See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281235710

REVERSE OSMOSIS - STATE OF THE ART IN INDONESIA

Conference Paper · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 1,326

1 author:

I Gede Wenten
Bandung Institute of Technology
504 PUBLICATIONS   2,001 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

[INDUSTRIAL PROJECT: GDP Filter] Lube Oil Recycling View project

[INDUSTRIAL PROJECT: PT. Pertamina Region Jawa] Condensate Plant Development Project Phase 2 Capacity 15 MMSCFD In Tambun Field View project

All content following this page was uploaded by I Gede Wenten on 29 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 REVERSE OSMOSIS - STATE OF THE ART IN INDONESIA

I G. Wenten
Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Institut Teknologi Bandung
Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung, Indonesia
igw@che.itb.ac.id

Abstract
Rapid growth in membrane technology development is primarily based on consciousness
on the potential of this technology. Membrane processes have many advantages allowing
various applications in almost every industrial sector. Reverse osmosis has become very
popular for water purification applications due to its ability to remove both suspended and
dissolved impurities almost without the need for regenerant chemicals. This paper presents an
overview of reverse osmosis technology and its application in Indonesia as well as its
prospects and challenges. The discussion is focused on the latest development, challenges
and prospects arising in industrial applications. With the advance development in membrane
preparation, structure, properties and characteristics, module and system design, reverse osmosis
is now becoming a competitive system for a wide range of applications. The successful long-term
performance of RO plant is highly depend on a proper pre-treatment. However, it is known to be
complex and expensive. UF is the most competitive pre-treatment for RO system, especially for
high fouling feed water sources such as surface water, wastewater, or an open-intake seawater.
The important features of UF pre-treatment are continuous and easily automated operation, no
breakthrough as occurs in granular media filtration, good downstream protection of RO
membranes, no addition of chemicals, simple chemical shock disinfections treatment, and compact
design of pre-treatment equipment. Since membrane is a clean technology with many advantages,
it is possible to reuse water from wastewater and in some applications, zero waste effluent is even
possible. Therefore, although the applications of this technology in Indonesia are still very
limited, large market potential is awaiting.

I. INTRODUCTION
Membrane can be described as a thin layer of material that is capable of separating
materials as a function of their physical and chemical properties when a driving force is applied
across the membranes. Physically membrane could be solid or liquid. In membrane separation
processes, the feed is separated into a stream that goes through the membrane, i.e., the permeate
and a fraction of feed that does not go through the membrane, i.e., the retentate or the concentrate.
A membrane process then allows selective and controlled transfer of one species from one bulk
phase to another bulk phase separated by the membrane.
The major breakthrough in the development of membrane technology was recorded in the
late of 1950s, when Sartorius Werke GmbH, Germany manufactured industrial scale membranes,
microfiltration membranes, for the first time. However, industrial application was just started ten
years later, when Loeb and Sourirajan discovered very thin membrane for reverse osmosis, the
asymmetric membranes for seawater desalination.
Membrane process can be classified in many ways, i.e., based on its nature, structure, or
driving force. Hydrostatic pressure differences are used in microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration
(UF), nanofiltration (NF), and gas separation (GS) as driving force for the mass transport through
the membrane. Reverse osmosis (RO) as the main topic in this paper is also one of the membrane
process based on pressure difference as its driving force.
One of the first membrane applications for the utilization of membrane technology was
the conversion of seawater into drinking water by RO. RO system separates dissolved solutes
(includes single charged ions, such as Na+, Cl-) from water via a semipermeable membrane that
passes water in preference to the solute. RO can be described as diffusion-controlled process in
which mass transfer of ions through RO membranes is controlled by diffusion. Physical holes may
not exist in an RO membrane, which distinguishes RO membrane with other filtration system. RO
membrane is very hydrophilic; therefore water will be able to readily diffuse into and out of the
membrane polymer structure.
RO has become very popular for water purification applications due to its ability to
remove both suspended and dissolved impurities almost without the need for regenerant
chemicals. RO systems can be found today in a wide range of facilities: kitchens, hospitals,
refineries, power plants, pulp and paper industry, CPO milling, semiconductor manufacturing
facilities, manned spacecraft, sailboats, etc. RO has been used in producing drinking water,
demineralized water, process water, and pure water (medical use) [1]. RO is used as a
concentration step particularly in the food industry (concentration of fruit juice, sugar, coffee), the
galvanic industry (concentration of waste stream), and the dairy industry (concentration of milk
prior to cheese manufacture) [2]. The recent global increase in the use of membranes in water
application is attributed to several factors, i.e., increased regulatory pressure to provide better
treatment for water, increased demand for water requiring exploitation of water resources of lower
quality than those relied upon previously, and market forces surrounding the development and
commercialization of the membrane technologies as well as the water industries themselves [3].

II. REVERSE OSMOSIS

In order to understand reverse osmosis, the osmosis process needs to be understood. Once
osmosis is understood, reverse osmosis can be clearly explained. When two solutions with
different dissolved mineral concentrations are separated by a semipermeable membrane, water
flows from the less concentrated solution to the more concentrated solution. Figure 1 illustrates an
apparatus that connects two glass vessels with a membrane located at the point of interface. The
water level rises on the more concentrated side of the apparatus. The dilution of the solution with
the higher concentration is caused by the process called osmosis. If sufficient pressure is applied
to the concentrated solution, we can actually reverse the direction of flow that would normally be
caused by osmosis. The driving pressure, and therefore the flow of water across the membrane,
has been reversed. The water begins flowing toward the solution with the lower concentration.
This process is called Reverse Osmosis. Reverse osmosis in its ideal definition as mentioned by
Lonsdale [4] is a process in which pressure is used to reverse the normal osmotic flow of water
across a semipermeable membrane. The reverse osmosis process allows the purification of
contaminated water by removing dissolved and suspended matter.

