the RO membrane surface is increased in the presence of EMF.
Conclusion: The dielectric effect is stronger in feed water of lower
electrical conductivity (lower salinity) than that of sea water. This
explains that, when EMF is turned off at PSA SWRO, there was no
adverse effect.

II. Enhancement of Critical Flux of Particulates - Implications for the RO Desalting

Process
A. The Concept of Critical Flux states that for a given species of foulant in the
RO feed and hydrodynamic environment, there is a flux below which fouling
is negligible. Once the flux is raised above the critical flux, particles start to
deposit and to form a cake layer on the membrane surface.
B. The effect of Crossflow Velocity on Critical Flux has been demonstrated. For
latex particles (6.4µm to 11.9µm) and yeast cells, there is a linear relationship

5
 between critical flux and crossflow velocity. As crossflow velocity is
increased, there is a linear increase in critical flux
C. The Critical Flux for particles can be increased in two ways.
1. Particle Aggregation
It has been suggested that the EMF causes particle aggregation which
increases the size of the fouling particles and thereby increases the critical
flux
2. Enhanced Transport
The dielectrophoretic force induced by the non-uniform AC field could
result in a velocity vector normal to the membrane surface.
Conclusion: In the GrahamTek system, the critical flux of the foulant is
affected by crossflow velocity and dielectrophoretic effect induced by the
EMF. It may be that the dielectrophoretic effect is enhanced or
dependent upon the velocity of the crossflow.
D. The Effect of Flux on the Microbial Membrane Fouling Factor (K)
The microbial membrane fouling factor, K, is defined as follows:
K = Flux (GFD) / Crossflow Velocity (m/s)
1. Increasing the flux, while keeping the crossflow constant, results in a
higher K value and an increase in the fouling rate.
2. If the crossflow velocity is kept constant as the flux is increased above the
critical flux, there is an increase in the fouling resistance (Rf) and
concentration polarization (CP) of the membrane.

III. Evaluation of the EMF Effect on Critical Flux Using DOTM

A. There was 25 to 50% increase in the critical flux in the presence of EMF using
yeast cells
B. The critical flux of the yeast cells increases with increase in pH, both in the
presence and the absence of EMF.
C. The critical flux decreases as the salt concentration is increased, both in the
presence and absence of EMF.

6
 D. The critical flux decreases as the concentration of the yeast cells is increased,
both in the presence and absence of EMF.
Conclusion: The 25 to 50% increase in critical flux of the yeast cells
probably is due to the dielectrophoretic effect. This explains the
mechanism by which EMF functions. There was no change in critical flux
with latex particles (low dielectric constant) in the EMF field, supporting
the theory that EMF functions via a dielectrophoretic effect.
Conclusion: There is an increase in critical flux as pH is increased,
suggesting that SWRO should operate at pH close to 8.0.
Conclusion: The dielectrophoretic effect increases as the salt content
decreases. This explains why in SWRO the EMF effect is greatly
diminished.
E. When the EMF winding was placed upstream rather than around the RO cell,
there was no significant change in the critical flux of the yeast cells.

IV. The Effect of Bubbles on Fouling

A. Air bubbling (1-2 mm bubble size) enhanced removal and deposition
prevention of fouling latex particles.
B. The bubbles were found to be effective layer upon layer.
C. An equilibrium was observed at high flux where particles were deposited and
then removed in rapid succession
Conclusion: In the GrahamTek system, formation of small bubbles by
the Integrated Flow Distributor (IFD) may do the following:
• Interrupt the CP boundary layer
• Promote turbulence and secondary flow on the membrane
surface
• Structurally modify the cake layer

7
 V. The Effect of EMF and Bubbles on Critical Flux Using the RO Tester
A. A lower effect than previously reported in DOTM studies of RO EMF (~12%)
was found measuring the increase of the trans-membrane pressure over time
(dTMP/dt).
B. When using a higher crossflow velocity (0.2 m/s compared to 0.07 m/s),
performance of the RO system even without EMF was much better with a
higher mass transfer and lower CP.
C. The presence of bubbles clearly demonstrated a 40-60% reduction in the
increase of trans-membrane pressure over time (dTMP/dt).
Conclusion: These findings suggest that the orientation and sizes of the
orifices of the IFD play a significant role in fouling control.

