Make Water Anywhere

with Pall Integrated Membrane Systems

Tim Lilley, Pall Corporation

Portsmouth, April 2012
 COPYRIGHT 2012

The information contained in this document is the

property of the Pall Corporation, and is supplied for
the use of the assigned recipient only.

Unauthorised use or reproduction is prohibited, and

the information contained herein is not to be
supplied to others without the specific approval of
an officer of the Pall Corporation.
Contents

ƒ Constituents of source water

ƒ Fundamentals of membrane desalination
ƒ Membranes – functions and properties
ƒ Sustainable operation
ƒ Conclusions
Constituents of source water

Water contaminants will include dissolved solids and suspended solids

Range where contaminants may exist

or behave as a dissolved/suspended state

Dissolved
Dissolved Suspended

Inorganic salts Organics Colloidal Virus/Bacteria Mineral/General/Mixed

Size (µm) 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 Size (µm)

Membrane RO Nanofiltration Membrane UF & MF Depth/Media Settlement

Seawater contains between 30 and 50 g/l of dissolved salts. Depending on the

water source, other contaminants will be present across the entire range
with huge problems associated with the suspended components

© 2012, Pall Corporation

 Constituents of water

10
3
Suspended Solids 10
5
Dissolved Solids

Seawater
2 4
10 10

Contaminant Loading TDS (mg/l)

Contaminant Loading TSS (mg/l)

1 3
10 10
Seawater

0 2
10 10

-1 1
10 10

-2 0
10 10

Optimum membrane range Alternative technology range

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Constituents of water
Suspended solids - Removed by a filtration media or membrane processes

Dissolved contaminants - Removed by Reverse Osmosis (RO)

R D
a i
w s
t
S Pretreatment:
Post Treatment r
e Chemical addition
Strainer MF Membrane RO Membrane Remineralisation and i
a Filtration
chlorination b
w Monitoring
u
a t
t Backwash Conc Retentate i
e o
r n

R D
a i
w s
t
S Post Treatment r
e Strainer MF Membrane RO Membrane Remineralisation and i
a chlorination b
w u
a t
t SASRF Conc Retentate i
e o
r n

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Contaminants in Water

R D
a i
w s
t
S Post Treatment r
e Strainer MF Membrane RO Membrane Remineralisation and i
a chlorination b
w u
a t
t SASRF Conc Retentate i
e o
r n

Range where contaminants may exist

or behave as a dissolved/suspended state

Dissolved
Dissolved Suspended

Inorganic salts Organics Colloidal Virus/Bacteria Mineral/General/Mixed

Size (µm) 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100 Size (µm)

Membrane RO Nanofiltration Membrane UF & MF Depth/Media Settlement

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Membrane separation

Direct or “dead-end” flow Crossflow

Feed

Feed

Microporous/Semipermeable
membrane

Filtrate Filtrate/Permeate

Feed contaminants

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Membrane configurations
Microfiltration

Complete uniform pore structure through the

thickness (no skin) polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)
membrane construction

Ultrafiltration

Uniform inner and outer skinned

UF membrane with narrow pore
range ensures highly efficient
rejection characteristics

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Membrane vs conventional filtration

Features / Performance Sand Filter / Membrane

Benefit of Pall MF
Evaluation MMF/DMF MF
0.1 µm rating removes particulate fines (colloids
Protection of potential RO + ++++ and oxidized metals eg. Fe, Mn, As) & micro
organisms
Silt Density Index (SDI) + ++++ Filtrate with SDI <3
Turbidity ++ ++++ Filtrate with turbidity < 0.1 NTU
Microbial removal + ++++ 6 log removal of microorganism and pathogens
Consistency in performance + ++++ Continuous
Integrity testable - ++++ Assurance of safe potable water supply
Flexibility to cope with variable
++ ++++ Broad operation range, handles upsets
feeds and hydraulic loads
Reliability & longevity ++ ++++ Superior strength of HC-PVDF membranes
Modular & expandable + ++++ Future needs, by modules or banks
Waste minimization + +++ Unique Air-scrub-feature for high recovery
Footprint and weight + +++ Compact design, small footprint
Response to oil in feed ++ +++ CIP will clean membranes while SF blocks

++++ : excellent +++ : good ++ : fair + : poor - : not available

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Membrane filtration vs conventional

Differences of filtrate qualities between traditional prefiltration

and Microza® prefiltration (Deposits during SDI measurements)

Feedwater After After MF

traditional
pre-filtration

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Pre-treatment membrane operation

Previously
Filtered seawater
Transmembrane Pressure

filtered seawater

Backwash
outlet

Air inlet
Raw seawater

Time

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Pre-treatment membrane operation

