Effects of Operating Conditions on the Performance of NF270 and TW30 Membranes During As (III) Removal

Dompé Ghislain Ahoulé^1, and Franck Lalanne²

¹Laboratory of Geosciences and Environment, University Nangui ABROGOUA, Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire

²Laboratory, Water, Depollution, Ecosystem and Health, International Institute for Water and Environmental Engineering, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

Cite this paper:
Dompé Ghislain Ahoulé and Franck Lalanne. Effects of Operating Conditions on the Performance of NF270 and TW30 Membranes During As (III) Removal. American Journal of Environmental Protection. 2024; 12(1):9-14. doi: 10.12691/env-12-1-2

Abstract

The influence of operating conditions on the performance of nanofiltration (NF270) and reverse osmosis (TW30) membranes for arsenite [As (III)] removal was studied. This study aimed at following the evolution of membrane performance, especially, solute rejection and water flux with the change of operating parameters. The operating parameters as applied pressure, recovery, feed pH, feed As (III) concentration and ionic strength were considered. As (III) rejection and water flux were determined at each operating condition. Results show that increasing applied pressure contributes to improve As (III) rejection and water flux through the membrane. As (III) rejection increased from 40.2 to 71.1% and water flux from 11.65 to 38.59 Lh^-1m^-2 when applied pressure changed from 2 to 6 bar with TW30 membrane. In the same sense, an increase of pH at a value of 10 considerably improves As (III) removal whereas water flux was slightly impacted. On the other hand, an increase of recovery and feed As (III) concentration leads to the decrease of the system performance in term of As (III) rejection. As for ionic strength, its increase does not affect As (III) rejection but can contribute to the decrease of water flux. It was put in evidence that applied pressure and feed pH are the most important parameters which must be considered if As (III) removal wants to be improved.