P


Brine pure
solution water
2 , c2 1 , c1

2  1 2 = 1
c2  c1 c2 = c 1
(a) osmosis (b) osmotic equilibrium (c) reverse osmosis

Fig. 1. Schematic of Osmosis and Reverse Osmosis Phenomena. Adapted from [4]

RO membrane Preparation, Structures, Properties and Characterization

Reverse osmosis membrane separations are governed by the properties of the membrane
used in the process. These properties depend on the chemical nature of the membrane material as
well as its physical structure. Properties for the ideal RO membrane include; resistant to chemical

2
and microbial attack, mechanically and structurally stable over long operating periods, and have
the desired separation characteristics for each particular system. However, few membranes satisfy
all these criteria and so compromises must be made to select the best RO membrane available for
each application. Excellent discussions of RO membrane materials, preparation methods, and
structures can be found in Cadotte et al. [5], Kesting [6], Lloyd and Meluch [7], Lonsdale [8],
Cabasso [9], Koros et al. [10], Baker [11], Strathmann [12], and Petersen and Cadotte [13].
Most currently available RO membranes fall into two categories: asymmetric membranes
containing one polymer, and thin-film composite membranes consisting of two or more polymer
layers. Asymmetric RO membranes have a very thin permselective skin layer supported on a more
porous sublayer of the same polymer; the dense skin layer determines the fluxes and selectivities
of these membranes while the porous sublayer serves only as a mechanical support for the skin
layer and has little effect on the membrane separation properties. Since the skin layer is very thin
(from 0.1 to 1 µm), the membrane resistance to water transport (which is proportional to the dense
skin thickness) is much lower and, as a result, water fluxes much higher than those through
comparable symmetric membranes [8, 11, 12]. Asymmetric membranes are most commonly
formed by a phase inversion (polymer precipitation) process. In this process, a polymer solution is
precipitated into a polymer-rich solid phase that forms the membrane and a polymer-poor liquid
phase that forms the membrane pores or void spaces. The rate of precipitation is a factor in
determining pore characteristics: a rapid precipitation tends to produce pores that are small and
asymmetric while slow precipitation produces more symmetrical pores that are relatively large [6,
9, 11, 12]. The polymer precipitation can be achieved in several ways, including thermal gelation,
solvent evaporation, or nonsolvent immersion, but nonsolvent immersion is the most important
asymmetric membrane preparation technique; this is the Loeb-Sourirajan preparation method that
was employed to form the first asymmetric cellulose acetate membranes. In this technique a
polymer solution is cast into a film and then the polymer precipitated by immersion into a
nonsolvent; the nonsolvent (water, for example) rapidly precipitates the polymer on the surface of
the cast film, forming the very thin, dense skin layer of the membrane. The polymer beneath the
skin layer precipitates more slowly, resulting in a more porous polymer sublayer [6, 9, 11, 12].
Meanwhile, thin-film composite membranes consist of a thin polymer barrier layer formed
on one or more porous support layers (almost always a different polymer from the surface layer).
Figure 2b shows a schematic of this type of membrane. The surface layer determines the flux and
separation characteristics of the membrane; the porous backing serves only as a support for the
barrier layer and so has almost no effect on membrane transport properties [14]. Several coating
procedures can be used to prepare the composite membrane, i.e., dip coating, plasma
polymerization, interfacial polymerization, and in situ polymerization [2]. The barrier layer is
extremely thin, on the order of 0.1 µm or less, thus allowing high water fluxes [5, 7, 11-13]. The
most important thin-film, composite membranes are made by interfacial polymerization, a process
in which a highly porous membrane (usually polysulfone) is coated with a polymer or monomer
and then reacted with a cross-linking agent. A dense, cross-linked polymer layer forms at the
solution interface, and, since the cross-linking reaction occurs mostly at the solution interface, the
resulting barrier layer is extremely thin. A less cross-linked, more permeable layer forms under the
surface layer and fills the pores of the support membrane [9, 11-13]. These thin, highly cross-
linked polymer membranes can have much higher selectivities and water fluxes compared to the
asymmetric type since the barrier layers of the composite membranes are usually much thinner
than those of the asymmetric membranes. One of the most widely-used thin-film composite
membranes consists of cross-linked aromatic polyamide on a polysulfone support layer.
Although RO membranes have been formed and tested with a wide range of different
materials and preparation techniques, the cellulosic polymers (cellulose acetate, cellulose
triacetate, etc.), linear and cross-linked aromatic polyamide, and aryl-alkyl polyetherurea are
among the most important RO membrane materials [12, 15-17]. Asymmetric cellulose acetate
membranes continue to enjoy widespread use despite some disadvantages: a narrow pH operating
range (4.5-7.5) since it is subject to hydrolysis; susceptibility to biological attack; compaction
(mechanical compression) at high pressures which results in reduced water flux; and low upper
temperature limits (~35 °C). Polyamide and polyurea composite membranes typically have higher
water fluxes and salt and organic rejections, can withstand higher temperature and larger pH

3
variations (4-11), and are immune to biological attack and compaction. However, these
membranes tend to be less chlorine resistant and more susceptible to oxidation compared to
cellulose acetate membranes; these can also be more expensive [5, 16-19].
Characterization of RO membranes is important since this allows insight into the
relationship between membrane chemistry, structure, and transport properties. The most widely
used characterization method is the measurement of water flux and solute (usually NaCl) rejection
for the membrane; these can be easily measured and so give a quick indication of the suitability of
a particular membrane for an application. However, fluxes provide only limited information about
the characteristics and structure of the membrane and its role in water and solute transport. As a
result, other characterization techniques are beginning to be employed in order to determine
parameters such as pore size, barrier layer thickness, and membrane elemental composition.
Simon and Calmon [20] and Pusch [21] discuss the measurement of several RO
membrane characteristics, including overall membrane thickness, water content, membrane
potential, ionic exchange capacity, etc. In addition, Jevtitch [22], Bhattacharyya et al. [23], Han
[24], and Han and Bhattacharyya [25] described the use of vapor adsorption data of carbon
dioxide and nitrogen gases in order to determine pore volumes and pore size distributions for
cellulose acetate and composite aromatic polyamide membranes. Alternatively, several researchers
have used experimental flux data and solute-membrane interaction parameters in order to calculate
pore sizes and distributions [26-28]. Glaves and Smith [29] indicated that nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) may also be suitable for determining membrane pore structures. Kesting [6],
Cabasso [9], Strathmann [12], Petersen and Cadotte [13], and Kesting [30] have described
scanning electron micrographs (SEM) for asymmetric and composite membranes. Although they
indicated no information on the barrier layer pore structure was discernible from the micrographs,
they pointed out that the asymmetric or composite nature of the membranes was clearly visible
and that it was possible to approximate the barrier layer thickness from the micrographs. Bartels
[31] also examined the membrane barrier layer for composite membranes with both SEM and
transmission electron microscopy (TEM).
Considerable attention has been given to the application of spectroscopic techniques to the
characterization of RO membranes. Bartels (1989) examined RO membranes using infrared (IR)
spectroscopy; he found that IR provided valuable information on the functional groups (such as
carboxylic acid or amide groups) present in the composite membrane studied. Arthur [32] made
similar studies with several different composite RO membranes, and Avlonitis et al. [33] studied
changes in aromatic polyamide membranes caused by chlorine degradation by following changes
in the membranes IR spectra. Koo et al. [34], Bartels [31], and Arthur [32] used X-ray
photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), sometimes referred to as ESCA, to study elemental
compositions of composite RO membranes near the surface; this technique supplied verification of
the polymer chemical structures expected from the interfacial polymerization reactions that
formed the membranes. Bartels [31] also used Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy (RBS) to
determine elemental composition; results were similar to those obtained by XPS.

