[]_Microfiltration_and_Ultrafiltration_Membranes_f(BookZZ.org).pdf

Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membranes for Drinking Water

MANUAL OF WATER SUPPLY PRACTICES-M53, First Edition

AWWA MANUAL M53

First Edition

American Water Works Association

Science and Technology AWWA unites the entire water community by developing and distributing authoritative scientific and technological knowledge. Through its members, AWWA develops industry standards for products and processes that advance public health and safety. AWWA also provides quality improvement programs for water and wastewater utilities.

Copyright (C) 2005 American Water Works Association All Rights Reserved

MANUAL OF WATER SUPPLY PRACTICES-M53, First Edition

Microfil tration and UI trafil t rat ion Membranes for Drinking Water

Copyright 0 2005 American Water Works Association

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information or retrieval system, except in the form of brief excerpts or quotations for review purposes, without the written permission of the publisher.

Disclaimer The authors, contributors, editors, and publisher do not assume responsibility for the validity of the content or any consequences of their use. In no event will AWWA be liable for direct, indirect, special, incidential, or consequential damages arising out of the use of information presented in this book. In particular, AWWA will not be responsible for any costs, including, but not limited to, those incurred as a result of lost revenue. In no event shall AWWA's liability exceed the amount paid for the purchase of this book.

Project Manager/Senior Technical Editor: Melissa Christensen Produced by Glacier Publishing Services, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes for drinking water.--1st ed. p. cm. -- (AWWA manual ; M53)

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-58321-360-0

1. Water--Purification--Membrane filtration--Evaluation. 2. Ultrafiltration. I. American Water Works Association. 11. Series.

TD491.A49 no. M53 [TD442.51

[628.1'641 628.1 s--dc22

2004062318

Printed in the United States of America

American Water Works Association 6666 West Quincy Avenue Denver, CO 80235-3098

ISBN 1-58321-360-0 Printed on recycled paper


Contents

List of Figures, vii

List of Tables, xi

Foreword, xv

Acknowledgments, xvii

Table of Equivalents, xxi

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction, 1 Process Overview, 1 Growth of Membrane Technology, 3 Historical Overview of MF and UF, 4 Current Status, 5 Future Trends, 6 References, 6

Chapter 2 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction, 7 Particle Removal, 8 Microbial Control, 10 Organic Control, 13 Inorganic Control, 18 References, 20 Appendix 2A, Turbidity Results for MF and UF Membrane Systems, 26 Appendex 2B, Particle Counting Results for MF and UF Membrane

Appendex 2C, DOC and DBP Precursor Results for MF and UF Membrane Systems, 30

Systems, 32

Chapter 3 Membrane Science and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Water Permeation Across Clean MF/UF Membranes, 35 Reductions in Membrane Productivity, 39 Summary, 46 Acknowledgments, 47 Bibliography, 47

Chapter 4 System Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Introduction, 51 Membrane Materials and Geometries, 51 Process Design, 55 MF and UF Operation Concepts, 56 Membrane Backwashing and Pre- Posttreatment, 58 Chemical Cleaning, 60 Membrane Integrity Testing, 61 References, 64

... 111


Chapter 5 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membrane Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Introduction, 65 Purpose of This Chapter, 66 Hydranautics, 67 Koch Membrane Systems Inc., 70 Norit Americas Inc., 73 Aquasource, 79 Pall Corporation, 84 USF Memcor, 90 Zenon Environmental Inc., 95

Chapter 6 Membrane Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Membrane Filtration for Turbidity and Microbial Removal in

Integrated Process Applications Emerge as the Predominant

Preliminary Membrane Treatment, 103 Intermediate Membrane Treatment, 104 Final Membrane Treatment, 105 Summary, 110 References, 110 Appendix 6A, Case Study: San Jose Water Company, Saratoga

Early Plants, 101

Treatment Approach, 102

Water Treatment Plant-Microfiltration of Variable Quality River Water, 112

of Lake Water, 115

Treatment Plant-Submerged Microfiltration of Reservoir Water, 119

1nc.-Microfiltratiod Nanofiltration Dual-Membrane Plant, 123

Surface Water Advanced Treatment System-UltrafiltratiodReverse Osmosis Integrated Membrane System, 127

Appendix 6F, Case Study: Seekonk, Mass.-Iron and Manganese Removal Plant, 132

Appendix 6G, Case Study: Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe- CoagulatiodMicrofiltration Facility for Arsenic Removal, 135

