Ceramic vs polymeric membrane implementation for potable water treatment
•Comparative technoeconomics of ceramic and polymeric membrane technologies assessed.•Bench-scale tests show no consistent difference in permeability between two membranes.•Polymeric membranes subject to mechanical strength and permeability decline with age.•Membrane deterioration from hypochlorite...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Water research (Oxford) 2022-05, Vol.215, p.118269-118269, Article 118269 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 118269 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 118269 |
container_title | Water research (Oxford) |
container_volume | 215 |
creator | Jarvis, P. Carra, I. Jafari, M. Judd, S.J. |
description | •Comparative technoeconomics of ceramic and polymeric membrane technologies assessed.•Bench-scale tests show no consistent difference in permeability between two membranes.•Polymeric membranes subject to mechanical strength and permeability decline with age.•Membrane deterioration from hypochlorite cleanant specific to polymeric membranes.•Robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive/effective chemical cleaning.
The continued technological developments and decreased purchase costs of ceramic membranes have seen increased recent interest in the technology as an alternative to the more widely used polymeric membranes. This paper assesses the relative technical, practical and economic merits of the two membrane materials in the context of potable water production from surface water sources.
The work focuses on phenomena of direct technoeconomic significance, namely cleaning efficacy (manifested as permeability recovery), membrane integrity and incurred labour effort. Topics reviewed thus comprise: (a) practical comparison of the two technologies challenged with the same feedwater, (b) comparative technoeconomic analyses, (c) membrane integrity studies of polymeric membranes - incorporating aged samples extracted from operating installations, (d) sludging incidents, and (e) pilot and full-scale data.
Available relevant data reveal:
(a) bench-scale comparative tests do not indicate a consistent significant difference in the net permeability between the two membranes;
(b) polymeric membranes are subject to a decline in both mechanical strength and permeability from the loss of the hydrophilic agent over a period of years from the action of hypochlorite used for cleaning;
(c) the decreased mechanical strength with age of polymeric membranes increases the manual repair requirement and shortens membrane life, respectively impacting on labour and membrane replacement costs where the latter is also determined by the permeability;
(d) the chemical and mechanical robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive chemical cleaning, which then affects the chemicals consumption cost; and
(e) anecdotal evidence suggests that polymeric membranes challenged with pre-coagulated surface waters may be subject to sludging, the agglomeration of solids in the membrane channels, which may also be age-related.
Notwithstanding the above, data from published comparative technoeconomic studies indicate a linear relationship between the overall cost benefit and the memb |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118269 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2648845946</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0043135422002329</els_id><sourcerecordid>2648845946</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-7cba315b0f47203791e54ca1c0ede18a50edca9ef348dc24da25a8f163176c883</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6D0R69NI1X22TiyCLusKCFz2HNJ1ClqatSXbFf2-Wrh7F0zDwvPMOD0LXBC8JJuXddvmpo4ewpJjSJSGClvIEzYmoZE45F6dojjFnOWEFn6GLELYYJ5LJczRjBZVCSjpH6xV47azJ9iEbh-7LgU-LA1d73UNm3diBgz7qaIc-awefqKjrDrLUDj5LH-h4AC7RWau7AFfHuUDvT49vq3W-eX1-WT1scsM5iXllas1IUeOWVxSzShIouNHEYGiACF2kabSElnHRGMobTQstWlIyUpVGCLZAt9Pd0Q8fOwhRORsMdF16d9gFRUsuBC8kL_-DkqQkkQnlE2r8EIKHVo3eOu2_FMHqoFtt1aRbHXSrSXeK3RwbdrWD5jf04zcB9xMAScneglfBWOgNNNaDiaoZ7N8N35nHkyU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2641002463</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ceramic vs polymeric membrane implementation for potable water treatment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Jarvis, P. ; Carra, I. ; Jafari, M. ; Judd, S.J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Jarvis, P. ; Carra, I. ; Jafari, M. ; Judd, S.J.</creatorcontrib><description>•Comparative technoeconomics of ceramic and polymeric membrane technologies assessed.•Bench-scale tests show no consistent difference in permeability between two membranes.•Polymeric membranes subject to mechanical strength and permeability decline with age.•Membrane deterioration from hypochlorite cleanant specific to polymeric membranes.•Robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive/effective chemical cleaning.
The continued technological developments and decreased purchase costs of ceramic membranes have seen increased recent interest in the technology as an alternative to the more widely used polymeric membranes. This paper assesses the relative technical, practical and economic merits of the two membrane materials in the context of potable water production from surface water sources.
The work focuses on phenomena of direct technoeconomic significance, namely cleaning efficacy (manifested as permeability recovery), membrane integrity and incurred labour effort. Topics reviewed thus comprise: (a) practical comparison of the two technologies challenged with the same feedwater, (b) comparative technoeconomic analyses, (c) membrane integrity studies of polymeric membranes - incorporating aged samples extracted from operating installations, (d) sludging incidents, and (e) pilot and full-scale data.