VI. Assessment of Formation of Micro-Bubbles by the Integrated Flow Distributor

(IFD)
A. Micro-bubbles were formed through the GrahamTek IFD nozzle.
B. More intense micro-bubbles were produced at higher operating pressures.
C. The number of micro-bubbles was shown to be less at low liquid velocities.
Conclusion: These observations have provided evidence that the
GrahamTek IFD nozzle initiate formation of micro-bubbles.

VII. The Effect of EMF on Scale Formation in RO Applications

A. The experiments with EMF demonstrated a significant increase in normalized
change in transport coefficients.
B. SEM pictures of calcium carbonate scale in presence of EMF showed a
changed morphology which may indicate impaired nuclei.
Conclusion: These results, while not very definitive, suggest that EMF
may affect scale morphology and its formation.

8
VIII. Study of Velocity Distribution in Spiral-Wound RO Membrane Elements Using
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
A. High feed flow velocities are concentrated over a small region on the
membrane inlet end of standard 8” element with standard ATD.
B. The IFD is effective in distributing the feed flow to regions on membrane inlet
that are further away from the source of incoming feed water.
C. As the feed water travels to the channel exit in the 16” FD element, the outlet
FD actually produces a more uneven feed flow velocity distribution at the tail
region of the element than in standard ATD of an 8” element.
D. Higher Reynolds numbers and thinner CP on the membrane surface in Super-
Flux RO systems were demonstrated compared to standard 8” RO systems.
Conclusion: It appears that the IFD distributes the feed flow more evenly
at the inlet of the membrane element. This will result in more stable
critical flux distribution than in 8” RO, where there will be areas of very
high and very low velocity distribution.
Conclusion: The uneven flow distribution in the tail region caused by the
outlet ATD may prevent scale formation.

IX. Effect of Flux, Crossflow Velocity and Recovery on the Microbial Membrane
Fouling Factor (K)
A. Critical flux of marine bacteria is dependent upon size, concentration, flux and
crossflow velocity.
B. K has been calculated for the dominant bacteria, VBNC, based on
concentration, flux and crossflow velocity in DOTM experiments.
C. At constant flux, an increase in recovery results in an increase in K. At 35 °C
K is greater than at 25 °C.
D. As the flux is increased and the recovery is kept constant, K decreases.
E. K decreases with the number of elements in a pressure vessel.
F. Increasing the flux in GrahamTek systems results in a significant decrease in
K and in a similar decrease of thermodynamic restriction.

9
 Conclusion: The GrahamTek RO system achieves its high flux based on
higher feed flow velocities using a shorter membrane channel. This
results in achieving higher flux with a resulting lower K and lower
thermodynamic restriction.

X. Overall Conclusions from the GrahamTek RO Research Program

A. The GrahamTek RO systems employing EMF and IFD with each pressure
vessel containing 4 elements, 16” diameter and 40” long tapered 2:1, has
higher comparative feed flow and crossflow velocities than the conventional
8” RO system with a standard ATD. The GrahamTek RO systems achieve
higher flux and higher specific flux partly because the IFD can distribute the
higher feed flow more evenly than standard 8” RO with ATD.
B. Once achieving the high flux, the aim is to sustain this high flux without
membrane fouling. In the GrahamTek systems this is accomplished by the
following:
1. Higher Feed Flow and Crossflow Velocity in the GrahamTek RO systems
create higher critical fluxes resulting in higher sustainable fluxes. The
result of the higher critical fluxes and sustainable fluxes is that the K-
microbial membrane fouling factor is significantly reduced along with the
risk for a thermodynamic restriction.
2. The IFD maintains more even crossflow velocity at the inlet end of the
first element than the ATD in a standard 8” RO element. This prevents
areas with low critical flux from forming. The IFD also creates micro-
bubbles which can reduce CP and boundary layers on membrane surface
and affect fouling layer formation.
3. The EMF field creates a dielectrophoretic effect upon the microbial
particles causing an increase in their critical fluxes. This effect is smaller
in higher salinity environments, thus reducing its effect in SWRO.
Increasing the critical flux results in a lower K- microbial membrane
fouling factor. The effect of EMF on scale formation cannot be quantified,
other than that it did have some positive effect on the normalized transport

10
 coefficients and that it will affect the movement of anions and cations near
the membrane surface, thus promoting disruption of the CP layer.
4. The 2:1 tapered array of the GrahamTek SWRO system functions by
utilizing a shorter membrane channel (4 element long pressure vessels in
both stages) compared to the standard 8” RO system (normally 7 or 8
elements in parallel pressure vessels). The shorter membrane channel
inhibits formation of a thermodynamic restriction and allows for more
even flux along membrane channel.