RO Membrane Module
There are four designs of RO modules in use, i.e., spiral wound, hollow fiber, tubular, and
plate-and-frame modules; and these four configurations require some type of pressure vessel
around the membranes [4]. However, in order to allow the best ratio of the membrane area to
operation volumes, two most convenient designs are made to fit the pressure vessels are spiral-
wound and hollow fiber, and have by far the largest portion of the market [4].
According to Bhattacharyya et al. [17], the packaging of the RO membrane is also
extremely important to the feasibility of the process. The requirements of a membrane module
include (1) that it offer mechanical support to the fragile RO membrane even at high operating
pressures (up to 8 MPa); (2) that the design minimize pressure drop across the module as well as
fouling and concentration polarization; and (3) that the module be relatively inexpensive and easy
to replace in the membrane process.
Plate-and-frame modules make use of flat sheet membranes in which two flat sheet
membranes separated by a support plate that also acts as a product water channel [17]. Plate-and-
frame and tubular system compared with hollow fiber and spiral wound modules, are competitive

4
only when highly turbid waters are involved. However, plate-and-frame systems are the most
expensive of all [4].
Tubular membrane modules are normally supported within stainless steel tubes. The
major advantages of tubular configuration are ease of cleaning and very resistant to fouling. The
large enough of tube diameter make it possible to promote turbulent flow under most condition
without an excessive pressure drop [17]. However, the modules have a low packing density and
can be expensive to operate because of the high feed flow rates necessary [14].
Hollow fiber modules are used only on waters that are free of virtually all suspended and
colloidal matter because of the ease with which they foul and the difficulty of cleaning the fibers
once they are fouled [4]. As summarised by Williams [14], hollow-fiber elements consists of large
numbers of fine hollow fiber membranes (with an outer diameter up to 200 µm) placed in a
pressure vessel; the feed flows outside the fibers and permeates to the lumen of the fibers. These
elements have an extremely high packing density and so can have high permeate production rates
per module. However, these modules are highly prone to fouling and so are not feasible for some
applications. According to Taylor & Jacobs [35] hollow fine-fiber configuration is used
extensively for desalination of seawater in Middle East.
Spiral-wound modules are the most widely used configuration in the RO industry [17].
Spiral wound elements typically consist of membrane envelopes attached to a center tube which
collects the permeate stream (Fig. 3). The feed stream enters the open end of the spiral wound
element in the channel created by the feed stream spacer. The feed stream can flow either in a path
parallel to the center collection tube or through the active membrane film and membrane supports
into a channel created by the permeate stream spacers. The permeate stream follows a spiral path
into the center collection tube and is taken away as product water [35]. This type of element has a
high packing density, moderate fouling resistance, and lower capital and operating costs compared
to plate-and-frame or tubular modules.
Because of the importance of the membrane module used in the RO process, much
research has been performed to optimize the design of each element. Improvements have been
made in membrane materials making them more pH, temperature, and chlorine resistant than the
traditional CA membrane [17]. Many models describing the various modules are available,
allowing determination of module hydrodynamics, optimal membrane spacer placement, hollow-
fiber diameter, etc.

Fig. 2. Spiral Wound Reverse Osmosis Membrane Module

The Reverse Osmosis System

Reverse osmosis membrane modules can be arranged in several configurations. In
the single-pass configuration, a single high rejection membrane sufficiently removes the
solute from the feed. In a double-pass configuration, the permeate of one set of
membranes is serves as the feed to another set of membranes in order to provide adequate
overall removal of the solute. The modules can also be placed in stages in order to
increase water recoveries; in this configuration, the concentrates from one set of

5
membranes is used as the feed for another set and so high overall water recoveries are
possible [14]. System design of RO installation can be seen in Fig. 3. The scale of
membrane applications is now very large, plants with capacity in excess of 19,000 m3/d are
common [36].

Fig. 3. Reverse Osmosis Installation

Nowadays, RO system has become a popular water treatment technology in industry
requiring separation of dissolved solute from its solvent (water) including desalination and also,
residentially, to improve the taste of water as well as to remove potentially unhealthy
contaminants. RO has increased the water supply by making possible the use of brackish waters
for potable water supply. Desalination using RO has become a major source to produce fresh
water in many arid regions including remote area where the fresh water is hardly found. Recent
advances particularly in improvements of the membrane materials and pre-treatment have meant
that RO desalination has now become economically attractive even at seawater concentrations
[36].
The success of RO technology has been due mostly to the economics of its operation and
to its simplicity. Rapid developments in RO membrane are addressed to new membrane working
at lower pressure and increasing salt rejection from the original cellulose acetate membrane
requiring 28 bar to modern polyamide thin-film membranes requiring only 7 bar net driving
pressure. The increase of salt rejection of RO membrane from 97 to 99.5% with some special
membrane types exhibiting even higher separation efficiency [37]. Bryne [38] also noted that
newer membranes, because of its ability to reject more salts and pass more water at a particular
pressure, is having greater energy efficiency. The simplicity of RO desalination process layout
compare with the large-scale thermal desalination process is also one of the main attractive feature
of RO system. Its modular design allows for simple expansion and increase of the production
capacity. Specific power consumption of RO is low, around 5 kWh/m3. This amount is almost
equivalent to the pumping power for the major thermal desalination process, which include MSF
and ME [39].
Yet, available RO membranes are generally not robust enough to operate directly on
surface feed seawater [40]. RO membranes are more sensitive than thermal desalination processes
to scaling, fouling, chemical and biological attack. The susceptibility to fouling is one major
shortcoming of RO membrane. Hence, RO has developed into an energy efficient alternative to
thermal processes but it still continues to face competition due to the requirements of pre-
treatment. Schematic of RO with extensive pretreatment system can be seen in Fig. 4.