Appendix 6H, Case Study: Pittsburgh, Pa., Facility-Polishing of Finished Water Reservoir Water Using Microfiltration, 139

Appendix 61, Case Study: Lyonnaise Water, Bernay Water Treatment Plant, Bernay, France, 142

Appendix 6B, Case Study: Manitowoc Public Utilities-Microfiltration

Appendix 6C, Case Study: Coliban Water, Sandhurst Water

Appendix 6D, Case Study: Barrow Utilities Electric Cooperative

Appendix 6E, Case Study: Brazos River Authority, Lake Granbury

Chapter 7 Pilot Testing of Membrane Systems. . . . . . . . . . 147 Introduction, 147 Define the Project: Membrane System Screening and

Pilot Testing Scheduling Criteria, 151 Pilot Testing Protocol, 153 Sample Results and Organization of Pilot Study, 161 Bibliography, 164

Process Integration, 148

iv Copyright (C) 2005 American Water Works Association All Rights Reserved

Chapter 8 Membrane System Design Concepts . . . . . . . . . Overall System Design Approach, 165 Site-Specific Issues, 166 Membrane-Specific Issues, 171 Membrane System Design Issues, 176 Reference, 186

Chapter 9 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction, 187 Differences Between MF/UF and Conventional Granular

How to Control a MFWF Plant, 189 Data Collection and Recordkeeping, 191 Process Monitoring, 191 Special Operating Considerations for Various System Designs, 193 Maintaining Productivity, 194 Maintaining Filtrate Quality, 198 Troubleshooting and Proactive Ideas, 201 Training, 202 Safety, 202 Bibliography, 203

Media Filtration, 188

Chapter 10 Cost of Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membrane Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Project Management and Administrative Costs, 206 Membrane Procurement Costs, 207 Membrane System Capital Cost Considerations, 208 Additional Capital Cost Considerations, 209 Operational Costs, 210 Generalized Membrane Equipment Costs, 21 1 Generalized Construction Costs, 212 Operations and Maintenance Costs, 214 Summary, 215

Chapter 11 Residuals and Their Management . . . . . . . . . . Microfiltratioflltrafiltration Residuals, 2 17 MFWF Residuals Management, 222 Groundwater Discharge, 223 Location a Factor in Choosing Disposal Methods, 225 Backwash Disposal and Treatment Methods, 225 Chemicals a Factor in Handling Cleaning Solutions, 227 Summary, 228 References, 229

Chapter 12 Future Trends in Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration . . System Capacity, 232 Standardization, 233 Membrane Materials and Modules, 234 Technology Advancements, 235 Regulatory Issues, 236

165

187

205

217

23 1

V Copyright (C) 2005 American Water Works Association All Rights Reserved

Applications, 237 Costs, 238 Overcoming Impediments to Implementation, 239 Summary, 240 References, 240

Glossary, 241

Index, 247


Chapter 1

rn AWWA MANUAL

Introduction Author:

James C. Vickers

Reviewer: Scott Freeman

INTRODUCTION Since the early 199Os, there has been rapid growth in the use of low-pressure hollow fiber microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membrane processes for the production of drinking water. This growth has been propagated by the changes in the regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, beginning with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), that require lower filtered water turbidity and removal of disinfectant-tolerant microorganisms, such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium.

In wastewater reclamation, MF and UF have enjoyed a similar level of growth, where they have essentially replaced lime softening and filtration as the preferred methods of pretreatment prior to reverse osmosis (RO) for advanced reclamation projects.

The intent of this manual is to describe MF and UF system technology. These treatment techniques have gained rapid acceptance as processes that provide a reli- able and very high level of particle, turbidity, and microorganism removal.

PROCESS OVERVIEW The following graph (Figure 1-1) is commonly used to illustrate the difference between conventional and membrane filtration processes. When compared, there are two dis- tinctions that become important. The first is that MF and UF processes achieve separation through physical removal, essentially size exclusion, and unlike conventional coagulation-based processes do not require physiochemical treatment prior to media filtration to achieve the desired level of particle removal. The second distinction of membrane filtration is that the pore size is highly uniform and, therefore, capable of very high, or absolute, removal of a targeted particle size or microorganism.

