REPORT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF NANOFILTRATION MEMBRANE ON TAP WATER Objective: To investigate the performance of nanofiltration membrane on tap water.

Abstract: Membrane performances based on percentage rejection permeate flux, feed and permeate conductivity of tap water were studied. A dead end type membrane stirred cell for nanofiltration test was used for the experiment. A Magnetic stirring system was applied to overcome a pressure-induced concentration polarization occurred over a membrane surface in the test cell. A high pressure N2 tank is used as a pressure source. The permeate flux patterns for two different membranes were investigated. The effect of pressure in the rejection of membranes was verified through a series of experiments using 1540-3 nanofiltration membrane in which the rejections were measured under two applied pressures. Keywords: Nanofiltration membrane, permeate flux, rejection rate, feed and permeate conductivity. Experimental Setup: On laboratory scale, using a stirred cell [memcom of project series 09097] at constant pressure and nanofiltration membrane, some filtration runs were carried out by using ordinary tap water. For the entire test procedures performed, the model of the cell take a volume of 1000ml of solution and it uses a membrane of 0.117m in diameter and it effective area of 0.01075m. The stirrer cell is equipped with magnetic stir holder which holds a stir bar to move the membrane surface. The magnetic stirrer mechanism was available to control the concentration polarization or accumulation of macromolecules on the membrane surface. The reference membranes were purchased from Israel. According to the manufacturers, the membranes have the following advantages. High chemical stability Proven stability in hot and concentrated sulphuric acid High selectivity
1

 Higher separation ratios Increase in the throughput (flux) Higher rejection rates Experimental Procedure: Several runs of the experiment were conducted at constant pressure of 20bar and four of the runs were conducted at different pressures of 18bar and 20bar. This was done in order to know if pressure has significant effect on the membrane performance. High purity nitrogen gas was used to pressurise the stirred cell throughout the experiment. The pressure for the filtration runs was set by precision regulator equipped with digital pressure display. The precision pressure was integrated downstream from the nitrogen pressure regulator screwed into the cylinder outlet. In some of the filtrations run, permeate was collected at every 100ml in a beaker, while in some, permeate was collected at every 15minutes interval in a beaker. In some filtrations run, feed and permeate conductivity were measured at every 100ml while the feed and permeate conductivity were measure at every 15 minutes interval in some filtrations run. This was done in order to find the best method of running the remaining part of the experiments. The permeate conductivity was measured using a conductivity meter. The operating speed of the magnetic stirrer was 400rpm throughout the filtrations run. Permeate passing through the membrane is drawn into a 1000ml beaker which was weight on a digital weighing balance. The beaker was maintained on a weighing balance so that permeate could be measured continuously. And the permeate conductivity was measured at every 100ml or every 15 minutes in a small container of 10ml. By the same time, the feed conductivity was also measured. Findings/Observation: The operating parameters such as pressure, flowrate, the concentration of the feed and in permeate have an important influence on the separation performance. Permeate mass, flow have to be determined in this experiment. The membrane
2

water permeability is dependent on the size of the pores in the membrane, the porosity of the membrane and the thickness of the membrane. The membrane water permeability is varies over time. Because water is retained by the membrane, a concentration difference over the membrane exists. At the concentrate side (which is the feed in the stirring cell) the concentration is much higher than the concentration in the permeate. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Flux rate: For the nanofiltration process, the membrane productivity is expressed as the

permeate flux through the membrane. The permeate flux was calculated using the formula below. Flux, J =
V tA

(1)

Where V is the volume of permeate, t is the permeate collection time and A is the area of the membrane. The results of fig 1 and 2 show that concentration polarization exists in the membrane separation process and have great influence of on the separation performance of NF membranes. The impurity in tap water could induce clogging of the membrane when the concentration polarization occurs over the membrane surface. These behaviours could be the reason why the flux declined too much. The permeation flux falls with rising time. The decline of flux was due to membrane compaction at operating pressure and membrane fouling. The densification of the membrane under pressure reduced the flux through the membrane.

Fig 1: Permeate flux against time

Fig 2: Permeate flux against time

The permeate flux patterns for two different membranes were quantitatively similar as shown in fig 3. The permeate flux declined subsequently and this was related to the boundary layer near the membrane surface and the cake layer deposited on the membrane surface.

Fig 3: Permeate flux against time

Permeate rejection: The degree to which material passes through the membrane is

generally evaluated in terms of rejection of permeate. The rejection can be calculated through the equation 2. R=
Feed Permeate 100 Feed

(2)

The effect of pressure in the rejection of membranes was verified through a series of experiments using 1540-3 nanofiltration membrane in which the rejections were measured under two applied pressures. Permeate rejection relies on the ratio of the transport rate of feed to that of permeate. Generally percentage rejection was found to increase with increasing water recovery. The Fig: 4 illustrate the rejection behaviour for water upon pressure. Rejection was strongly dependent of operational pressure: The increase in rejection at higher pressures is generally explained by a shift in the transport mechanism across the membrane. Higher rejection at higher pressure. At lower pressures a diffusive transport of salts occurs, which accounts for the lower rejections and at higher pressures convective transport of salts through the membrane becomes dominant.

Fig 4: Permeate rejection as a function of water recovery at different pressure.

 Feed and permeate conductivity: The concentration in feed and permeate is indirectly

deduced from electrical conductivity measurement. Feed conductivity measurements indicate a change in water source, perhaps because of seasonal variations or surface water influences-both of which require operation interface to ensure proper operation of the membrane system. Fig 5 shows the feed and permeates conductivity as a function of water recovery using 1540-6 NF membrane.

Fig 5: Feed and permeates conductivity as a function of water recovery

Conclusions: The flow rate and pressure have significant influence on permeate flux. The rejection rate in this work confirms the expectation of the Nano pro membranes which is higher rejection rate. The percentage recovery of the membrane system feed water that emerges from the system as product water/permeate is 80%.