Available relevant data reveal:
(a) bench-scale comparative tests do not indicate a consistent significant difference in the net permeability between the two membranes;
(b) polymeric membranes are subject to a decline in both mechanical strength and permeability from the loss of the hydrophilic agent over a period of years from the action of hypochlorite used for cleaning;
(c) the decreased mechanical strength with age of polymeric membranes increases the manual repair requirement and shortens membrane life, respectively impacting on labour and membrane replacement costs where the latter is also determined by the permeability;
(d) the chemical and mechanical robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive chemical cleaning, which then affects the chemicals consumption cost; and
(e) anecdotal evidence suggests that polymeric membranes challenged with pre-coagulated surface waters may be subject to sludging, the agglomeration of solids in the membrane channels, which may also be age-related.
Notwithstanding the above, data from published comparative technoeconomic studies indicate a linear relationship between the overall cost benefit and the membrane module cost ratio mitigated by the relative membrane life and operating flux.
[Display omitted]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1354</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2448</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118269</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35298992</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Ceramic membranes ; Ceramics ; Cost ; Drinking Water ; Flux ; hydrophilicity ; hypochlorites ; Integrity ; labor ; Life ; Membranes, Artificial ; permeability ; Polymeric membranes ; Polymers ; strength (mechanics) ; surface water ; Water Purification ; water treatment</subject><ispartof>Water research (Oxford), 2022-05, Vol.215, p.118269-118269, Article 118269</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-7cba315b0f47203791e54ca1c0ede18a50edca9ef348dc24da25a8f163176c883</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-7cba315b0f47203791e54ca1c0ede18a50edca9ef348dc24da25a8f163176c883</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2740-6740 ; 0000-0001-7054-7069</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135422002329$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35298992$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jarvis, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carra, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jafari, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Judd, S.J.</creatorcontrib><title>Ceramic vs polymeric membrane implementation for potable water treatment</title><title>Water research (Oxford)</title><addtitle>Water Res</addtitle><description>•Comparative technoeconomics of ceramic and polymeric membrane technologies assessed.•Bench-scale tests show no consistent difference in permeability between two membranes.•Polymeric membranes subject to mechanical strength and permeability decline with age.•Membrane deterioration from hypochlorite cleanant specific to polymeric membranes.•Robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive/effective chemical cleaning.
The continued technological developments and decreased purchase costs of ceramic membranes have seen increased recent interest in the technology as an alternative to the more widely used polymeric membranes. This paper assesses the relative technical, practical and economic merits of the two membrane materials in the context of potable water production from surface water sources.
The work focuses on phenomena of direct technoeconomic significance, namely cleaning efficacy (manifested as permeability recovery), membrane integrity and incurred labour effort. Topics reviewed thus comprise: (a) practical comparison of the two technologies challenged with the same feedwater, (b) comparative technoeconomic analyses, (c) membrane integrity studies of polymeric membranes - incorporating aged samples extracted from operating installations, (d) sludging incidents, and (e) pilot and full-scale data.
Available relevant data reveal:
(a) bench-scale comparative tests do not indicate a consistent significant difference in the net permeability between the two membranes;
(b) polymeric membranes are subject to a decline in both mechanical strength and permeability from the loss of the hydrophilic agent over a period of years from the action of hypochlorite used for cleaning;
(c) the decreased mechanical strength with age of polymeric membranes increases the manual repair requirement and shortens membrane life, respectively impacting on labour and membrane replacement costs where the latter is also determined by the permeability;
(d) the chemical and mechanical robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive chemical cleaning, which then affects the chemicals consumption cost; and
(e) anecdotal evidence suggests that polymeric membranes challenged with pre-coagulated surface waters may be subject to sludging, the agglomeration of solids in the membrane channels, which may also be age-related.
Notwithstanding the above, data from published comparative technoeconomic studies indicate a linear relationship between the overall cost benefit and the membrane module cost ratio mitigated by the relative membrane life and operating flux.
