¶

THE GROWTH OF MEMBRANE

TECHNOLOGY

Membrane systems havebeen used in

specialized applications for more than 30
years, largely for water treatment,
including desalination of seawater and
brackish water. With technical advances
and correspopding cost reductions,
membrane systems are nowcapable of
decontaminating nonsaline waters
(including treated wastewaters) in single-
step processes atcompetitive costs.
The demand for membranesin the
water and wastewaterindustry is pro-
jected to increase at a 9% annual rate
and reach $540 million by year 2000.
About two-thirds of the market will be for
water, and one-third for wastewater.
Membrane technologies are receiving
special recognition as alternatives to
conventional water treatment and as a
means of polishing treated wastewater
effluent for reuse applications. Membrane
technologies are energy intensive. New
membrane technologies feature the use
of low pressure systems that significantly
reduce energy use and operation and
maintenance costs. The reverse osmosis facility for brackish
water desalination at Wellington,
Membranes are commonly used for Florida processes1.8 million gallons perday.
the removal of dissolved solids, color, and
hardness in drinking water. Membrane
technologies have also been proposed by (3) eliminating illness-causing micro- reductions in suspended solids, total
the USEPA as a means of: (1) complying organisms such as Giardia and dissolved solids, and selected constituents
with current and anticipated regulations Cryptosporidium in drinking water such as nitrates, chlorides, and natural
for particle removal: (2) reducing disinfec- applications. and synthetic organic compounds.
tion by-products such as trihalomethanes In wastewater reclamation and reuse, Membrane treatment, applied to the end of
(THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs); and water quality requirements may call for conventional wastewater treatment
systems, is a viable method of achieving
desired effluent quality levels at rea-
Table 1. Comparison of Membrane Features sonable costs.
I
WHAT IS NfElinBFiANE TECHNOLOGY?
Membrane technology utilizes a
Ions semipermeable membrane for the
Matter crossing membrane Water
separation of suspended and dissolved
Matter removed from water Inorganics, most organics, Ions
only . solids from water. There are two basic
silica, suspended solids, types of membrane separation processes;
and microorganisms pressure-driven and electrically-driven.
Gases, silica, organics. and Each type is described on the next page,
Matter not removed Gases
suspended solids and a comparison of their features is given
in Table 1.
Techcommentary 1
 ~~~~~~ ~~

Micrometers
(log scale) o.Ooo1 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.o 10 100 lo00

Approximate RAW loo 200 20,000 500,000

- 01' 1 I
Dissolved organics Sand
Giardia
C yptospordium
Typical size
range of
selected water Viruses Bacteria
constituents

I
Reverse
Membrane
processes
osmosis . Ultrafittration Conventional media filtration

Nanofiltration Microfiltration
I I

Note: MW = Molecular
Weight
Conventional
media
filtration is shown
comparison
foronly

Figure 1. The Filtration Spectrum

Pressure-driven processes use
hydraulic pressure to force water mol-
ecules through the membranes. Impuri-
ties are retained and concentrate in the
feedwater, which becomes the reject
water or concentrate stream. The
permeate, the water that passes through
the membrane, is recovered as product or
pure water. Since pressure-driven
systems are the most commonlyused
membrane systems, mostof the discus-
sion inthis TechCommentarywill focus
on them.
In the electrically-driven membrane
process, electric current is used to move
ions across the membrane, leaving
purified water behind. In thisprocess, the
ions are collected in the concentrate
stream for disposal. The product water is
the purified feedwater.
Pressure-driven membrane
technologies. Pressure-driventechnolo-
. pressures. In wastewater reclamation, MF
gies include, in order of decreasing
permeability: microfiltration (MF), ultrafil-
tration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and
reverse osmosis (RO). The range of sizes
of selected constituents in water and
wastewater and the performance capabili-
ties of the different membranes are
illustrated in Figure 1.
MF and UF often serve to remove
large organic molecules, large colloidal
particles, and many microorganisms (see
Table 2).MF performs as a porous barrier
to reduce turbidity and m e types of
colloidal suspensions. UF offers higher
removals than MF, but operates at higher
or UF might provide a suitable level of
treatment. In drinking-water treatment, MF
or UF might be used intandem with NF or
RO to remove coarser material so that

I
fouling of the less permeable membranes
(-) (+)
is minimized.