In comparison to the established desalting membrane processes RO and nanofiltration [NF]), the growth of MF and UF as treatment processes has followed a

1 Copyright (C) 2005 American Water Works Association All Rights Reserved

2 MICROFILTRATION AND ULTRAFILTRATION MEMBRANES

100 1,000 10,000 100,000 500,000 APPROXIMATE MOLECULAR I I I I I WEIGHT

0.001 u 0.01 u 0.lu 1 .ou 1 ou 1 oou 1 .ooou 1 I I 1 I I I

Dissolved Organics Sand

Bacteria

Viruses Cvsts

Microfiltration

Reverse Osmosis ~~ ~~

Figure 1 - 1 Basic diagram of mass transport in a membrane

substantially different path. Whereas the concepts and fundamentals of RO and NF technologies were established prior to the introduction into the municipal water treatment industry, the proliferation of MF and UF system technology has been characterized by numerous manufacturers that offer proprietary membrane system technology. These membrane systems incorporate proprietary design features that vary considerably and are not interchangeable, although this may change as the industry evolves.

However, a common feature of most all of the currently available MF and UF membrane equipment is that hollow fibers are used to perform the separation. The hollow fiber is particularly well suited for use as a separation media because (1) it has a high surface to volume ratio, and (2) it exhibits bi-directional strength. These properties allow for backwashing with water, air, or a combination of both. Hollow fibers are flexible in their configuration and can be operated in the outside-in or inside-out manner of flow and may use either pressure or vacuum as the driving force across the membrane. I t is the variations in membrane materials and the variety of ways that the membrane can be configured and operated that facilitates the use of proprietary designs.

Although the system concepts, membranes, and nomenclature vary considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer, a key aspect that has contributed to the success of this technology is the ability to test and verify the integrity of the membrane. Man- ufacturers have adapted integrity testing concepts from cartridge-based filtration processes to their hollow fiber counterparts. Integrity testing provides the user with the ability to verify the removal performance of the membrane process and facilitate the diagnosis of malfunction and repair of membranes in the event of an integrity failure. Although some have questioned the appropriateness of this aspect of the regulation, the proposed Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTBESWTR) recognizes the importance of integrity testing (USEPA 2003) and incorporates direct integrity testing as a component that will allow a membrane process to receive higher log removal credits.


INTRODUCTION 3

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Installation Year

*Projected based on manufacturer provided information

Figure 1-2 The growth in the use of membrane technology

GROWTH OF MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY The following graph (Figure 1-2) illustrates the growth in the use of membrane technology (USEPA 2001). This trend is continuing an exponential increase as numerous membrane facilities ranging from of 25 to 100 mgd in capacity are either planned, in design, or in operation.

The fundamental reasons for this growth can be categorized as follows: Regulatory-As evidenced by the SWTR and the subsequent iterations that require a higher level of turbidity and particle removal, MF and UF treatment processes can be used to consistently obtain treatment objectives. Broader applicability-MF and UF treatment processes are particulate filters and unlike NF and RO do not remove dissolved constituents. This aspect of treatment makes them more applicable for use as a replacement for conventional filters, and thus MF and UF have exhibited widespread geographic applications. Cost-Since the early 199Os, the capital cost of MF and UF treatments have decreased as economies of scale, innovation, and competitive market forces influence projects. Comparatively, an MF or UF facility is approximately one half to one third the cost of an NF or RO facility and in many circumstances is cost competitive with most conventional alternatives. In addition, the implementation of innovative backwash or cleaning strategies has reduced operational cost. Many MF and UF membrane systems operate at pressure differentials of less than 15 psi. Operational flexibility-MF and UF treatment processes are highly flexible and can be used in conjunction with other treatment processes to achieve additional removal. Thus, as further detailed in chapter 6, there has been cre- ativity in the application of the MF and UF membrane processes to achieve



additional treatment objectives. In addition, membrane systems can be easier to operate, as the filtrate quality is not affected by process chemistry or variations in flow. Operations and maintenance activities are discussed in chapter 9.

To better understand some of the underlying considerations of this growth, the following section provides a historical overview of this technology.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF MF AND UF In the mid- to late 1980s, investigators began to consider the use of membrane filtration (MF and UF) as a method to produce high-quality drinking water. At that time, membrane filtration processes were limited to small volume, semi-batch operations, such as wine and juice filtration and industrial waste treatment. Membrane systems of this type generally relied on inside-out flow patterns and high crossflow velocity to maximize membrane flux and minimize membrane fouling.