[Display omitted]</description><subject>Ceramic membranes</subject><subject>Ceramics</subject><subject>Cost</subject><subject>Drinking Water</subject><subject>Flux</subject><subject>hydrophilicity</subject><subject>hypochlorites</subject><subject>Integrity</subject><subject>labor</subject><subject>Life</subject><subject>Membranes, Artificial</subject><subject>permeability</subject><subject>Polymeric membranes</subject><subject>Polymers</subject><subject>strength (mechanics)</subject><subject>surface water</subject><subject>Water Purification</subject><subject>water treatment</subject><issn>0043-1354</issn><issn>1879-2448</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE1LxDAQhoMo7rr6D0R69NI1X22TiyCLusKCFz2HNJ1ClqatSXbFf2-Wrh7F0zDwvPMOD0LXBC8JJuXddvmpo4ewpJjSJSGClvIEzYmoZE45F6dojjFnOWEFn6GLELYYJ5LJczRjBZVCSjpH6xV47azJ9iEbh-7LgU-LA1d73UNm3diBgz7qaIc-awefqKjrDrLUDj5LH-h4AC7RWau7AFfHuUDvT49vq3W-eX1-WT1scsM5iXllas1IUeOWVxSzShIouNHEYGiACF2kabSElnHRGMobTQstWlIyUpVGCLZAt9Pd0Q8fOwhRORsMdF16d9gFRUsuBC8kL_-DkqQkkQnlE2r8EIKHVo3eOu2_FMHqoFtt1aRbHXSrSXeK3RwbdrWD5jf04zcB9xMAScneglfBWOgNNNaDiaoZ7N8N35nHkyU</recordid><startdate>20220515</startdate><enddate>20220515</enddate><creator>Jarvis, P.</creator><creator>Carra, I.</creator><creator>Jafari, M.</creator><creator>Judd, S.J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-6740</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7054-7069</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220515</creationdate><title>Ceramic vs polymeric membrane implementation for potable water treatment</title><author>Jarvis, P. ; Carra, I. ; Jafari, M. ; Judd, S.J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-7cba315b0f47203791e54ca1c0ede18a50edca9ef348dc24da25a8f163176c883</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Ceramic membranes</topic><topic>Ceramics</topic><topic>Cost</topic><topic>Drinking Water</topic><topic>Flux</topic><topic>hydrophilicity</topic><topic>hypochlorites</topic><topic>Integrity</topic><topic>labor</topic><topic>Life</topic><topic>Membranes, Artificial</topic><topic>permeability</topic><topic>Polymeric membranes</topic><topic>Polymers</topic><topic>strength (mechanics)</topic><topic>surface water</topic><topic>Water Purification</topic><topic>water treatment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jarvis, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carra, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jafari, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Judd, S.J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Water research (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jarvis, P.</au><au>Carra, I.</au><au>Jafari, M.</au><au>Judd, S.J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ceramic vs polymeric membrane implementation for potable water treatment</atitle><jtitle>Water research (Oxford)</jtitle><addtitle>Water Res</addtitle><date>2022-05-15</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>215</volume><spage>118269</spage><epage>118269</epage><pages>118269-118269</pages><artnum>118269</artnum><issn>0043-1354</issn><eissn>1879-2448</eissn><abstract>•Comparative technoeconomics of ceramic and polymeric membrane technologies assessed.•Bench-scale tests show no consistent difference in permeability between two membranes.•Polymeric membranes subject to mechanical strength and permeability decline with age.•Membrane deterioration from hypochlorite cleanant specific to polymeric membranes.•Robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive/effective chemical cleaning.
The continued technological developments and decreased purchase costs of ceramic membranes have seen increased recent interest in the technology as an alternative to the more widely used polymeric membranes. This paper assesses the relative technical, practical and economic merits of the two membrane materials in the context of potable water production from surface water sources.
The work focuses on phenomena of direct technoeconomic significance, namely cleaning efficacy (manifested as permeability recovery), membrane integrity and incurred labour effort. Topics reviewed thus comprise: (a) practical comparison of the two technologies challenged with the same feedwater, (b) comparative technoeconomic analyses, (c) membrane integrity studies of polymeric membranes - incorporating aged samples extracted from operating installations, (d) sludging incidents, and (e) pilot and full-scale data.
Available relevant data reveal:
(a) bench-scale comparative tests do not indicate a consistent significant difference in the net permeability between the two membranes;
(b) polymeric membranes are subject to a decline in both mechanical strength and permeability from the loss of the hydrophilic agent over a period of years from the action of hypochlorite used for cleaning;
(c) the decreased mechanical strength with age of polymeric membranes increases the manual repair requirement and shortens membrane life, respectively impacting on labour and membrane replacement costs where the latter is also determined by the permeability;
(d) the chemical and mechanical robustness of ceramic membranes permits more aggressive chemical cleaning, which then affects the chemicals consumption cost; and
(e) anecdotal evidence suggests that polymeric membranes challenged with pre-coagulated surface waters may be subject to sludging, the agglomeration of solids in the membrane channels, which may also be age-related.
Notwithstanding the above, data from published comparative technoeconomic studies indicate a linear relationship between the overall cost benefit and the membrane module cost ratio mitigated by the relative membrane life and operating flux.
[Display omitted]</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>35298992</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.watres.2022.118269</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2740-6740</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7054-7069</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0043-1354 |
ispartof | Water research (Oxford), 2022-05, Vol.215, p.118269-118269, Article 118269 |
issn | 0043-1354 1879-2448 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2648845946 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Ceramic membranes Ceramics Cost Drinking Water Flux hydrophilicity hypochlorites Integrity labor Life Membranes, Artificial permeability Polymeric membranes Polymers strength (mechanics) surface water Water Purification water treatment |
title | Ceramic vs polymeric membrane implementation for potable water treatment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T05%3A00%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ceramic%20vs%20polymeric%20membrane%20implementation%20for%20potable%20water%20treatment&rft.jtitle=Water%20research%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Jarvis,%20P.&rft.date=2022-05-15&rft.volume=215&rft.spage=118269&rft.epage=118269&rft.pages=118269-118269&rft.artnum=118269&rft.issn=0043-1354&rft.eissn=1879-2448&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118269&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2648845946%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2641002463&rft_id=info:pmid/35298992&rft_els_id=S0043135422002329&rfr_iscdi=true |