Modeling of arsenic rejection considering affinity and steric hindrance effect in nanofiltration membranes

Jeong-hak, Oh，; Urase, Taro; Kitawaki, Hidetoshi; Rahman, M. Mostafizur; Rhahman, M.H.; Yamamoto, Kazuo

doi:10.2166/wst.2000.0376

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be attributed to a change in the speciation of cyanide, as well as a change of zeta potential of negatively charged membranes with a change in the pH levels. Similar observations have been made by some researchers (Oh et al, 2000;Siedel et al, 2001;Urase et al, 1998) in connection with arsenic separation. Figure 5 shows the variations of membrane charge density (X d ) with a change of pH, where membrane charge densities were computed from the linearized transport model.…”

Section: Experimental Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

Cyanide Removal from Industrial Wastewater by Cross‐Flow Nanofiltration: Transport Modeling and Economic Evaluation

Pal¹,

Bhakta²,

Kumar³

2014

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A modeling and simulation study, along with an economic analysis, was carried out for the separation of cyanide from industrial wastewater using a flat sheet cross‐flow nanofiltration membrane module. With the addition of a pre‐microfiltration step, nanofiltration was carried out using real coke wastewater under different operating conditions. Under the optimum operating pressure of 13 bars and a pH of 10.0, a rate of more than 95% separation of cyanide was achieved. That model predictions agreed very well with the experimental findings, as is evident in the Willmott d‐index value (>0.95) and relative error (<0.1). Studies were carried out with industrial wastewater instead of a synthetic solution, and an economic analysis was also done, considering the capacity of a running coking plant. The findings are likely to be very useful in the scale‐up and design of industrial plants for the treatment of cyanide‐bearing wastewater.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

Cyanide Removal from Industrial Wastewater by Cross‐Flow Nanofiltration: Transport Modeling and Economic Evaluation

Pal¹,

Bhakta²,

Kumar³

2014

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To exploit the ability of membrane filtration to remove As(V), several researchers have suggested that a pretreatment step that oxidizes the As(III) to As(V) would improve the performance of membrane filtration (Seidel et al, 2001; Oh et al, 2000; Kartinen & Martin, 1995), but the authors of the current research are not aware of any investigations that have tested this hypothesis. Oxidation of arsenic using manganese dioxide (MnO 2 ) has been explored by other researchers (Manning et al, 2002; Ghurye & Clifford, 2001), but use of this as an arsenic oxidation step has never been combined with membrane filtration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arsenic removal using oxidative media and nanofiltration

Moore¹,

Huck²,

Siverns³

2008

Journal AWWA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanofiltration (NF) is a promising drinking water treatment technology for arsenic removal; however, most of the research on NF treatment of arsenic has used synthetic water. In this investigation, a pilot membrane system treated groundwater naturally contaminated with arsenic to test the performance of two NF membranes and one reverse osmosis (RO) membrane, both with and without oxidizing pretreatment using manganese dioxide (MnO2). The arsenic concentration in the groundwater was ~ 40 μg/L, mostly present as arsenite, a neutral species. Without the oxidizing pretreatment, the two NF membranes provided almost no removal whereas the RO membrane provided ~ 25 to 50% arsenic removal, depending on operating conditions. Following pretreatment with MnO2, the treated arsenic concentration dropped to < 4 μg/L (90% removal) for all three membranes. The substantially improved performance for these negatively charged membranes was attributed to the oxidation of the neutrally charged arsenite to negatively charged arsenate. These results indicate that where arsenite is present, facilities with RO or NF processes can dramatically enhance their arsenic removal by adding a membrane‐compatible oxidation step such as MnO2 filtration.

show abstract

“…As with charged organic xenobiotics metals and heavy metals are mainly removed through the Donnan exclusion mechanism where the metal ion with the same charge as the membrane has a retention higher than 80% (Raff and Wilken 1999;Favre-Reguillon et al 2003) due to charge repulsion (Raff and Wilken 1999;Oh et al 2000;Seidel et al 2001;Choo et al 2002;Favre-Reguillon et al 2008). Metal speciation study is therefore important to understand the rejection mechanisms not only due to different charges the metal species carry but also due to different species the metal can form for example with carbonates and NOM, which affects its size and therefore its retention.…”

Section: Charge Repulsionmentioning

confidence: 99%