Cathode Anode The most commonly used process for
the production of drinking water is RO, but
NF is now emerging as a viable alterna-
tive to conventional water treatment
because it can operate at lower pressures
and higher recovery rates than RO
systems. NF is also cost-effective in many
I I 1 I I
groundwater softening applications where
C A C A C
the incoming turbidity is low.
I Electricaliy-drivenmembrane
Membranes Concentrate technology. Electrodialysis reversal
(EDR) is an improvement over the original
electrodialysis process. In EDR, the
direct-current driving force is periodically
figure 2. The Electrodialysis Process Diagram reversed to prevent scaling andfouling of
2 Techcommentary
 Table 2. Comparison of Pressuredriven Membrane Systems

Product particle
size, pm
Retained
0.08to 2.0

Very small
I 0.005 to 0.2

Organics >lo00MW,
0.001 to 0.01 o.Ooo1 to 0.001

compounds suspended pyrogens, viruses,

particles, some bacteria, colloids
colloids, most
bacteria
Operating 1 to 15 10 to 100
pressure, psi
Maximum 80 (27) 80 (27)
temperature, "F ("C)
Recovery rate, % 100 I 75
I 85
I 50 to 85

Note: Recovery rate ISthe percent of product recovered from

me feedwater.

the membrane surface. This innovation
improves bottithe efficiency and the
operating life of membranes.
Ion exchange membranes are the
heart of the process. Cation-selective and
anion-selective membranes are alter-
nately placed in a membrane "stack (see
Figure 2).
Water flows between the membranes,
and when direct current is applied across
the stack, positive Ions move toward the
cathode and negative ions move toward
the anode. Due to the alternating mem-
branes, salt is removed from every other
compartment and collected in intervening
compartments. The salt-laden water is
then discharged as a brine concentrate;
desalted water is discharged to the
purified-water collection system.
TYPES OF PRESSURE-DRIVEN
MEMBRANES
Membranes are typically made from
polymeric materials, although ceramic
and metal oxide membranes are also
available. Cellulose polymers are
inexpensive and widely used. More recent
polyamide thin-film composite mem-
branes are more chemically robust, have
longer life, possess greater rejection of
dissolved salts and organics, and operate
at lower pressures. They are, however,
more expensive than cellulose mem-
branes. Ceramic and metal oxide
membranes are traditionally used for UF
and are commonly available in tubular
form. Although ceramic and metal oxide
membranes are more costly than other
types, they are used for many industrial
processes because they can withstand
very high temperatures.
Two types of membrane configuration
used extensively for water and waste-
water treatment are hollow-fiber and
spiral-wound. In a hollow-fiber element
(Figure 3a), fibers made of porous
polymer material are bundled together
and sealed in a pressure vessel. For
some UF designs, feedwater enters
through a perforated central tube and

'
Concentrate
water Concentrate
water Product
water
Product
water t Concentrate A

Y t
Product
water
Feedwater
" \ Membrane
spacer
Feedwater
3a

Figure 3. Hollow-fiber (3a) and Spiral-wound(3b) Modules

TechCommentary 3
-

1 2
Membrane Process
Process
EDR
MF (0.1 kWh/1,000 gal [3,785 liters])
UF
NF and ultra low pressure RO
(1 25 psi [862 kPa])
Figure 4. Typical Energy Consumptionfor Various Membrane Processes
flows radially outward through the fiber
bundle. Under pressure, water is forced
through the hollow-fiber bores and exits
through one or more ports. Water that
does not penetrate the membrane
continues through the fiber bores and
exits at the opposite end. For RO,
feedwater enters from the outside
surface of the fiber and product water is
removed from the bores.