Initial efforts to commercialize MF/UF for drinking water treatment were pio- neered by Lyonnaise des Eaux (Aquasource; Jacangelo et al. 1989) and Memtec (Mem- cor; Olivieri et al. 1991a). The Aquasource technology was developed in France for groundwater treatment and virus removal, where chlorine use is disfavored. The Aus- tralian Memcor technology was originally developed for industrial use in a crossflow configuration with an innovative gas backwash. Its applicability to water treatment was initially established by Hibler (1987) and later by Olivieri et al. (1991b) who were funded by Memcor to determine if the membrane product could be applied to the treatment of drinking water and secondary effluent.

Memcor established that CMF, their abbreviation for crossflow microfiltration, could be operated as a dead-end filter, relying on the gas-backwash alone to maintain productivity. Pilot systems were established at local drinking water and wastewater locations to demonstrate that the product would be operationally viable in a municipal environment. These findings were reported at the American Water Works Association (AWWA) 1991 Membrane Technology Conference, which also described the initial efforts using CMF to determine if coagulant-enhanced microfiltration could be used to improve filtrate quality and reduce disinfection by-product (DBP) formation potential (Olivieri et al. 1991b). The second aspect of the Memcor technology that was of particular note was the incorporation of a membrane test that could be used to confirm hollow fiber integrity.

Awareness and interest in MF/UF gained further momentum through projects funded by the Awwa Research Foundation with Jacangelo et al. (1992) and research performed by Clark at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (Heneghan and Clark 1991), and Reiss and Taylor at the University of Central Florida (Reiss and Tay- lor 1991). Wiesner of Rice University established that MF/UF could be considered cost-effective at capacities of 5 mgd (Wiesner et al. 1994). About this time, Olivieri joined Memcor on a full-time basis and began to develop pilot projects with consulting engineers and municipalities.

Memcors piloting efforts culminated in the first significant MF facility, the Saratoga, Calif., location of the San Jose Water Company in early 1993 (Yo0 et al. 1995). The facility, rated at 3.6 mgd, was roughly 4.5 times larger than any existing Memcor installation. The Saratoga Water Treatment Plant was typical of most early treatment facilities installed by Memcor. Most, if not all, were facilities required by the SWTR, which was passed in 1989 and became effective in 1993. These facilities could be characterized as generally having unfiltered water, with low total organic carbon concentrations and DBP formation potential, and with periodic excursions of turbidity. This type of facility was ideal for MF/UF technology, and Memcor attained commercial success. Many facilities including those located at Kenosha, Wisc., and Marquette, Mich., fit this basic profile.


INTRODUCTION 5

As membrane technology proliferated, consulting engineers and utilities became intrigued by the process. Although MF/UF produce a low-turbidity filtered water, the limitations of the processes are readily apparent, as the processes do not significantly reduce the concentration of dissolved contaminants, such as dissolved organic carbon (DOC), manganese, and many types of taste and odor. One such example occurred at Newport News, Va. (Braghetta et al. 19971, where it was demonstrated that the place- ment of the MF process downstream of a clarifier, in this case a dissolved air flotation device, could be used to reduce DOC and DBP formation, but the pretreatment also allowed the membrane to be operated at significantly higher membrane flux. In this case, a greater than 50 percent increase was observed.

The higher membrane flux fundamentally changed the economic balance and allowed the process to be considered cost-effective-even for a 50-mgd capacity. Although the facility at Newport News was not constructed using a membrane process because of the large number of treatment units that would have been required, the viability of this approach was soon demonstrated elsewhere, and three facilities using pretreatment processes were constructed in San Patricio County, Texas, Bexar Metro- politan, Texas (near San Antonio), and Appleton, Wisc., t o cite a few examples.

The potential of large-scale membrane facilities for drinking water and wastewater reclamation (which had similar parallel success) resulted in more membrane equipment manufacturers entering the MF/UF drinking water market. Companies, such as Pall Corporation, Zenon Environmental Systems, and Koch Membrane Sys- tems, began to develop drinking water systems and also attained measurable commercial success. The Zenon technology was particularly noteworthy as it was the first membrane process that used submerged membranes applying vacuum as the driving force. The largest Zenon UF plant to date is the 72-mgd Chestnut Avenue Water Works in Singapore. In addition, membrane module suppliers, such as Hydra- nautics and Norit (X-Flow), have obtained regulatory approval; and facilities, such as the 70-mgd Columbia Heights Membrane Filtration Plant for the Minneapolis (Minn.) Water Works, are being constructed using a membrane filtration process.