Filtration Backwash & air scrub

Filtered seawater Previously

filtered seawater

Backwash
outlet

Raw seawater Air inlet

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Pre-treatment performance imperatives
Performance metrics
ƒ Particulate (RO pre-treatment)
ƒ Turbidity < 0.1 NTU
ƒ SDI < 2 (RO feed requires SDI <3)
ƒ Total suspended solids - background
ƒ Microbiologicals (RO pretreatemnt and drinking water production)
ƒ Giardia, Crypstosporidium > 6 log removal (99.9999%)
ƒ Virus 0.5-3 log
ƒ Animal Parasites

Given the broad range of inlet solids and the life expectancy
It is vital to use a physically robust and chemically resistant
Membrane:

ƒ Homogenous construction
ƒ Chemically inert PVDF
ƒ High degree of crystallinity

Skinned ultrafiltration membranes will not withstand the rigours

of repeated backwashing and air scrub. Resulting in deterioration
of performance with time

© 2012, Pall Corporation

 Membrane integration

Homogenous fibre
material imparting high
mechanical strength

0.1µm rated
membrane fibre, Highly crystalline PVDF
1.2mm OD, pre-treatment membrane
0.8mm ID

Conventional spiral wound composite

polyamide RO membrane configuration

© 2012, Pall Corporation

DTRO configuration
Disc Tube RO (DTRO) membrane alternative configuration

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Membrane properties & considerations
Pre-treatment
ƒ Protection of downstream equipment, processes & functions
ƒ Control of inlet suspended solids (SDI >3 for RO/NF)
ƒ Microbial barrier
ƒ Integrity assurance
ƒ Sensitive, automated test to confirm performance
ƒ Sustainable operation
ƒ Ability to reverse pore occlusion (filtration process)
ƒ Withstand aggressive cleaning procedures
ƒ Chemical resistance
RO
ƒ Desired rejection rates for ionic species
ƒ Minimal loss of production through flow channel and membrane fouling

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Operational considerations - sustainability
ƒ The pre-treatment stage can face extremely challenging and sometimes often
variable feed water conditions
ƒ As the filtration membrane retains solids, it exhibits an increase in
transmembrane pressure (TMP) as previously demonstrated
ƒ The increase in TMP must be completely recoverable, this is achieved with
physical and chemical cleaning regimes
ƒ Reverse filtration with previously filtered water in combination with air scour
ƒ Regular (24 hr – infinite) flux maintenance clean (ClO-)
ƒ CIP (~monthly – infinite) Chemical clean (ClO- + NaOH)
ƒ Chemical cleaning can be eliminated with low flux operation
ƒ Membrane prefiltration dramatically reduced cleaning burden of downstream
RO
ƒ Membrane prefiltration reduces scale formation in RO by reduced precipitation
nucleation

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Sustainable operation
MF TMP trends in heavily contaminated feed water

Stable TMP
restoration value

Rapid increasing TMP associated with elevated algae

Normally increasing TMP

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Sustainable operation

Robust and chemically resistant membranes are required to withstand

the rigours of feed water duty and the associated aggressive cleaning
procedures over the years of their service life

Highly crystalline PVDF exhibit greater mechanical and

chemical resistance (Liu, C. 2007). Factors affecting stability..

• Morphology of polymers: crystalline vs. amorphous polymers

• Chemical composition, inc structure of monomers
• Molecular architecture - average mol wt & distribution, branching, cross linking.
• Chain orientation with respect to the major stresses during operation
• Structure and geometry of membranes
• The presence of catalysts and inhibitors for chemical reactions relevant to
chemical degradation of polymeric membranes

© 2012, Pall Corporation

 Shipboard Series

AT25 - 20m3/day AT32 - 40m3/day

MF pre-treatment
DTRO special
upgrade
Submarine

© 2012, Pall Corporation

Conclusions
ƒ Membrane technology has a long history in water treatment but recent
developments in construction and polymer chemistry have enabled
significant broadening of this scope – particularly as a conventional media
filter replacement option
ƒ Robust polymeric prefiltration membranes remove virtually all suspended
solids and produce a high quality filtrate with background levels of TSS and
SDI
ƒ Membranes provide dependable barriers to microorganisms in drinking water
supply and as such enable treatment of freshwater sources (Bunker feed)
ƒ Combining MF membranes as pre-treatment to RO enables the latter to
function under optimum conditions and produce a treated water quality that is
reliably within demanding target limits
ƒ The control of TSS and microbial burden reduces bio fouling of RO
membranes and delays scale formation enabling optimum RO production
and extended life
ƒ The robust MF membranes can continuously maintain throughput when
challenged with a wide range of inlet solids and algae conditions with
effective TMP regeneration

© 2012, Pall Corporation