Keywords:
As (III) rejection nanofiltration reverse osmosis operating parameters

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Ahoulé, D. G., Lalanne, F., Mendret, J., Brosillon, S., & Maïga, A. H. Arsenic in African waters: a review. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 226, 1-13, 2015.
[2]	Matschullat, J. Arsenic in the geosphere–a review. The Science of the Total Environment, 249(1-3), 297–312, 2000.
[3]	Henke, K. R., & Hutchison, A. Arsenic chemistry. Arsenic: Environmental Chemistry, Health Threats and Waste Treatment. John Wiley & Sons, 9-68, 2009.
[4]	Palma-Lara, I., Martínez-Castillo, M., Quintana-Pérez, J. C., Arellano-Mendoza, M. G., Tamay-Cach, F., Valenzuela-Limón, O. L., ... & Hernández-Zavala, A. Arsenic exposure: A public health problem leading to several cancers. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 110, 104539, 2020.
[5]	Rahaman, M. S., Rahman, M. M., Mise, N., Sikder, M. T., Ichihara, G., Uddin, M. K., ... & Ichihara, S. Environmental arsenic exposure and its contribution to human diseases, toxicity mechanism and management. Environmental Pollution, 289, 117940, 2021.
[6]	Mushak, P. Natural Resources Defense Council, 2000. Available: (Accessed September14, 2015).
[7]	Shih, M. C. An overview of arsenic removal by pressure-drivenmembrane processes. Desalination, 172(1), 85–97, 2005.
[8]	Saitúa, H., Campderrós, M., Cerutti, S., and Padilla, A. P. Effect of operating conditions in removal of arsenic from water by nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 172(2), 173–180, 2005.
[9]	Gholami, M. M., Mokhtari, M. A., and AlizadehFard, M. R. Application of reverse osmosis technology for arsenic removal from drinking water. Desalination, 200, 725–727, 2006.
[10]	Harisha, R. S., Hosamani, K. M., Keri, R. S., Nataraj, S. K., and Aminabhavi, T. M. Arsenic removal from drinking water using thin film composite nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 252(1-3), 75–80, 2010.
[11]	Xia, S., Dong, B., Zhang, Q., Xu, B., Gao, N., and Causseranda, C. Study of arsenic removal by nanofiltration and its application in China. Desalination, 204(1), 374–379, 2007.
[12]	Nguyen, C. M., Bang, S., Cho, J., and Kim, K. W. Performance and mechanism of arsenic removal from water by a nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 245(1), 82–94, 2009.
[13]	Ahmed, S., Rasul, M. G., Hasib, M. A., and Watanabe, Y. Performance of nanofiltration membrane in a vibrating module (VSEP-NF) for arsenic removal. Desalination, 252(1-3), 127–134, 2010.
[14]	Gbaruko, B. C., Ana, G., and Nwachukwu, J. K. Ecotoxicology of arsenic in the hydrosphere: Implications for public health. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(25),1-6, 2010.
[15]	Oh, J. I., Yamamoto, K., Kitawaki, H., Nakao, S., Sugawara, T., Rahman, M. M., and Rahman, M. H. Application of low-pressure nanofiltration coupled with a bicycle pump for the treatment of arsenic-contaminated groundwater. Desalination, 132(1), 307–314, 2000.
[16]	Childress, A. E., and Elimelech, M. Relating nanofiltration membrane performance to membrane charge (electrokinetic) characteristics. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(17), 3710-3716, 2000.
[17]	Wolthers, M., Charlet, L., van Der Weijden, C. H., Van der Linde, P. R., and Rickard, D. Arsenic mobility in the ambient sulfidic environment: Sorption of arsenic (V) and arsenic (III) onto disordered mackinawite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 69(14), 3483–3492, 2005.
[18]	Seidel, A., Waypa, J. J., and Elimelech, M. Role of charge (Donnan) exclusion in removal of arsenic from water by a negatively charged porous nanofiltration membrane. Environmental Engineering Science, 18(2), 105–113, 2001.
[19]	Akin, I., Arslan, G., Tor, A., Cengeloglu, Y., andErsoz, M. Removal of arsenate [As (V)] and arsenite [As (III)] from water by SWHR and BW-30 reverse osmosis. Desalination, 281(1), 88–92, 2011.
[20]	Al-Rashdi, B. a. M., Johnson, D. J., and Hilal, N. Removal of heavy metal ions by nanofiltration. Desalination, 315, 2–17, 2013.
[21]	Chang, F., Liu, W., and Wang, X. Comparison of polyamide nanofiltration and low-pressure reverse osmosis membranes on As (III) rejection under various operational conditions. Desalination, 334(1), 10–16, 2014.
[22]	Vrijenhoek, E. M., and Waypa, J. J. Arsenic removal from drinking water by a “loose” nanofiltration membrane. Desalination, 130(3), 265-277, 2000.
[23]	Teychene, B., Collet, G., Gallard, H., and Croue, J. P. A comparative study of boron and arsenic (III) rejection from brackish water by reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination, 310, 109-114, 2013.
[24]	Brandhuber, P., and Amy, G. Alternative methods for membrane filtration of arsenic from drinking water. Desalination, 117(1), 1-10, 1998.
[25]	Sato, Y., Kang, M., Kamei, T., and Magara, Y. Performance of nanofiltration for arsenic removal. Water Research, 36(13), 3371-3377, 2002.
[26]	Mehiguene, K., Garba, Y., Taha, S., Gondrexon, N., and Dorange, G. Influence of operating conditions on the retention of copper and cadmium in aqueous solutions by nanofiltration: experimental results and modelling. Separation and Purification Technology, 15(2), 181-187, 1999.
[27]	Bannoud, A. H. Elimination de la dureté et des sulfates contenus dans les eaux par nanofiltration. Desalination, 137, 133-139, 2001.
[28]	Ahmad, A. L., Tan, L. S., andAbdShukor, S. R. The role of pH in nanofiltration of atrazine and dimethoate from aqueous solution. Journal of hazardous materials, 154(1-3), 633–638, 2008.
[29]	Boussu, K., Zhang, Y., Cocquyt, J., Van der Meeren, P., Volodin, A., Van Haesendonck, C., Martens, J.A., and Van der Bruggen, B. Characterization of polymeric nanofiltration membranes for systematic analysis of membrane performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 278, 418–427, 2006.
[30]	Hong, S. K. and Elimmelech, M. Chemical and physical aspects of natural organic matter (NOM): fouling of nanofiltration membranes, Journal of Membrane Science,132, 159–181, 1997.
[31]	Cho, J., Amy, G. and Pellegrino, J. Membrane filtration of natural organic matter: factors and mechanisms affecting rejection and flux decline with charged ultrafiltration (UF) membrane, Journal of Membrane Science, 164, 89–110, 2000.