CURRENT STATUS MF and UF membrane treatment processes are generally accepted as being capable of meeting the filtration requirements for drinking water production. LTBESWTR has identified membrane filtration (including MF, UF, NF, RO, and cartridge membrane filtration) as separate treatment techniques that can be used as part of a toolbox of treatment options to obtain higher levels of Cryptosporidium removal. This recogni- tion is an important element in the future acceptance of the technology, as previous rules have categorized membrane filtration as an alternative filtration technology or as a process that was regulated by the local primacy agency. Thus, even though the number of facilities that will be required to provide additional removal for compliance with the LT2ESWTR is expected to be small, there will be a greater impact on the membrane industry, as membrane-related regulatory concepts and guidance developed for LTBESWTR will likely be adapted for other membrane facilities.

In terms of membrane system development, there has been substantial diversifi- cation of the types of membrane processes that can be used. Some of these approaches are documented in chapter 6. In general, treatment objectives, economics, and opera- bility drive the selection of membrane processes and system configuration. Smaller membrane systems may incorporate more than a single treatment objective. For example, a coagulant may be fed in front of the membrane to reduce DBP formation potential, whereas for larger facilities, pretreatment may be used to produce more water per unit area of membrane.



FUTURE TRENDS With the amount of change that has been observed over the past 10 years, it is antici- pated that membrane technology will continue to evolve as new products and treatment concepts are developed. Chapter 12 explores some of the concepts that are currently envisioned.

These concepts include changes in system design that will allow for membrane facilities of larger size to be constructed economically. The economies of scale associated with membrane technology will most likely have a favorable impact on smaller facilities as well.

This may also include the introduction of membrane configurations other than hollow fiber. Currently, backwashable spiral wound and cartridge configurations are under development or in testing.

In summary, the growth of MF/UF for drinking water treatment has greatly exceeded the predictions of its early investigators. The membrane filtration process is no longer categorized as a niche or package-plant product, as innovative manufacturers have continued to develop system designs that are economically competitive at large scale. The technology is flexible enough to fit within the engineering requirements for a large conventional drinking water plant. In the membrane field, it is generally accepted that MF/UF have broader applicability as filtration processes and are now favored over the granular media filter because of their superior particle and microorganism removal properties and their ability to be integrity tested. This trend is expected to continue as drinking water regulations become more stringent.

REFERENCES Braghetta, A., M.L. Hotaling, J. Vickers, J.G.

Jacangelo, and B.A. Utne. 1997. Impact of DAF Pretreatment of a Surface Water with Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration: Performance and Estimated Cost. In Pro- ceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Heneghan, K.S., and M.M. Clark. 1991. Sur- face Water Treatment by Combined Ultra- filtration/PAC AdsorptiodCoagulation for Removal of Natural Organics, Turbidity and Bacteria. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Hibler, C. 1987. Personal communication to Memtec.

Jacangelo, J.G., E.M. Aieta, K.E. Karns, E.W. Cummings, and J. Mallevialle. 1989. Assessing Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration for Particle Removal. Jour. AWWA 81( 11).

Jacangelo, J.G., N.L. Patania, J.M. Laine, W. Booe, and J. Mallevialle. 1992. Low Pressure Membrane Filtration for Particle Removal. Denver, Colo.: Awwa Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.

Olivieri, V.P., D.Y. Parker, G.W. Willinghan, and J.C. Vickers. 1991a. Continuous Micro- filtration of Surface Water In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association,

Olivieri, V.P., G. W. Willinghan, and J.C. Vick- ers. 1991b. Continuous Microfittration of Secondary Wastewater Efluent. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Reiss, C.R., and J.S. Taylor. 1991. Taylor Membrane Pretreatment of a Surface Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Low Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal: Applica- tion, Implementation and Regulatory Issues. Washington, D.C.: USEPA.

. 2003. 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142. National Primary Drinking Water Regula- tions: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 68( 154).

Wiesner, M., J. Hackney, S. Sethi, J.G. Jacan- gelo, and J.M. Laine. 1994. Cost Estimate for Membrane Filtration and Conventional Treatment. JOUK AWWA 86(12):38.

Yoo, R.S., D.R. Brown, R.J. Pardini, and G.D. Bentson. 1995. Microfiltration: A Case Study. Jour. AWWA 87(3):38.