Spiral-wound elements (Figure 3b),
usually range from 2 to 10 inches (5 to
25 cm) indiameter and 10 to 60 inches
(25 to 152 cm) inlength. They consist of
two flat membrane sheets separated by
a thin, mesh-like porous support or
spacer and are sealed on three sides
like an envelope. The fourth side is fixed
onto a perforated plastic center tube that
collects the product water. The mem-
branes are rolled up around the tube in
the form of a spiral. Feedwater is
pumped through the layers, and product
water passes through the membranes
and follows the spiral configuration to
the central perforated tube. Water that
does not penetrate the membrane exits
the element as concentrate. Spiral-
wound elements are used for MF, UF,
and RO.
4 TechCommenfary
A cartridge filter is nearly always
provided by the membranemanu-
facturer-usually for the removal of
particles 5 microns and larger in size.
The filter provides protection against an
upset in the pretreatment step that could
cause fouling of the membrane.
The membranes arethe heart of the
treatment system. They maybe
hydraulically connected in series or
parallel configurations, depending upon
the feedwatercomposition or desired
water recovery.
Post-treatment may include: (1 ) a
degasifier to remove carbon dioxide and
hydrogen sulfide; and (2) the addition of
-
lime or caustic to prevent corrosion of
the subsequent piping or distribution
system.
3 4 5 6 7
Membrane processes use a signifi-
cant amount of energy. Even low
pressure membranes use approximately
100 k w h per million gallons (3.785
code million liters) of water produced. The
development of new composite mem-
5 = Low pressure RO (225 psi [I,550kPa]) branes has reduced the operating
6 = Standard pressure RO (400 psi 12,760 kPa1) pressures considerably. Lower pressure
7 = High pressure RO (1,000psi [6.890 kPa]) operation means lower energy con-
sumption. Whereas 400 pounds per
square inch (psi) (2,760 kPa) pressure
was considered normal for RO as
recently as ten years ago, today's ultra-
low pressure RO membranes function
efficiently at pressures as low as 125 psi
(862 kPa); the norm for brackish water
desalination is 225 psi (1,550 kPa). A
comparison of energy consumption per
1,000 gallons (3,785liters) of water
produced is illustrated inFigure 4 for
COMPONENTS OF A MEMBRANE
SYSTEM EDR and various types of pressure-
driven membranes.
Typical membrane systemsconsist of: ~~ ~
(1) pretreatment; (2) pumping; (3) CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DESIGN
cartridge filtration; (4) membranes; and OF MEMBRANE SYSTENlS
(5) post-treatment.
Pretreatment is required to remove In addition to levels of constituent
excessive suspended solids and other removal required, factors to be consid-
constituents that would foul the mem- ered in the design of membrane
brane surface. For most municipal systems include membrane life,
surface water supplies, filtration with membrane fouling, and disposal of
granular media filters is adequate concentrate. Typical membrane life is
pretreatment. For groundwater, pre- three to five years depending upon the
treatment is usually not needed, except type of service and type of membrane
perhaps for chemical addition. For used. Membranes used in municipal
wastewater systems, secondarytreat- water treatment may last five years or
ment followed by chemical coagulation, more before they require replacement.
sedimentation, and filtration is customar- Membranes used in wastewater
ily employed for pretreatment. Pretreat- treatment typically have a life of four to
ment may include the addition of five years. For seawater desalination,
chemicals to prevent organic materials or the normal life of a membrane is five
soluble salts from fouling the membrane. years, and many have been in service
Pumping is required to raise the for more than six years.
pressure to the desired operating level Two principal types of membrane
and to maintain sufficient velocity across fouling may occur: (1 ) precipitation of
the membranes. The ranges of pressures soluble salts such as strontium sulfate,
required for various types of pressure- barium sulfate, and/or calcium sulfate;
driven membranes are given in Table 2. or (2) organic fouling. The former is
 eastlv rnltigated by addingcommerclal
innlbrtors and by operatrng the system
withln safe operating parameters.
Organc fouling may be mitigated by
employing good pretreatmentpractices.
maintalntng satisfactory veloclty across
the membranes, and perrodic cleaning
wlth chemicals.
Membrane processes producea
l m
concentrate or brine In the case of
seawater. The method of disposal of
concentrate must be carefully consid-
ered, smce waste streams con!aining

high concentrations of solids may be
difficult to dispose of. Optlons available
include disposal to a sanitary sewer.
direct ocean disposal. surface water
disposal, land application, evaporation
ponds, or deep well injection. Sanitary
sewer disposal is typically the easiest
method, but its ease mustbe balanced
against pretreatment requtrements and
fees that may be imposed bythe
sewering agency.