6
 Fig. 4. RO system with extensive pre-treatment

The successful long-term performance of RO seawater desalination plant is highly depend

on proper pre-treatment. Pre-treatment of RO system is designed to prevent fouling of the
membrane, maintain performance of the system, and extend the lifetime of the membranes [40].
The selection of pre-treatment RO system is based on the raw water quality, the reliability, the
investment cost, and the RO membrane type [41].
Where potential fouling waters are the only available source for processing into high
purity water as in marginal waters, the conventional pre-treatment process methods may not be
adequate. Marginal waters are difficult to treat due to the fouling problems that can occur with
insufficient pre-treatment in a membrane plant [42] High fouling surface water and low fouling
beach well water sources need different complexity of pre-treatment. As in the case of direct
seawater intake or municipal wastewater reuse, extensive pre-treatment is required up-stream the
RO process compare with beach well water.
As mentioned before, pre-treatment of process water before RO is very important for
membrane life and the economical operation of the RO plant [43]. Pre-treatment by conventional
means (i.e., coagulation, flocculation, and media-filtration) is known to be complex, labour
intensive and space consuming. Many SWRO (sea water RO) plants operate successfully for many
years with conventional pre-treatment [44]. However, if conventional pre-treatment is not
designed and operated carefully, RO plants can have problems with membrane fouling [44].

III. ULTRAFILTRATION AS PRE-TREATMENT FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM

Primarily, the development of UF technology in water application is focused in producing
filtrate for drinking water [45]. Recently, UF has become an efficient pre-treatment for RO system
[46]. It is important to re-evaluate the cost and operating benefits of UF as pre-treatment
particularly for high fouling feed water source such as surface water, a wastewater, or an open-
intake seawater [45]. A system designed with a MF/UF membrane system as pre-treatment prior
to RO system has been referred to as an Integrated Membrane System (IMS) [45, 47]. IMS
combines the advantages of UF for particle removal with the selectivity of RO [41]. IMS to
achieve the water quality objectives is considered very seriously, and several studies are currently
on going to evaluate the feasibility of such dual membrane system [48]. A major reason for the re-
emergence of UF technology has been improvements in the control of fouling during the service
operation by the use of short-duration periodic backwashing. Periodic backwashing is designed to
minimize the need for chemical cleaning to once every month to six months [45]. The IMS design
approach to water treatment systems has some significant advantages over RO systems designed
with conventional pre-treatment. The important features of UF pre-treatment are continuous and
easily automated operation, no breakthrough as occurs in granular media filtration, good
downstream protection of RO membranes, no addition of chemicals, simple chemical shock
disinfections treatment and compact design of pre-treatment equipment [49].
The pre-treatment of feed water prior to RO is intended to lower the silt density index
(SDI), remove excessive turbidity or suspended solids, and adjust and control the pH [40]. The
SDI is the most widely used fouling index. The SDI of feedwater of an RO plant should be less

7
than 2 to minimize the rate of colloidal fouling [35] The significantly lower SDI filtrate produce
by UF membrane as RO pre-treatment have also been proven by several researchers. The quality
of feed water produced by the UF system, operating parallel with the conventional system, was
very little affected by the fluctuation of the seawater quality [50]. The surface seawater SDI of 13-
25 was reduced to below 1 whereas the conventional pre-treatment failed to reduce it below 2.5
[51]. A pilot plant conducted by Van Hoof [44] showed that UF membranes used for RO pre-
treatment produced water with SDI15 values as low as 0.4 and showed stable operation. Glucina,
et.al. [41] also found that UF could produce filtrate with the average SDI of 1.2, a reasonably low
value when compared to the maximum advised by the RO membrane manufacturer. Good quality
of RO feed make it possible to reduce RO cleaning frequencies due to colloidal fouling.
The dead-end UF mode coupled with operation at low pressure allowing very low power
consumption, approximately 0,1 kWh per m3 of permeate [52]. UF system also require less time
and is easier to operate than some conventional filtration processes, particularly those prone to
system upsets. UF concentrated waste streams are easier to dispose of relative to chemically
enhanced conventional pre-treatment processes [45]. Drioli, et.al., [53] also mentioned that an
interesting way for further reducing fouling phenomena and extending the life time of RO
membranes is related to the use of UF for pre-treatment. The field test results of UF membrane
pre-treatment, tested at two different sites confirm that the membrane pre-treatment is reliable
technology capable of providing consistently good quality feed water for RO seawater system
independently of the raw water quality fluctuation [50]. Meanwhile, the specific flux of the UF
membrane also remained stable as found by Teuler, et.al. [52]. Truby [54] pointed out that UF
pre-treatment increases the RO flux of 20% with respect to conventional pre-treatment.
The IMS system choice depends on the fouling properties of the feed water, which may
necessitate additional (pre) treatment and the local circumstances. Additional pre-treatment
inevitably leads to extra investment costs. However operating and maintenance costs may be
lower due to a more stable system performance with lower cleaning frequencies and longer life
time of the membranes [47]. Typically the only pre-treatment requirement to UF system is course
filtration by the use of strainers rated at 100 to 150 micron. Occasionally the use of a coagulant aid
like a ferrous salt is considered [45]. The combination of UF with a pre-coagulation at low dose
helped in controlling the UF membrane fouling and providing filtered water in steady state
condition [51]. The seawater system operating with UF membrane pre-treatment can be designed
to operate at the higher limit of the permeate flux range due to the very low concentration of
suspended solids in the UF filtrate [50]. Ability to operate RO seawater unit at higher flux and
recovery rate enables optimisation of the RO process and reduction of water cost [50].
The reason why the trend of pre-treatment RO system goes for integrated membrane
system are mainly feasibility, process reliability, plant availability, modularity, relative
insensitivity in cases of raw water changes and lower operating costs. UF allows the membrane
inventory of an RO plant to be reduced by some 20% and have simplified the RO pre-treatment
process resulting in lowering the operating costs of the plants [42]. Leslie, et.al.[55] reported a
reduction of operating and maintenance costs of water treatment for providing potable water of
39% when MF or UF replaces conventional RO pre-treatment. Truby [54] reported UF as pre-
treatment RO leads to a significant reduction of RO capital costs (from US $ 2-4/gal of capacity to
US $ 1.75-3.25/gal of capacity). Bates [45] reported that operating costs and chemical costs are
competitive and in some scheme less. The demand of UF system as pre-treatment for RO will be
accentuated by the increasing scarcity of low-fouling feed water sources (well water) and the need
to treat more difficult feed water sources (surface waters, industrial wastewater, and municipal
sewer waters). In future the coagulation-sedimentation-filtration (CSF)-UF-RO scheme will
compete with the CSF-SSF (slow sand filtration) scheme as estimated by Nederlof, et.al. [47].
Although UF provides high quality feed water for RO, the UF design was generally
dismissed as commercial alternative to conventional pre-treatment for a number of reasons, i.e.,
capital costs were too high for treatment of surface waters. Glueckstern, et.al. [50] reported that
the cost of membrane as pre-treatment is more expensive than the conventional pre-treatment. As
cited by Redondo [42] from several authors, the application of IMS is currently not frequently
used to lower costs although this may change. However, since the energy requirement is very low,
consequently the cost is mainly directed to the membrane price. Nowadays, the UF membrane