Chapter 2

rn AWWA MANUAL

Water Quality Authors:

Thomas F. Speth C. Robert Reiss

Reviewers: Richard Miltner Nicholas Dugan

INTRODUCTION Microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes are designed to remove particulates from water via a sieving mechanism. Each membrane has a distribution of pore sizes that defines what type of barrier is expected under normal operation. Dis- solved organic and inorganic species are not removed by MF or UF membranes without advanced pretreatment. For an MF or UF membrane t o remove a dissolved species, the dissolved species must be transformed into particulate form, such as add- ing powdered activated carbon (PAC) to adsorb taste-and-odor (T&O) chemicals, coagulants to complex dissolved organic carbon (DOC), or oxidants to precipitate iron or manganese. The contaminant-laden particulate is rejected by the membrane.

Table 2-1 presents an overview of what pretreatments are needed for removing specific contaminants. While typically applied to treatment of surface waters, MF or UF membranes can also be used in groundwater applications (although this is not usual because of fouling concerns), such as for iron, manganese, and/or hydrogen sulfide removal.

This chapter and associated appendices reference many studies that evaluated the removal of microbial contaminants, microbial surrogates, and organic or inorganic contaminants by MF and UF membrane processes. The intent of this chapter is to demonstrate through numerous examples that MF and UF membranes are able to remove drinking water contaminants. The studies referenced in this chapter are intended to give the reader confidence in this technology, to demonstrate the immense amount of work with MF and UF membranes that has occurred, and to compare the

7 Copyright (C) 2005 American Water Works Association All Rights Reserved


Table 2-1 contaminants

MF and UF pretreatments needed to achieve substantial removal for specified

Parameter

Pretreatments Needed for Substantial Removal

MF UF

Organic

Inorganic

ParticulateiMicrobial Turbidity

Protozoa

Bacteria

Viruses

TOC

DBP precursor

Color

T&O

Pesticides

Iron and manganese

Arsenic

Hydrogen sulfide

None

None

None

Coagulation

CoagulationPAC

CoagulationPAC

CoagulationPAC

CoagulationPAC

PAC

Oxidation

Coagulation

Oxidation

None

None

None

None

CoagulationPAC

CoagulationPAC

CoagulationPAC

CoagulationPAC

PAC

Oxidation

Coagulation

Oxidation

myriad of operational issues such as membrane type, contaminant type, water source, coagulant usage, adsorbent usage, and oxidant usage.

PARTICLE REMOVAL

Tu rbi d i ty MF and UF membranes are very successful in removing turbidity with typical filtrate values of less than 0.1 ntu. Because of these low values, the filtrate quality is determined by the detection limit of the turbidimeter. The primary characteristic and function of MF and UF systems is the ability to consistently provide a low-turbidity filtrate. This has made MF and UF systems highly applicable for compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule and its derivatives, such as the Interim Enhanced Sur- face Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), that require finished-water turbidity levels of 0.3 ntu or less for 95 percent of the samples within a month. In addition, the positive barrier provided by an MF or UF system results in a consistent filtrate quality that is essentially independent of feedwater quality.

Figure 2-1 and appendix 2A show the turbidity results for numerous studies that were conducted between 1989 and 2001. Figure 2-1 plots the filtrate turbidities, both mean and maximum reported values, versus the average influent turbidity as determined from the reported mean, median, or by averaging the minimum and maximum reported influent turbidity readings. The results show that MF and UF membranes produce an extremely high-quality water regardless of influent turbidity and that there is no apparent difference in turbidity removal between membrane type, manufacturer, or whether a coagulant was used. The reported mean filtrate turbidities had a mean value of 0.097 ntu and a median value of 0.06 ntu (n=72). The reported maximum filtrate turbidities had a mean value of 0.13 ntu, and a median value of 0.08 ntu (n=68).


WATERQUALITY 9

0 Maximum Reported Effluent Turbidity 2 - Mean Effluent Turbidity -

0

h

e v

3 C

-

0.001

c c a, 3

w E

J

I I I I 1 1 1 1 u I I l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1

0.1

IESWTR Limit ----_ c 1

0 0

0

4 --I 1 00 0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000

Average Influent Turbidity (ntu)

Figure 2-1 Summarized influent and effluent turbidity results from the literature review

Of the 122 sets of filtrate turbidity readings shown in Figure 2-1 and listed in appendix 2A, only six show maximum or mean filtrate turbidities above the IESWTR limit of 0.3 ntu. For these six studies, the majority of the filtrate turbidities were below 0.3 ntu, with a smaller number of outlying samples indicated in the high end of the range or dominating the calculated arithmetic mean. Each study contains dozens or hundreds of individual turbidity readings, and high filtrate turbidities for membrane systems are ofien artifacts caused by air bubbles from air-scour cleaning. Although turbidity measurements are not sensitive enough to determine membrane integrity, they are useful for showing that MF and UF membranes produce high-quality filtrate waters that are comparable to, or better than, that of a well-operated conventional clarification and filtration facility.