1. “ABSTRACT”
The GrahamTek Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology incorporates a number of
technical improvements, which enhances and sustains RO desalination technology while
operating at very high system fluxes. GrahamTek has incorporated two patented devices
into a large diameter spiral wound membrane element (16” diameter), which overcomes
the issue of membrane fouling while sustaining a high system flux.
The two technological devices are:
• Integrated Flow Distributor (IFD)
• Electromagnetic Field Device (EMF)
The GrahamTek RO system has been successfully used in several applications, such
as desalination of seawater and reclamation of waste water. In both these applications, a
high system flux was achieved in the absence of any significant membrane fouling.
The high sustainable permeate flux appeared to be related to the crossflow velocity
and the critical flux, the highest sustainable flux at which significant membrane fouling
will not occur. The research program attempted to examine what effect the devices and
features of the GrahamTek RO system had on the critical flux whereby sustaining the
high average system flux obtained through use of high feed flow velocity. The devices
and features studied were:
• EMF
• IFD
• Crossflow velocity
• Configuration (array

11
2. “INTRODUCTION”

It was envisioned that this study would explain the basis of how GrahamTek
technology was capable of sustaining high system fluxes without incurring microbial and
organic membrane fouling. High system fluxes allows for more efficient use of reverse
osmosis (RO) membranes where water resources are becoming scarce and cost of water
production becoming more important. The ultimate goal, therefore, is to attain the highest
recovery and specific flux without incurring membrane fouling.
It is the aim of this Final Report to provide a thorough review and investigation of
how high permeate fluxes generated can be sustained in the absence of organic and
microbial membrane fouling. Understanding the mechanism of organic and microbial
membrane fouling was deemed important in explaining how the GrahamTek technology
controls these events. The principle of critical fluxes which is controlled mainly by
crossflow velocity and permeate flux was considered as the main mechanism controlling
membrane fouling in Reverse Osmosis (RO).
The term reverse osmosis comes from the process of osmosis, the natural
movement of solvent from a region of low solute concentration, through a membrane, to
a region of high solute concentration if no external pressure is applied. Reverse osmosis
(RO) is the process of pushing the solvent (water) through the membrane from the area of
high solute concentration to the region of low solute concentration.
The reverse osmosis (RO) process was first developed in the early 1970’s for
brackish water. The first practical RO membranes produced were very thin and
asymmetric. The membranes have no pores; the separation takes place in dense polymer
layer of only microscopic thickness. This process requires a high pressure to be exerted
on the high concentration side of the membrane. In practice, the saline feed is pressurized
against the membrane. A portion of the feed passes through the membrane (flux), while
the remaining portion is discharged (brine). The flux is expressed as amount of water
produced per membrane area per unit of time (l/m2/D or g/ft2/D).
The topic of microbial fouling was first introduced in the mid 1930’s (1) when it
was observed that any surface immersed in seawater would become populated with
attached bacteria and that the surface enhanced microbial growth by concentrating

12
organic nutrients that were present in the seawater. During storage of surfaces in
seawater, the bacterial populations increase and a biofilm is formed. There are now
recognized four steps in the formation of this biofilm on a RO membrane and they are as
follows:
1. The first step in microbial fouling of immersed surfaces in seawater begins with the
rapid adsorption of polymeric material which are either glycoproteins or humic-like
material. The dissolved organics in seawater are absorbed onto clean RO membrane
surfaces immediately after exposure. These organics condition the surface, so as to
absorb and concentrate nutrients, which will be needed for the development of the
biofilm.
2. Most marine bacteria are recognized as primary film formers that are able to attach
to surfaces, colonize and develop as a slimy film. They are referred to as pioneer bacteria
and usually are viable but non-culturable (VBNC) bacteria Since the marine environment
is usually oligotrophic, low in organic content, the bulk, greater than 99.9% of the
bacterial population, will enter into the VBNC state in which they are not easily cultured
on traditional high nutrient marine media. These VBNC are unusually small, being about
0.2 µ in size. Once attached to a surface, these VBNC becomes resuscitated back into a
culturable form and are able to grow and produce extracellular polysaccharide material
on the surface. The VBNC population is greater than the heterotrophic population in
oligotrophic seawater conditions and they have a great propensity to attach to the RO
membrane surface because the surface represents a site where the organic concentrations
are greater than in the bulk flow.
3. The resuscitated VBNC bacteria become joined, and are later replaced by
secondary periphtes, which become the major part of the bacterial population. They attain
very great numbers per unit area.
4. The final step in biofilm formation is the attachment and colonization by algae,
protozoa and invertebrate species.
The ultimate aim of RO has been to achieve the highest recovery and maximum
flux and salt rejection without incurring organic and microbial membrane fouling. It is
the occurrence of organic and microbial membrane fouling that has plagued the RO
industry since its beginning.