8
price has gone far down, even below conventional treatment system with the new coming Asian
membrane industries. Therefore, there is no doubt, UF is now becoming a competitive pre-
treatment system for RO in a wide range of raw water quality, from excellent to poor quality of
raw water.
Another drawback faced by UF is fouling which is generally found in membrane
filtration. The performance of UF is strongly influenced by the build-up of fouling layer. Fouling
control strategies can be categorized as: tailor or membrane treatment, modify or pre-treat the feed
water, adjustment of operating condition, and cleaning [56, 57].
Cleaning is one of the methods that is often used to remove foulant from the membrane
surface. Membrane cleaning method can be divided into four categories, namely hydraulic,
mechanical, chemical, and electrical cleaning. Selection of cleaning method depends on the
configuration of the module, membrane type, chemical resistance, and type of foulant. Hydraulic
cleaning includes backflush, pressurize-depressurize, and flow changes at a certain frequency. In
the method of backflush, the permeate flow direction is reversed periodically. The method reduces
the effective operating time also cause loss of permeate to the feed solution. This led to backflush
in industrial applications are very limited so that optimization is required. Backflush process
optimization is applied on the duration and interval backflush. The increase rate of the products
after backflush solely a function of backflush pressure and the interval between two backflush.
Recently, the time interval of backflush has been reduced to several seconds which also indicates
that cake resistance remain low since fouling layer is not formed.
A novel backflush technique with high frequency and extremely short duration have been
introduced. It was found that excellent results could be obtained using very short backflush time
(0.06 second) with maximum interval time of 5 seconds (preferable 1-3 seconds) [58, 59]. Since
the effective backflush time is very short and the backflush pressure is relatively high (typically 1
bar over the feed pressure) then it was called “backshock” technique. Backshock technique
combined with the use of reversed asymmetric structures allows filtration at extremely low cross-
flow velocities with very stable permeate fluxes [59]. By employing this method, UF fouling
during the filtration of solution containing high solid concentration could be controlled [60-63].
Fouling may also be controlled by operating UF under its critical flux [64]. When UF is operated
under its critical flux, foulant deposition on membrane surface can be avoided. Thus membrane
can be operated with stable flux.

IV. REVERSE OSMOSIS APPLICATIONS AND MEMBRANE MARKET POTENSIAL

IN INDONESIA
In Indonesia, the starting point for membrane technology development was recorded in
1979. This development is related closely to the development of membrane technology in South
East Asia (ASEAN). In 1979 there was a short course on membrane technology for a group of
researchers from ASEAN (including Indonesia) at the University of New South Wales organized
by Prof. A. G. Fane. Since then a number of other events were held, some of them were IMSTEC
(International Membrane Science and Technology Conference), held by UNESCO Centre for
Membrane Science and 5th ASEAN Food Conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (1994), which
discussed membrane development in Indonesia and ASEAN. In 1996, ITB Membrane Science and
Technology Study Group (Kelompok Studi Iptek Membran ITB) was founded, pioneered by I G.
Wenten, in order to accommodate and facilitate membrane technology development in Indonesia.
Generally, industries that have apply membrane based processes in Indonesia are clean water
supply, mineral drinking water, textile, electronics, CPO, pulp and paper, sugar, fertilizer,
beverage, metal finishing, natural gas processing, and sea product processing industries as some of
them are shown in Table 1. However, membrane applications, especially RO, in Indonesia is still
very limited. It should be noticed that the demand and focus of membrane process development
are distinctive among countries. In Europe, the determinant factor of the market growth are fields
of high value but low capacity product like biotechnology, while in South East Asia the focus is
more on the supply of industrial process-water. In some countries that not mentioned in the
previous discussion, the focus is on desalination and water treatment. Nevertheless, generally
there are some key applications of membrane technology in the future, i.e. production process in
pharmaceutical and biotechnological fields, health field application such as production process of

9
contaminant-free solution for diagnostic test for human, animal, and plant diseases, production
process of bacteria, yeast, and virus-free water for food and beverage, and production process of
electronics, chemicals, and petrochemicals [65].
Although major applications of membrane technology in Indonesia are only found in fresh
water supply as listed in Table 1, huge market potential is still awaiting. Tabel 2 presents some
potential applications of membrane technology in Indonesia.

Table 1. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Applications in Indonesia

No. Industry Module Materials Manufacturer Applications Ref.
1 PT. Top Tone Elektronik, SW Composite Osmotron, Australia Rinsing water [66]
2 PT. Purnomo Sejati, Sidoarjo SW PP Kurita, Japan Pure water [66]
3 PT. Dyno Indria SW - PT. Hasakona Waste treatment PC*
4 PT. Pupuk Kaltim SW - - Clean water supply PC*
5 TNI – AL (KRI Teluk Hading) SW - Rochem, Germany Clean water supply PC*
6 PT. Kondour Petroleum SW - PT. Tripatra EPC Clean water supply PC*
7 PT. Thies, Sumbawa SW - PT. OBE, Indonesia Clean water supply PC*
8 PT. Air Cerdas Ganesha SW - - Clean water supply PC*
9 PT. Raya Sugarindo - PA - Tapioca Separation PC*
10 PT. Insan Sandang, Bandung - PA - Waste-water Treatment PC*
11 PT. Pura Baritama, Kudus - PA - Ultrapure water PC*
12 PT. Cilegon M.W. Service SW PA - Seawater RO [67]
13 Pemda Kepulauan Seribu SW TFC - Drinking Water PC*
14 Exxon, Cepu SW PA - Process Water
15 Tjiwi Kimia SW PA - Process Water
[68]
16 Paiton SW PA - Process Water
17 Aromatic, Tuban SW PA - Process Water
18 PT. Kahatex, Bandung SW TFC - Process Water PC*
19 PT. Agricinal, Bengkulu SW TFC GDP, Indonesia Process Water PC*
20 Household appliance SW TFC GDP, Indonesia Drinking water PC*
21 PT. Dharma Polimetal SW TFC GDP, Indonesia Wastewater Treatment PC*
22 PT. Pelindo SW TFC PT Metito Indonesia Seawater RO [69]
*PC= personal contact