CASE STUDIES
Two case studies (see adjoining
boxes) are presented to exemplify the
use of membrane systems for waterand
wastewater treatment. In Fort Myers,
Florida, membranes were selected over
conventional water treatment systems
J
!l
-~
WATER TREATMENT CASE STUDY: Fort Myers, Florida
T he City ofFort Myers Installeda 12-mgd membrane water treatment plant in 1992 for treat
ing their groundwater supply. The plant was installed to meet regulatoty requirements for
reducing trihalomethanes (maxlmum level 100 of micrograms per liter in the distribution
system), while softening the water and reducing total dissolved solids. (Trihalomethanes are
potential cancer precursors).
The plant consists of three identical 4-mgd process trains. The membranes are configured
in a three stage system with the reject water from stage1 feeding stage 2 and the reject water
from stage 2 feeding stage 3.This configuration results in a 90-percent recovery rate. In other
words, nine gallonsof product water are produced for every 10 gallons of feedwater.
Pretreatment chemicals are added to reduce potential scaling, and post-treatment chemicals
are added for disinfection,corrosion protection, and stabilization. Fluoride is also added
as a
deterrent to tooth decay.
The construction cost of the facility was $14.2 million. The membrane system accounted for
about 37% of the total cost. Total operation and maintenance cost is per 1.000 gallons;
$0.55
the Dower cost averaaes $0.1 5 w r 1.000 aallons.

'
I .
for improving the quality of their ground-
water supply [Ref. 31. For Harlingen,
Texas, membrane treatmentof treated
wastewater provides the necessary
source for process water to attract a
new industry to the area [Ref. 41. Both
figure 5. Fort Myers Membrane System Schematic

r
examples illustrate how membranes can
provide high quality treatment and TO
Indutrl.l
extend the capacity of existing water Iu
resources.
Fort Myers, located on the southwest
coast of Florida, has experienced steady n II
population growth and commercial
development. As the freshwater
resources of southwest Florida have
become more scarce,innovative
resource management has been
exercised to meet the increasing needs
of the area. Membranetechnology is
one of the principal components of Fort
Myers' long range water resources plan.
Harlingen, located in the Rio Grande
Valley, selected RO for treating waste-
water effluent. The treated effluent is
WASTEWATER REUSE CASE STUDY: Harlingen, Texas
high in totaldissolved solids (TDS) and
hardness, and the alkalinity and
chlorides are 50-percent higher than W hen Fruitof the Loom expressed interest in locating a major facility in the Harlingen area
that would result in 3,000new jobs, the newly formed Harlingen Development
Corporation (HDC) investigated alternatives for supplying 1.6 mgdof high quality water to meet
that needed by the textile plant. A 0 has
industrial needs.The most economical water supply alternative available from the water-short

.achieved the following reductions:

TDS are reduced from 1,200 mg/L to
Hartingen area was effluent from lthe ocal wastewater treatment plant.
To meet Fruit of the Loom's water quality requirements, the existing wastewater treatment

. less than 200 mg/L.

Hardness is reduced from 375 mg/L
to less than 15 mg/L.
process was upgraded and an RO system was added. Solids contactlclarification

startup in 1990, producing excellent water at economicalThe cost.

and two-
stage gravity filterswith in-line coagulation were added to reduce suspended solids to a level
acceptable forRO (turbidity 4 unit). The plant has met the water quality requirements since
total annual process water
cost averages $0.87 per 1,000 gallons produced. Power costs account for about 30 percent of
= Alkalinity is reduced from 150 mg/L
the total operating cost. Plans are undemay to double the plant capacity.

. to less than 10 mg/L.

Chlorides are reduced from 300 mg/L
to less than 100 mg/L.
figure 6. Process Flow Diagram for Wastewater Reuse, Harlingen, Texas

TechCommentary 5

SUMMARY
In the past, the useof membranes has
been limited bytwo factors: (1) other
technologies were capableof meeting
less stringent treatment or disposal
requirements; and (2) membrane systems
had higher capital and operating Costs
than other technologies offering similar
performance. Becauseof the improve-
ments madein membrane technology
and the impositionof new water quality
requirements that exceedthe capabilities
of existing treatment processes,mem-
branes are now cost-competitive alterna-
tives for many treatment applications.