13
 The fouling of RO membrane surfaces by bacteria is a well documented and studied
phenomenon. With regard to RO membranes and microbial fouling, one does not ask
whether or not a microbial film (biofilm) will appear on a RO membrane surface
immersed with seawater, but rather at what rate will it form? Microbial fouling occurs on
all seawater RO membranes, just at different rates. It usually occurs as recovery is
increased in the presence of low average system fluxes (GFD).
Microbial and/or organic fouling of RO membranes are the greatest impediment to
successful seawater RO operations. Control of microbial fouling has been attempted
through the use of disinfection, especially chlorination. With regard to the control of
membrane organic fouling, in-line coagulation in the pretreatment has been used.
However, despite these attempts to control microbial and organic membrane fouling,
many seawater RO plants still suffer from fouling and there had been no way to
completely control the membrane fouling.
In the 1980’s and 1990’s most of the microbial and organic fouling problems were at
large seawater RO plants in the Middle East. The belief was that the microbial activity in
the Middle East (Arabian Gulf and Red Sea) was so great that nothing would be able to
control the attachment and growth of bacteria on the RO membrane.
RO plants in the Caribbean Sea, which possess microbial concentrations and activities
similar to those in the Middle East, operated more successfully. However, because the
Caribbean RO plants operated at lower recoveries with higher feed flow velocities than
plants in the Middle East, a belief developed that microbial and organic fouling of RO
membranes could be controlled by a critical flux value which was influenced by
pretreatment and RO design. It was also observed that this critical flux value decreased as
the concentration of bacteria and organics increased and that certain pretreatment
chemicals lowered the critical flux and increased the fouling rates. By adjusting brine
crossflow velocities and conversion at selected RO plants, the fouling rate and critical
flux could be controlled at many RO plants.
At a membrane conference (IMSTEC) in Sydney, Australia (1996), the concept of
critical flux in seawater RO was discussed by Professor Tony Fane (University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia). Professor Fane is a leading expert in the area of critical

14
flux in microfiltration and ultrafiltration and he believed that the concept of critical flux
could be a meaningful approach to control microbial and organic fouling in seawater RO.
Critical flux has been defined as the highest permeate flux (GFD) at a defined crossflow
velocity under which no or little fouling is observed. The concept of critical flux was first
introduced by Field et al (2) in 1995, which stated there exists a flux at a defined
crossflow velocity, below which a decline of flux with time is not observed; but above
this flux, a decline in flux with time occurs and fouling results. They viewed that critical
flux determination would be difficult to determine a priori, but suggested that the concept
could be used as a guide when optimizing a system.
Li, Fane and others (3) developed a non-invasive technique, direct observation
through the membrane (DOTM) which measured the critical flux of particles as a
function of crossflow velocity. They found that an increase in the crossflow velocity
increases the critical flux, and that the critical flux increases with the particle size.
Professor Tony Fane used the DOTM technique to measure the critical flux of bacteria
and humic acids. The DOTM experiments were the first to demonstrate that the critical
flux of marine bacteria was affected by crossflow conditions and that they will form a
cake layer on the membrane surface, when the critical flux is exceeded. In addition, the
critical flux of the marine bacteria increased when the crossflow velocity was
correspondingly increased.
There is doubt that the microbial membrane fouling in RO, like that in
microfiltration and ultrafiltration, is controlled by critical flux which is very dependent
upon the crossflow velocity. Therefore, a very important key to control of microbial
membrane fouling involves raising the crossflow velocity. The crossflow velocity in an
RO system is inversely related to the recovery and directly related to the average system
flux (GFD). If GFD is kept constant in an RO system and recovery increased, then the
critical flux of bacteria must decrease and the fouling rate must increase.
The literature tells us, that according to “good engineering practice”, the average
system flux should be limited to control RO membrane fouling. This would contradict the
critical flux theory which implies that if recovery is kept constant then limiting GFD will
decrease the critical flux and increase the fouling rate.