Future trends
It is certainly not easy to predict the future of this technology. However, below is presented some
facts that can roughly describe the future trend of this technology. Firstly, current rapid
development in alternatives of membrane materials, membrane production processes, and the
increase of membrane production, and followed by membrane quality enhancement.
Consequently, membrane price tends to decrease and the process is more economical. This is
causing wider membrane technology implementation especially in application that requires high
productivity and low cost such as in water and waste water treatment. Secondly, for high-pressure
and large capacity membrane process such as high-pressure reverse osmosis, energy recovery
units have already been developed. This allows 70% energy recovery, so that the process becomes
less expensive. Thirdly, ultra low-pressure membrane with high productivity has also been
developed; hence reverse osmosis process that used to operate on high-pressure (60 – 80 bars)
could operate on lower pressure ( 20 bars). This condition obviously lowers the energy
consumption. Moreover, process system and equipment specification become simpler. Next,
fourth factor deals with the environmental conservation fee. With refers to the Environmental
Regulation that has holds for Jakarta and Surabaya, industry that produce waste has to pay an
environmental fee. Since membrane technology is a clean technology, it produces minimum waste
or even none. In addition, membrane technology is one of the waste treatment technologies that
improve waste quality or even better than that conditioned in the Industrial Waste Water Standard.
It is a technology that can reuse water. In some applications, zero waste effluent is even possible.
Therefore, although the applications of this technology in Indonesia are still very limited, large
market potential is awaiting.

10
 Table 2. Potential Industrial Reverse Osmosis Technology Applications in Indonesia
Approximate Membrane
Industrial Sector Potential application
capacity/year Processes
Clarification &
Potable drinking water 2.8 . 106 m3 MF, UF, NF, RO
disinfections
Demineralised water * Purification UF, NF, RO, EDI
Manufacture of milk, cheese Milk concentration UF, RO
(powdered milk, milk, skim 200,000 ton Whey protein fractionation MF, UF
milk, full-cream, yoghurt) Milk concentration UF, RO
Wastewater treatment UF, MBR
Tapioca 3. 106 ton
Recovery soluble starch UF
Wastewater treatment UF
Canned aquatic animals 35,024 ton and
Protein recovery UF
products 115,000,000 pcs
Protein concentration UF
Fruit crushed & preserved
14,000 ton Concentration MF, UF
(jam, jelly, sauce)
Food & Other processing and Clarification MF, UF
52,000 m3
beverages preserving of fruits Concentration NF, RO
Food made of chocolate and
80,000 ton Wastewater treatment UF
sweets
1,400,000 L and
Alcoholic beverages Clarification MF, UF
41,500 bottles
Soft drink 2,700,000 m3 Clarification MF, UF
Clarification UF
Malt liquors and malt 26,000 m3 Malt recovery MF
Sterilization UF
Manufacturing of tea and Concentration RO
86,000 ton
coffee processing Clarification UF
Soy sauce 22,000 m3 Clarification UF, RO
Sugar manufacturing Clarification, Pre-
780,000 ton UF, RO
(cane sugar) concentration
Clarification, Pre-
Refined sugar 150,000 ton UF, RO
Sweetener concentration
Glucose & maltosa 70,000 ton Concentration RO
Syrup (sugarcane syrup, Clarification UF
glucose & fructose syrup, 18,000 m3
Concentration RO
others)
Heavy phase recovery MF
Clarification of palm kernel
MF
oil
Solvent recovery VP
Palm Oil Crude Palm Oil 9,000,000 ton
Deodorization VP
Metal removal MF
Cooking oil clarification UF, RO
Cooking oil clarification UF, RO
Sterilization MF
Enzyme purification UF
Biotechnology/fermentation * SCP harvesting MF, UF
Protein fractionation UF
Ethanol dehydration PV
Pharmaceuticals and
Medicine & * Wastewater treatment MBR
pharmaceuticals materials
health
Hemodialysis 6000 patients Hemodialysis UF
Manufacturing of purifying
2,800,000 ton Gas separation GS
and refining natural gas
Gas separation GS
Fertilizer 6,800,000 ton Hydrogen recovery GS
CO2 separation GS
Wastewater treatment UF, MF, MBR
Chemical Textile * Dye separation UF
industry Size & latex recovery UF
Textile (manufacture of
2.8. 106 m2 Wastewater UF, MBR
tanned leather)
Wastewater treatment UF, RO
Metal finishing 100,000 m3
Heavy metal recovery UF
Wastewater treatment UF, MBR
Pulp 1,300,000 ton
Recovery lignin alkali UF
Electronics * Ultrapure water production RO, ED
Hatchery * Virus removal UF
Aquaculture Live food * Harvesting UF
Grow-out * Water management UF
Source: BPS (1999), Ahmad et. All (1998), [66], Personal contact; *Not available

11
V. CONCLUSION
With the advance development of membrane preparation, structure, properties and
characteristics, module and system design, reverse osmosis is now becoming a competitive system
for a wide range of applications. The successful long-term performance of RO plant is highly
depend on proper pre-treatment. However, it is known to be complex and expensive. UF is the
most competitive pre-treatment, especially for high fouling feed water source such as surface
water, wastewater, or an open-intake seawater. The important features of UF pre-treatment are
continuous and easily automated operation, no breakthrough as occurs in granular media filtration,
good downstream protection of RO membranes, no addition of chemicals, simple chemical shock
disinfections treatment, and compact design of pre-treatment equipment. Since membrane is a
clean technology with many advantages, it is possible to reuse water from wastewater and in some
applications, zero waste effluent is even possible. Therefore, although the applications of this
technology in Indonesia are still very limited, large market potential is awaiting.