With the new low pressure membranes,
the energy requirementsand operating
costs have been significantly reduced.
For each individual application where
membranes are being considered, the
characteristics of the water to be treated
and the performance requirements have
to be carefully evaluated. To aid in this
evaluation, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of membrane systems are summa-
rized in Table 3.
The membrane market is entering an
era of rapid growth. Many communities
that have relied on conventional technolo-
gies in the past to solve their water quality
problems are now turningto membranes.
Membrane applications offer solutionsto
many difficult water quality applications,
now at an affordable cost.
References
1. Mueller. Floyd H.. ed. Electrodialysis (ED) and
Electrodlalysis Reversal (EDR) Technology,
lonics, March 1984.
2. Jacangelo, J.G.. N.L. Patanla. and R.R. Trussel.
"Membranes In Water Treatment," Civil
Englneering, May 1989. pp 68-71.
3. Cannarella. R.A., and T.M. Curran. "Membrane
Softening Meets the Needs of the Cityof Fort
Myers," AWWA Proceedings, 1993 Membrane
Technology Conference, August 1993,
Baltimore, MD.
6 Techcommentary
Table 3. Advantages and Disadvantages
of Membrane Separation
Reduces the amount of treatment
chemicals
Uses smaller space requirements
(footprint); membrane equipment
requires 90 to 95% less space than
conventional plants
Eliminates residuals handling and
disposal
Reduces labor requirements; can
be automated easily
Removes natural organic matter(a
disinfection by-product precursor)
and inorganic matter
New membrane design allows use
of lower pressures; system cost
may be competitive with
conventional water treatment
processes
Removes bacteria and viruses;
may also removeCrypfosporidium
4. Filteau, G . , C. Whitney. and I. Watson. "Water
Use Fuels Economlc Growthin Harlingen, TX."
American DesaltingAssmiatlon Conference in
Monterey. CA. August 1994.
Basic funding for this Techcommentary is provided by
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). a
nonprofit institute that conducts appllcations and
development on behalf of the UnitedStates electric
utllity industry. Techcommentaryis one way that the
EPRl Industrial and Agricultural business area assists
in communicating information concerning energy-
efflctent, electric-based technologles.
EPRI Municipal Water & WastewaterProgram
For technical information call
EPRl CommunityEnvironmentalCenter
Washington University
Campus Box 11 50
One Brookings Drive Cupples II, Room 11
St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
314-935-8590 Fax:314-935-8599
or
EPRI Northeast Regional Community
EnvironmentalCenter
Manhattan College, RLC204
3840 Corlear Avenue
Riverdale, NY 10463
1-800-424-EPRI Fax:71 8-862-7234
For additional copiesof this publication call
EPRiAMP CustomerAssistance Center
1-800-4320-AMP
Uses more electricity; high
pressure systems can be energy
intensive
May need pretreatment to prevent
fouling; pretreatment facilities
increase space needs
Requires disposal of concentrate
Requires replacement of
membranes about every five years
Works best on groundwater or low
solids surface water
Flux rate (the rateof feedwater flow
through the membrane) gradually
declines over time
Recovery rates may be less than
100%
Lack of a reliable low-cost method
of monitoringthe integrity of low
pressure membrane processes
This issueof Techcommentary was written by
David H. Furukawa of Separatlon Consultants, Inc.
and Franklin L. Burton of Burton Environmental
Engineering and was edited by Melissa Blanton of
Black & Veatch.
This issueof TechCommentary was produced by
EPRI-CEC and ProWrite Inc.
Figures 1 and 2 were adapted from Ref.1. Figure 3 is
used with perrnisslonof the American Society of Civtl
Engmeers.
Applicable SIC Codes:
4 9 4 1 , 52
b
- ".
I-
..
w
Prfntad on recycled paperfn
the United States of Amenca
Copynght 0 1997
Electric Power Research ln.st!lule (EPRI)
Palo Alto. Californla
TC - 107698