15
 The first and only RO systems that have demonstrated that high average system
fluxes can be sustained in the absence of organic and microbial membrane fouling have
been the GrahamTek systems. These are 16-inch RO systems, incorporating two patented
devices, electromagnetic field (EMF) and integrated flow distributor (IFD). The
GrahamTek RO systems sustain high crossflow velocities by incorporating high feed
flow through the integrated flow distributor (IFD).
For years, the 8 inch diameter RO spiral wound element has been the standard size
used in commercial RO systems. However, recently, larger diameter RO elements (16” to
18”) have been developed. In a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Reclamation, it was stated that “the results indicate that the majority of the cost
savings can be achieved in the transition from 8-inch to 16-inch diameter elements”.
RO membrane companies, like Koch, Saehan, Dow and Hydranautics have been
developing the large diameter RO spiral wound membrane. Koch and Dow have
promoted their products on the sole basis of significant cost savings (20-25%) in
infrastructure, auxiliary equipment and piping costs, but no significant improvement in
RO performance, compared to the 8-inch RO systems. However, Hydranautics and
Saehan incorporate the GrahamTek technology (EMF and Integrated Flow Distributor)
into their 16-inch RO and have demonstrated both significant costs savings and
improvement in RO performance (absence of membrane fouling) as demonstrated at the
PUB wastewater reclamation and PSA seawater RO facilities).
To examine how the GrahamTek technology succeeds in sustaining high average
system fluxes while increasing the critical flux of microbes, the Research Program
examined the following devices and features incorporated into the GrahamTek systems:
• Electromagnetic Field (EMF)
• Integrated Flow Distributor (IFD)
• Crossflow Velocity
• Configuration (Array)

16
3. “EMF AND CRITICAL FLUX STUDIES”

A. “The Effects of Alternating Electromagnetic Fields in the Context of the

GrahamTek Membrane Module”
Professor Hans G.L. Coster
University of Sydney, Australia
(SEE APPENDIX #1)

1. The GrahamTek pressure vessels incorporate coils wound around the GrahamTek
RO membrane elements which are energized by alternating, audio frequency
electric currents
2. When the current flow through the coil is alternating, the magnetic field produced
will also be alternating in time.
3. The induced circular patterns of the electric field act upon the sodium and
chloride ions in the seawater to produce circular electric currents
4. The continuous movement of ions will interfere with formation of concentration
polarization (CP) layer at the membrane surface and reduce the fouling process.
5. The induced electric field and alternating magnetic field induces formation of
electric dipoles in fouling particles which causes these particles to be attracted to
each other. This dielectrophoretic effect will lead to particle aggregation that
increases their critical flux and enables them to be more readily swept away by
the crossflow of the feed water.
6. The dielectrophoretic effect will be stronger in feed water of lower electrical
conductivity (lower salinity) than that in sea water.
7. The EMF may not prevent scale formation, but it does interfere with formation of
concentration polarization boundary layer and increases the microbial critical
flux.

17
 B. “Enhancement of Critical Flux of Particulates- Implications for RO
Desalting Processes”
Professor Tony Fane
University New South Wales, Australia
(SEE APPENDICIES #2 and #9)

1. Definition of critical flux is given. The concept of critical flux is that for a given
species and hydrodynamic environment there is a flux below which fouling is
negligible. Once flux is incremented above the critical flux, the particles start to
deposit forming a cake layer on the membrane.
2. J CRIT = k ln (CW / CB ) + VE
Where VE is the enhancement velocity
3. DOTM technique shows critical flux (GFD) can be increased by increasing the
crossflow velocity (m/s).
4. The EMF effect (Prof. Coster) could affect critical flux in two ways:
a. The dipole-dipole interactions induced by non-uniform AC field gradients
can lead to particle aggregation and this would increase JCRIT.
b. The dielectrophoretic force induced by EMF could result in a velocity
vector normal to the membrane surface. Prof. Coster’s report emphasizes
the importance of the AC field frequency in determining the magnitude of
the field effect.
5. The Cake Enhanced Osmotic Effect (CEOE) is likely to be the primary cause of
loss of performance in RO fouled by particulate deposits. The following
techniques can reduce the CEOE:
a. effective pretreatment in reducing CB
b. increasing the JCRIT by
(i) improving mass transfer by enhancing and optimizing
hydrodynamics
(ii) increasing particle size by aggregation of small particles
(iii) enhancing backtransport by additional field forces