REFERENCE

1. Wenten, I.G., Recent development in membrane science and its industrial applications. J Sci
Technol Membrane Sci Technol, 2002. 24(Suppl): p. 1010-1024.
2. Mulder, M., Basic Principles of Membrane Technology. 2nd ed. 1996, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
3. Mallevialle, J., Odendaal, P.E., and Wiesner, M.R., The emergence of membranes in water
and wastewater treatment, in Water Treatment Membrane Processes, J. Mallevialle, P.E.
Odendaal, and M.R. Wiesner, Editors. 1996, American Water Works Association Research
Foundation. Lyonnaise des Eaux. Water Research Commission of South Africa. McGraw-
Hill.
4. Lonsdale, H.K., Reverse Osmosis, in Synthetic Membranes: Science, Engineering and
Applications, P.M. Bungay, H.K. Lonsdale, and M.N.d. Pinho, Editors. 1982, D. Reidel
Publishing Company: USA.
5. Cadotte, J., King, R., Majerle, R., and Patersen., R., Interfacial Synthesis in the Preaparation
of Reverse Osmosis Membranes. Journal of Macromolecular Science-Chemistry, 1981. A15:
p. 727.
6. Kesting, R., Synthetic Polymeric Membranes: A Structural Perspective. 1985, New York:
Wiley-Interscience.
7. Lloyd, D. and Meluch, T., Selection and Evaluation of Membrane Materials for Liquid
Separations, in ACS Symposium Series No. 269. 1985: Washington, DC.
8. Lonsdale, H., The Evolution of Ultrathin Synthetic Membranes. Journal of Membrane Science,
1987. 33: p. 121.
9. Cabasso, L., Membranes, in Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering. 1987, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. : New York. p. 509-579.
10. Koros, W., Flemming, G., Jordan, S., Kim, T., and Hoehn, H., Polymeric membrane materials
for solution-diffusion based permeation separations. Progress in Polymer Science 1988. 13: p.
339.
11. Baker, R., Membrane and Module Preparation, in Membrane Separation Systems. 1990, US
DOE Report. DOE/ER/30133-H1.
12. Strathmann, H., Synthetic Membranes and Their Preparation, in Handbook of Industrial
Membrane Technology, M. Porter, Editor. 1990, Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, NJ.
13. Petersen, R. and Cadotte, J., Thin Film Composite Reverse Osmosis Membrane, in Handbook
of Industrial Membrane Technology, M. Porter, Editor. 1990, Noyes Publications: Park Ridge.
NJ.
14. Williams, M.E. A Brief Review of Reverse Osmosis Membrane Technology.
http://www.wescinc.com.
15. Pusch, W. and Walch, A., Synthetic Membranes: State of the Art. Desalination, 1980. 35(5).
16. Riley, R., Reverse Osmosis, in Membrane Separation System. 1990, US DOE Report.
DOE/ER/30133-HI.

12
17. Bhattacharyya, D., Williams, M., Ray, R., and McCray, S., Reverse Osmosis, in Membrane
Handbook, W. Ho and K. Sirkar, Editors. 1992, Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York. p. 263-
390.
18. Applegate, L., Membrane Separation Processes. Chemical Engineering, 1984. 64.
19. Sudak, R., Reverse Osmosis, in Handbook of Industrial Membrane Technology, M. Porter,
Editor. 1990, Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, NJ.
20. Simon, G., and C. Calmon, Experimental Methods for the Determination of Non-transport
Properties of Membranes. Desalination, 1986. 59: p. 61.
21. Pusch, W., Measurement Techniques of Transport Through Membranes. Desalination, 1986.
59: p. 105.
22. Jevtitch, M., Reverse Osmosis Membrane Separation Characteristics of Various Organics:
Prediction of Separation by Surface Force-Pore Flow Model and Solute Surface
Concentration by finite Element Method, in Dept. of Chemical Engineering. 1986, Univ. of
Kentucky: Lexington, Kentucky.
23. Bhattacharyya, D., Jevtitch, M., Schrodt, J., and Fairweather, G., Prediction of Membrane
Separation Characteristics by Pore Distribution Measurements and Surface Force-Pore Flow
Model. Chemical Engineering Communication, 1986. 42: p. 111.
24. Han, M., Cellulose Acetate Reverse Osmosis Membranes: Effects of Casting Variables on
Membrane Pore Structure and Transport Properties., in Dept. of Chemical Engineering.
1989, Univ. of Kentucky: Lexington, Kentucky.
25. Han, M. and Bhattacharyya, D., Characterization of Reverse Osmosis Cellulose Acetate
Membranes by Gas Adsorption Method: Effect of Casting Variables and Chlorine Damage.
Journal of Membrane Science, 1991. 62: p. 325.
26. Jonsson, G. and Boesen, C., Water and Solute Transport Through Cellulose Acetate Reverse
Osmosis Membranes. Desalination, 1975. 17: p. 145.
27. Sourirajan, S. and Matsuura, T., Reverse Osmosis/Ultrafiltration Principles. 1985, Ottawa,
Canada: National Research Council of Canada.
28. Mehdizadeh, H. and Dickson, J., Theoritical Modification of the Surface Force-Pore Flow
Model for Reverse Osmosis Transport. Journal of Membrane Science, 1989. 42(119).
29. Glaves, C. and Smith, D., Membrane Pore Structure Analysis via NMR Spin-lattice Relaxation
Experiments. . Journal of Membrane Science, 1989. 46.
30. Kesting, R., The Four Tiers of Structure in Integrally Skinned Phase Inversion Membranes
and Their Relevance to the Various Separation Regimes. Journal of Applied Polymer Science,
1990. 41: p. 2739.
31. Bartels, C., A Surface Science Investigation of Composite Membranes. Journal of Membrane
Science, 1989. 45: p. 225.
32. Arthur, S., Structure-Property Relationship in a Thin Film Composite Reverse Osmosis
Membrane. Journal of Membrane Science, 1989. 46(243).
33. Avlonitis, S., Hanbury, W., and Hodgkiess, T., Chlorine Degradatio of Aromatic Polyamides.
Desalination, 1992. 85: p. 321.
34. Koo, J., Petersen, R., and Cadotte, J., ESCA Characterization of Chlorine-Damaged
Polyamide Reverse Osmosis Membrane. Polymer Preprints 1986. 27: p. 391.
35. Taylor, J.S. and Jacobs, E.P., Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration, in Water Treatment
Membrane Processes, J. Mallevialle, P.E. Odendaal, and M.R. Wiesner, Editors. 1996,
American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Lyonnaise des Eaux. Water
Research Commission of South Africa. McGraw-Hill.
36. Buckley, C.A. and Hurt, Q.E., Membrane applications: a contaminant-based perspective, in
Water Treatment Membrane Processes, J. Mallevialle, P.E. Odendaal, and M.R. Wiesner,
Editors. 1996, American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Lyonnaise des
Eaux. Water Research Commission of South Africa. McGraw-Hill.
37. Nicolaisen, B., Developments in membrane technology for water treatment. Desalination,
2002. 153: p. 355-360.
38. Byrne, W., Reverse osmosis. A practical guide for industrial users. 1995: Tall Oaks
Publishing, Inc.

