Characterization of an aerated submerged hollow fiber ultrafiltration device for efficient microalgae harvesting

Tena, Franziska Ortiz; Ranglová, Karolína; Kubáč, David; Steinweg, Christian; Thomson, Claudia; Masojídek, Jiří; Posten, Clemens

doi:10.1002/elsc.202100052

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The energy consumption of the pumps P-1 and P-2 (W) was calculated adapting the equations proposed by Judd and Judd [65] and Ortiz-Tena et al [66] (see Eq. 13 and Eq.…”

Section: Energy and Chemical Reagents Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrafiltration Harvesting of Microalgae Culture Cultivated in a WRRF: Long-Term Performance and Techno-Economic and Carbon Footprint Assessment

Mora-Sánchez,

González-Camejo,

Noriega-Hevia

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cross-flow ultrafiltration harvesting system of a pre-concentrated microalgae culture was tested in an innovative anaerobic-based WRRF. The microalgae culture was cultivated in a membrane photobioreactor fed with the effluent from an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating sewage. These harvested microalgae biomass was then anaerobically co-digested with primary and secondary sludge from the water line. Depending on the needs of this anaerobic co-digestion, the filtration harvesting process was evaluated intermittently over a period of 212 days for different operating conditions, mainly the total amount of microalgae biomass harvested and the desired final total solids concentration (up to 15.9 g·L1 with an average of 9.7 g·L1). Concentration ratios of 15-27 were obtained with average transmembrane fluxes ranged from 5 to 28 L·m2·h1. Regarding membrane cleaning, both backflushing and chemical cleaning resulted in transmembrane flux recoveries that were, on average, 21% higher than those achieved with backflushing alone. The carbon footprint assessment shows promising results as the GHG emissions associated with the cross-flow ultrafiltration harvesting process could be less than the emissions savings associated with the energy recovered from the biogas production from the anaerobic valorisation of the harvested microalgae.

show abstract

“…The energy consumption of the pumps P-1 and P-2 (W) was calculated adapting the equations proposed by Judd and Judd [65] and Ortiz-Tena et al [66] (see Eq. 13 and Eq.…”

Section: Energy and Chemical Reagents Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrafiltration Harvesting of Microalgae Culture Cultivated in a WRRF: Long-Term Performance and Techno-Economic and Carbon Footprint Assessment

Mora-Sánchez,

González-Camejo,

Noriega-Hevia

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The energy consumption of the pumps P-1 and P-2 (W) was calculated by adapting the equations proposed by Judd and Judd [65] and Ortiz-Tena et al [66] (see Equations ( 13) and ( 22)). This energy model has already been applied to different UF membrane systems used in microalgae cultivation [58].…”

Section: Energy and Chemical Reagent Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrafiltration Harvesting of Microalgae Culture Cultivated in a WRRF: Long-Term Performance and Techno-Economic and Carbon Footprint Assessment

Mora-Sánchez,

González-Camejo,

Noriega-Hevia

et al. 2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cross-flow ultrafiltration harvesting system for a pre-concentrated microalgae culture was tested in an innovative anaerobic-based WRRF. The microalgae culture was cultivated in a membrane photobioreactor fed with effluent from an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating sewage. These harvested microalgae biomasses were then anaerobically co-digested with primary and secondary sludge from the water line. Depending on the needs of this anaerobic co-digestion, the filtration harvesting process was evaluated intermittently over a period of 212 days for different operating conditions, mainly the total amount of microalgae biomass harvested and the desired final total solids concentration (up to 15.9 g·L−1 with an average of 9.7 g·L−1). Concentration ratios of 15–27 were obtained with average transmembrane fluxes ranging from 5 to 28 L·m−2·h−1. Regarding membrane cleaning, both backflushing and chemical cleaning resulted in transmembrane flux recoveries that were, on average, 21% higher than those achieved with backflushing alone. The carbon footprint assessment shows promising results, as the GHG emissions associated with the cross-flow ultrafiltration harvesting process could be less than the emissions savings associated with the energy recovered from biogas production from the anaerobic valorisation of the harvested microalgae.

show abstract

“…As a variety of parameters (such as membrane material, pore size, transmembrane pressure, filtration mode: dead-end or cross-flow mode, feed composition) shape the complex separation processes, membrane technologies for microalgal dewatering are being systematically reviewed and discussed [19][20][21]. In addition, laboratory membranes are more frequently tested than commercial membranes, especially in regard to ceramic membranes [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fouling Effect on Commercial Ceramic Membranes during Filtration of Microalgae Chlorella vulgaris and Monoraphidium contortum

Nędzarek

Mitkowski

2022

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although interest in the use of membranes for the concentration of microalgal biomass has steadily been growing, little is known regarding the phenomena of membrane fouling. In addition, more attention has been given to polymeric membranes compared to ceramic membranes, which have a longer life that is associated with a higher resistance to aggressive chemical cleaning. In this study, microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) of two microalgae species, Chlorella vulgaris and Monoraphidium contortum, were carried out using tubular crossflow ceramic membranes. Permeate flux was measured, resistance was calculated, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) was determined. The flux reduction during the first 10 min of filtration was higher for MF than UF (>70% and <50%), and steady-state permeate fluxes were <5% (for MF) and <25% (for UF) of initial (in m3 m−2 s−1) 6.2 × 10−4 (for MF) and 1.7 × 10−4 (for UF). Total resistances (in m−1) were in the ranges of 4.2–5.4 × 1012 (UF) and 2.6–3.1 × 1012 (MF) for M. contortum and C. vulgaris, respectively. DOC reduction was higher for UF membrane (>80%) than for MF (<66%) and DOC concentrations (mg C L−1) in permeates following MF and UF were about five and two, respectively. In conclusion, we demonstrated: (i) higher irreversible resistance for UF and reversible resistance for MF; (ii) permeate flux higher for UF and for M. contortum; (iii) the significant role of dissolved organic compounds in the formation of reversible resistance for MF and irreversible resistance for UF.

show abstract

Characterization of an aerated submerged hollow fiber ultrafiltration device for efficient microalgae harvesting

Cited by 13 publications

References 54 publications

Ultrafiltration Harvesting of Microalgae Culture Cultivated in a WRRF: Long-Term Performance and Techno-Economic and Carbon Footprint Assessment

Ultrafiltration Harvesting of Microalgae Culture Cultivated in a WRRF: Long-Term Performance and Techno-Economic and Carbon Footprint Assessment

Ultrafiltration Harvesting of Microalgae Culture Cultivated in a WRRF: Long-Term Performance and Techno-Economic and Carbon Footprint Assessment

The Fouling Effect on Commercial Ceramic Membranes during Filtration of Microalgae Chlorella vulgaris and Monoraphidium contortum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About