18
 C. “Effect of EMF on Critical Flux of Particles Using DOTM”
Professor Tony Fane, Professor Adrian Law & Zhang Yanpeng
Nanyang Technical University, Singapore
(See Appendix #3)

1. The critical flux of microbial yeast cells was increased by 25 to 50% when the
EMF was applied. The yeast cells would be expected to show a strong
dielectrophoretic interaction. A dielectrophoretically induced velocity could
explain the effect of EMF on the yeast cells.
2. As the salt concentration was increased, a decrease in the critical flux of the yeast
cells occurred. Also, it is known that dielectrophoretic effects are diminished as
salt concentration increases. This may explain the increased efficacy of EMF in
RO reclamation (low salt content) versus seawater RO desalination (high salt
content).
3. The increase in critical flux is consistent with particle aggregation that is
produced by induced electric fields arising from time varying magnetic fields.
4. It was confirmed by DOTM experiments that GrahamTek EMF device enhanced
the critical flux of microbial yeast cells. The enhancement was observed for yeast
cells with EMF mounted around the membrane cell. It was not observed with
EMF device located upstream of the membrane cell.
5. The EMF had no effect on critical flux of latex particles which possesses low
dielectric constants.

19
D. “Effect of EMF on Deposit Fouling in RO Tester”
Professor Tony Fane & Chong Tzyy Haur
Nanyang Technical University, Singapore
(See Appendix #4)

1. In the absence of EMF, the RO membrane demonstrated the worst

performance, the TMP increased at a rate of 0.73 bar/h.
2. When EMF was applied to the RO membrane, the dTMP/dt was
reduced to 0.48 bar/h (a drop of 34%) and was accompanied by a
reduction in dCP/dt and dRs/dt to 0.14 h-1 and 0.032 X 1014 m-1h-1,
respectively.
3. It was established that the EMF could reduce particulate fouling in
RO.
4. A higher crossflow of 0.2 m/s resulted in a higher mass transfer
and lesser CEOP effect even without the EMF.
5. It was observed that an average of ~ 12 and 23% reduction in
dTMP/dt could be achieved under the effect of RO EMF and Upstream
EMF respectively. The effect of EMF on the fouling appeared to slightly
lower at the lower crossflow 0.07 m/s.

E. “Effect of EMF on Scale Formation in RO Applications”

Professor Greg Leslie
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
(See Appendix #7)

Final Report will be submitted December 2007

20
4. “INTEGRATED FLOW DISTRIBUTOR (IMF)”

A. “Assessment of the Formation of Micro-Bubbles by Integrated Flow

Distributor”
Professor Adrian Law, Professor Tony Fane & Filicia Wicaksana
Nanyang Technical University, Singapore
(See Appendix #5)
1. Observational studies have provided evidence that the Integrated Flow
Distributor (IFD) could initiate formation of micro-bubbles.
2. The velocity distribution indicated the presence of higher velocity regions at
the upper half section of a nozzle cavity.
3. Greater pressure reduction in these regions has probably caused the discharge
of dissolved air as micro-bubbles.
4. The effectiveness of these micro-bubbles in reducing fouling propensity
probably depends on how far the micro-bubbles travel along the membrane
element before they eventually collapse.
5. The micro-bubbles may cause continuous disruption of the concentration
polarization on the membrane surface, easing the mass transfer across the
membrane surface.