13
39. Fawzi, N. and Al-Enezi, G., Design consideration of RO units: case studies. Desalination,
2002. 153: p. 281-286.
40. Ebrahim, S., Abdel-Jawad, M., Bou-Hamad, S., and Safar, M., Fifteen years of R&D program
in seawater desalination at KISR. Part I. Pretreatment technologies for RO systems.
Desalination, 2001. 135: p. 141-153.
41. Glucina, K., Alvarez, A., and Laîné, J.M. Assesment of an integrated membrane system for
surface water treatment. in Membranes in Drinking and Industrial Water Production. 2000.
Desalination Publications
42. Redondo, J.A., Brackish-, sea- amd wastewater desalination. Desalination, 2001. 138: p. 29-
40.
43. Anselme, C. and Jacobs, E.P., Ultrafiltration, in Water Treatment Membran Processes, J.
Mallevialle, P. Odendaal, and M.R. Wiesner, Editors. 1996, McGraw-Hill: New York.
44. Van Hoof, S.C.J.M., Minnery, J.G., and Mack, B., Dead-end ultrafiltration as alternative pre-
treatment to reverse osmosis in seawater desalination: a case study. Desalination, 2001. 139:
p. 161-168.
45. Bates, W.T. Capillary UF as RO pretreatment. www.membranes.com
46. Clever, M., Jordt, F., Knauf, R., Rabiger, N., Rudebusch, M., and Hilter-Scheibel, R. Process
Water Production from River Water by Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis. in Conference on
Membranes in Drinking and Industrial Water Production. 2000. L’Aquila, Italy: Desalination
Publications.
47. Nederlof, M.M., Krithof, J.C., Taylor, J.S., Kooij, D.v.d., and Schippers, J.C. Comparison of
NF/RO membrane performance in integrated membrane systems. in the Conference on
Membranes in Drinking and Industrial Water Production. 2000. Desalination Publication.
48. Laîné, J.M., Vial, D., and Moulart, P. Status after 10 years of operation – overview of UF
technology today. in Conference on Membranes in Drinking and Industrial Water Production.
2000. Desalination Publications.
49. Heyden, W., Seawater desalination by RO: plant design, performance data, operation and
maintenance. Desalination, 1985. 52: p. 187-199.
50. Glueckstern, P., Priel, M., and Wilf, M., Field evaluation of capillary UF technology as a
pretreatment for large seawater RO systems. Desalination, 2002. 147: p. 55-62.
51. Brehant, A., Bonnelye, V., and Perez, M., Comparison of MF/UF pretreatment with
conventional filtration prior to RO membranes for surface seawater desalination.
Desalination, 2002. 144: p. 353-360.
52. Teuler, A., K. Glucina, J. M. Laîné, Assessment of UF pretreatment prior RO membranes for
seawater desalination. Desalination, 1999. 125: p. 89-96.
53. Drioli, E., Criscuoli, A., and Curcio, E., Integrated membrane operations for seawater
desalination. Desalination, 2002. 147: p. 77-81.
54. Truby, R., Water & Wastewater Internat., in Integrated membrane operations for seawater
desalination, E. Drioli, A. criscuoli, and E. Curcio, Editors. 2000, Desalination. p. 77-81.
55. Leslie, G.L. and et.al., Proc. AWWA. Water Reuse Conference, in Integrated membrane
operations for seawater desalination, E. Drioli, A. Criscuoli, E. Curcio, Editor. 1998,
Desalination.
56. Fane, A.G. and Fell, C.J.D., A review of fouling and fouling control in ultrafiltration.
Desalination, 1987. 62: p. 117-136.
57. Matthiasson, E. and Sivik, B., Concentration polarization and fouling. Desalination, 1980. 35:
p. 59-103.
58. Wenten, I., Koenhen, D., Roesink, H., Rasmussen, A., and Jonsson, G., The Backshock
Process: A novel backflush technique in microfiltration. Proceedings of Engineering of
Membrane Processes, II Environmental Applications, Ciocco, Italy, 1994.
59. Wenten, I.G., Mechanisms and control of fouling in crossflow microfiltration. Filtration &
separation, 1995. 32(3): p. 252-253.
60. Jonsson, G. and Wenten, I.G. Control of concentration polarization, fouling and protein
transmission of microfiltration processes within the agro-based industry. in Proceedings of
the ASEAN-EC Workshop on Membrane Technology in Agro-Based Industry, Kuala-Lumpur,
Malaysia. 1994.

14
 61. Wenten, I.G., Application of crossflow membrane filtration for processing industrial
suspensions. 1994, The Technical University of Denmark.
62. Wenten, G., Koenhen, D.M., Roesink, H.D.W., Rasmussen, A., and Jonsson, G. Method for
the removal of components causing turbidity, from a fluid, by means of microfiltration. US
Patent No. US5560828 A. 1996
63. Wenten, I.G. and Jonsson, G.E. Fouling studies during membrane filtration of single-cell
protein suspension. in International Congress on Membranes and Membrane Processes. 1996.
64. Chen, V., Fane, A.G., Madaeni, S., and Wenten, I.G., Particle deposition during membrane
filtration of colloids: transition between concentration polarization and cake formation.
Journal of Membrane Science, 1997. 125(1): p. 109-122.
65. Strathmann, H., Membrane separation processes: current relevance and future opportunities.
AIChE Journal, 2001. 47(5).
66. Aspiyanto, Status dan Kecenderungan Masa Depan Pemakaian Membran di Indonesia. Warta
Insinyur Kimia, 1996. 10(4).
67. Sutiman. Pertimbangan Tekno Ekonomi mengenai Penggunaan Teknologi Membran di
Indonesia. in Seminar PSDA. 1996. Bandung: ITB.
68. Firman, A. and BetzDearbo. Personal Communication
69. Anonymous, in Harian Medan Bisnis. 27 Nopember 2004. 2004.

15

View publication stats