Nanofiltration: ion exchange system for effective surfactant removal from water solutions

Kowalska, Izabela

doi:10.1590/0104-6632.20140314s00003087

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, physical pretreatments such as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), or nanofiltration (NF) can effectively remove amphiphilic proteins that may eventually wet the pores of a hydrophobic membrane. , However, they cannot mitigate pore wetting induced by surfactants or LST water-miscible liquids. Surfactants can be removed from solution via ion exchange, coagulation, , floatation or foam fractionation, − or biodegradation. , While some of the aforementioned pretreatment methods have not yet been tested for MD or MC and a knowledge gap exists in matching the appropriate pretreatment method given a real water application, some studies have shown promise in using these pretreatment strategies for MD and MC. For example, dispersing bubbles into a surfactant-containing feed solution from the textile industry formed floating foams that removed surfactants from the bulk solution.…”

Section: Pore Wettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…63,64 However, they cannot mitigate pore wetting induced by surfactants or LST water-miscible liquids. Surfactants can be removed from solution via ion exchange, 65 coagulation, 66,67 floatation or foam fractionation, 68−70 or biodegradation. 71,72 While some of the aforementioned pretreatment methods have not yet been tested for MD or MC and a knowledge gap exists in matching the appropriate pretreatment method given a real water application, some studies have shown promise in using these pretreatment strategies for MD and MC.…”

Section: ■ Pore Wettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wetting, Scaling, and Fouling in Membrane Distillation: State-of-the-Art Insights on Fundamental Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Membrane distillation (MD) has been garnering increasing attention in research and development, since it has been proposed as a promising technology for desalinating hypersaline brine from various industries using low-grade thermal energy. However, depending on the application context, MD faces several important technical challenges that would lead to compromised performance or even process failure. These challenges include pore wetting, mineral scaling, and membrane fouling. This review is devoted to providing a state-of-the-art understanding of fundamental mechanisms and mitigation strategies regarding these three challenges. Guided by the fundamental understanding of each membrane failure mechanism, we discuss both operational and material strategies that can potentially address the three technical challenges. In particular, the material strategies involve the development of MD membranes with tailored special wetting properties to impart resistance against different types of membrane failure. Lastly, we also discuss research needs and best practices in future studies to further enhance our ability to overcome technical challenges toward the practical, sustainable, and scalable applications of MD.

show abstract

Section: Pore Wettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ■ Pore Wettingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wetting, Scaling, and Fouling in Membrane Distillation: State-of-the-Art Insights on Fundamental Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The data processing required manual reduction, but after verification of the homologous series tool, further analysis should be less time consuming. Regarding water treatment, hydrocarbon surfactants in AFFF-contaminated groundwater can compete with PFASs for ion-exchange sites on resins, on granulated activated carbon, and for oxidants during in situ chemical oxidation . AFFF-impacted groundwater discharges into surface waters where the hydrocarbon surfactants have the potential to contribute to foaming and biodegrade aerobically to transformation products that might have the potential to adversely impact biota.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suspect Screening of Hydrocarbon Surfactants in AFFFs and AFFF-Contaminated Groundwater by High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry

García¹,

Chiaia‐Hernández

Lara-Martín

et al. 2019

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) are proprietary mixtures containing hydrocarbon surfactants and per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) that are used to extinguish hydrocarbonbased fuel fires. There is limited information on hydrocarbon surfactants in AFFFs and AFFF-contaminated groundwater even though hydrocarbon surfactants are more abundant (5−10% w/w) than PFASs (0.9− 1.5% w/w) in AFFFs. Eight commercial AFFFs manufactured between 1988 and 2012 and 10 AFFF-contaminated groundwaters collected from near source zones of fire-fighter training areas were analyzed for suspect hydrocarbon surfactants by liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. A suspect list and a homologous series detection computational tool, enviMass, were combined to screen for hydrocarbon surfactants. Nine classes of hydrocarbon surfactants were detected in AFFFs including octylphenol polyethoxylates, linear alcohol ethoxylates, ethoxylated cocoamines, alkyl ether sulfates, alkyl amido dipropionates, linear alkyl benzenesulfonates, alkyl sulfates, and polyethylene glycols. Of those, six were also found in groundwater along with diethanolamines and alkyl amido betaines, which were not found in the eight archived AFFFs. This indicates that although aerobically biodegradable, hydrocarbon surfactants likely persist in groundwater due to anaerobic aquifer conditions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first screening for hydrocarbon surfactants in AFFFs and in AFFFcontaminated groundwater.

show abstract

“…Boussu et al (2007) [27] observed a decrease in relative fluxes of the hydrophilic membrane Desal51HL as initial concentration of the anionic and cationic surfactants sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS) and cetrimide increased from 20 to 70 mg L −1 , at pH 6. In addition, Kowalska (2014) [45] evaluated the application of the nanofiltration-ion exchange system for removing surfactants from water, and as initial SDBS concentration increased in the feed solution from 1.3 to145 mg L −1 for NP010 membrane and from 1.2 to 106 mg L −1 for NP030 membrane, the permeabilities of these membranes were decreased [45].…”

Section: Permeate Flux Of the Mixture Ctab And Sds By The Nf90 Membranementioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction between surfactants of different classes and nanofiltration membranes

Nunes¹,

Ferraz

Kronemberger³

2022

Sci. Plena

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presence of surfactants in aquatic environments may alter the water quality parameters. Nanofiltration is a promising technique that can separate surfactants from water with high rejections. Nevertheless, negative charges on nanofiltration membranes could facilitate the occurrence of electrostatic interactions between the charged surfactants and the surface of these membranes, increasing the membrane-fouling tendency. In this work, the interaction of surfactants commonly found in residential laundry wastewater with membranes used in nanofiltration was investigated. For this purpose, the surface, and transport properties of four commercial membranes were analyzed. The zeta potential of the NF90 membrane in the presence of individual and mixture of surfactants was performed to evaluate the effect of adsorption of these surfactants on the performance of the membrane. Additionally, a central composite rotatable design (CCDR) and response surface model were applied to investigate the simultaneous effect of the initial concentration of CTAB and SDS ([CTAB + SDS]0) and pH on the NF90 permeate fluxes and rejections. It was shown that surfactant adsorption varies with the type of surfactant and membrane. Moreover, adsorption played an important role in NF90 membrane fouling, mainly for the cationic surfactant in individual solutions and in the mixture of surfactants. Besides adsorption, pore blocking may have affected the performance of nanofiltration for higher concentrations of surfactants. Finally, by the application of the central composite rotatable design (CCDR), it was possible to find the best conditions of pH and initial concentration of surfactants for achieving higher fluxes and rejections by the NF90 membrane.

show abstract

Nanofiltration: ion exchange system for effective surfactant removal from water solutions

Cited by 9 publications

References 23 publications

Wetting, Scaling, and Fouling in Membrane Distillation: State-of-the-Art Insights on Fundamental Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies

Wetting, Scaling, and Fouling in Membrane Distillation: State-of-the-Art Insights on Fundamental Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies

Suspect Screening of Hydrocarbon Surfactants in AFFFs and AFFF-Contaminated Groundwater by High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry

Interaction between surfactants of different classes and nanofiltration membranes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About