21
B. “Study of Velocity Distribution in Spiral-Wound RO Membrane Elements
with Computational Fluid Dynamics”
Professor Ng How Yong, Tay Kwee Guan & Zhou Xiaoquannal
National University of Singapore
(See Appendicies #6 and # 10)

1. In the 8-inch FS high velocity flows (1.18 m/s) are concentrated at the bottom
of membrane inlet (in-line with peripheral port).
2. The Super-flux GrahamTek units, although the feed flow rates are about 4.7
times the feed flow rate of the 8-inch FS, attained maximum velocities of less
than 2 times the maximum velocity of the 8-inch FS.
3. The spread of the feed velocities of the 16-inch GrahamTek RO units were
much better than that of the 8-inch FS.
4. The GrahamTek RO units attained even flow distribution 150 mm
downstream of membrane inlet, while 8-inch FS attained even flow
distribution 300 mm downstream if membrane inlet.
5. A higher feed velocity promoted greater chance of even flow distribution.
6. The Integrated Flow Distributor (IFD) appeared to improve the mixing of
various flow velocities in the membrane channels.
7. The outlet flow distributor produced a more uneven feed velocity at the tail
region of the element than the standard ATD of an 8-inch element. This
uneven feed velocity distribution or turbulence flow could reduce the
concentration polarization at the tail region of the membrane element.

22
5. “CROSSFLOW VELOCITY”

A. “The Effect of Crossflow Velocity on Microbial Membrane Fouling in

GrahamTek RO Systems”
Professor Harvey Winters
Fairleigh Dickinson University, USA
(See Appendices #8 and 11)

1. It is well accepted that the microbial fouling of RO membranes can be

controlled by the critical flux of the bacterium.
2. While the conventional strategy to control microbial membrane fouling is the
use of disinfectants, namely chlorination-dechlorination, limited success has
been attained.
3. The alternative control of microbial membrane fouling is to increase the
microbial critical flux by increasing the crossflow velocity. The importance of
crossflow velocity in controlling microbial critical flux has been documented
in studies by Winters and Fane. Even control of organic fouling of membranes
has been attained through increase in crossflow velocity.
4. Increasing RO crossflow velocity can be achieved, by either decreasing the
system recovery or increasing the average system GFD.
5. A microbial fouling factor, referred to as K, can be determined for each RO
element in a pressure vessel. This K value is dependent upon the membrane
flux (GFD) and crossflow velocity and is calculated by GFD/velocity.
6. The higher the K value, the greater is the probability of microbial membrane
fouling. The K value increases with:
a. increase in system recovery
b. decrease in average system flux
c. increase in feedwater temperature
d. increase in microbial concentration
7. The GrahamTek 16-inch RO units attain significantly higher crossflow
velocities and lower K values than the standard 8-inch RO systems using

23
 ATDs. The lower K values in the GrahamTek RO units can be attributed to
higher average system flux coupled with shorter membrane channels in the
2:1 membrane array.
8. Thermodynamic restriction mimics the effect of microbial membrane fouling,
but mainly affects the flux and salt rejection in the brine-end elements.
Increasing the average system flux and decreasing the recovery of the RO
system, reduces the probability of thermodynamic restriction.
9. The GrahamTek RO units demonstrate that high average system fluxes will
control both microbial membrane fouling and thermodynamic restriction.

6. “CONCLUSIONS”

A. The devices and features incorporated into the GrahamTek technology play
important roles in sustaining high system average fluxes.
B. Crossflow velocity has the greatest impact on sustaining high microbial critical
flux and high average system fluxes. If the crossflow alone cannot sustain high
average system flux, then the EMF and IFD become the controlling devices for
preventing microbial membrane fouling.
C. EMF increases the microbial critical flux and when crossflow velocity is not
sufficient to sustain acceptable critical flux, the EMF becomes the limiting feature
to overcome microbial membrane fouling.
D. The IFD improves the hydraulic conditions and sustains optimum average
crossflow velocity as well as forming micro-bubbles, which interfere with CP
formation.
e. The configuration (array) of GrahamTek RO overcomes thermodynamic
restriction.
f. The newer GrahamTek RO plants operate at higher crossflow velocities
compared to conventional 8-inch RO and older GrahamTek plants.

24
7. “REFERENCES

(1) ZoBell, C.E., and D.Q. Anderson, (1936), Observations on the Multiplication
of Bacteria in Different Volumes of Stored Seawater and the Influence of Oxygen
Tension and Solid Surfaces, Biological Bulletin, 77, 324-342.
(2) Field,R.W., D. Wu, J.A. Howell and B.B. Gupta, (1995), Critical Flux
Concept for Microfiltration Fouling, Journal of Membrane Science 100(3), 259-
272.
(3) Li, H., A.G. Fane, H.G.L. Coster and S. Vigneswaran, (2000), An Assessment
of Depolarization Models of Crossflow Microfiltration by Direct Observation
Through the Membrane, Journal of Membrane Science 172, 135-148.

25