Particles Particle counting has greater sensitivity than turbidity for measuring the effectiveness of particle removal by MFAJF membranes. Figure 2-2 and appendix 2B show numerous particle-counting results under various conditions. Figure 2-2 plots minimum, mean, and maximum particle-count log removals versus the average influent particle count as determined from the reported mean or by averaging the minimum and maximum reported influent particle-count readings. When a log removal was greater than a certain value, it was considered a minimum log removal. In general, log removals for both MF and UF membranes, with and without coagulants, varied between 2 and 5. This is demonstrated in the studies with high influent particle counts #/mL greater than 5,000. The reason for the wide range of log removals at lower influent concentrations was related to how accurately the particle counters measured low concentrations of particles in the filtrate. As with turbidity, air bubbles introduced during backwashing and other artifacts in the filtrate artificially lower the reported log removals. This indicates that the removal of pathogenic microbes should be evaluated directly or conservative surrogates should be developed.



-

I 7

-

- -,

0 Maximum Log Removal 0 MeanLog Removal

A Minimum Log Removal

- - - - - - - -

5 4 0% O 4

Am A ri 1 A Am A ri 1 A A A

0 10 102 103 1 o4 105

Average Influent Particle Counts (#/mL)

Figure 2-2 Summarized MF/UF particle count log removals from the literature review

MICROBIAL CONTROL MF and UF membranes sieve particles from water based on the pore size associated with the specific membrane material. For commercially available membrane systems, pore sizes are generally less than 0.3 microns. Therefore, turbidity and microbial removal can be essentially complete. One complicating factor for predicting microbial removal is that a natural, or induced, fouling cake layer can improve rejection characteristics (Jacangelo et al. 1995a; DeCarolis et al. 2001). The fouling cake layer behaves as a second barrier to microbiological and particulate transport. Jacangelo et al. (1995b) studied both natural fouling and induced fouling with kaolinite and found that fouling improved rejection characteristics.

Gia rdia and Cryp tospo ridiu m Table 2-2 lists the studies that have evaluated Giardia cyst and Cryptosporidium oocyst removal. Because Giardia and Cryptosporidium are rarely seen in natural waters at concentrations high enough to accurately determine log removals, the studies shown in Table 2-2 used feedwater spiked with pathogens. This is not easily done because it is often difficult to obtain enough Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts for a long-term study at pilot-scale flow rates. Therefore, some studies spiked a known number into a batch feed tank and monitored the membrane effluent while feeding from that tank. The log removal was calculated by the total number recovered in the eMuent compared to the total number spiked into the feed tank. Even with this technique, it is difficult to quantify log removals because of the effectiveness of MFAJF processes in rejecting microbial agents. Often, the log removal is represented as greater than a certain number, which indicates that the filtrate numbers were below the quantification limit. For Giardia and Cryptosporidium, the log removals found (Table 2-2) were generally greater than 4.5 for both MF and UF membranes.


WATER QUALITY 11

Table 2-2 Giardia cyst and Cryptosporidium oocyst results for MF and UF membrane systems

Giardia Cysts Cryptosporidiurn Oocysts

Influent Influent Reported Mean Log Mean Log

Reference Water Membrane Type (#/lo0 mL) Removal W O O mL) Removal

NSF 2000a Highland reservoir Microza MF 1 1.8E6TN >5.8 1 .O1EaTN >6.8

NSF 2000b Highland reservoir Aquasource UF 8.4E6TN >5.5 8.2E7TN >6.5

NSF 2000c Highland reservoir Ultrabar UF 13.8E6TN

NSF 2000d Highland reservoir ZeeWeed 500 UF 8.6E6TN >5.3 1.1E7TN 6.4

>4.9 9.9E7TN >5.8

Dwyer et al. Laboratory clean KochPMPW UF NR 5.7 NR 5.7 1995

Jacangelo et al. Laboratory clean Three MF 5.4E4-1.5E5 4.6->5.2 2.634-8.234 4.2-24.9 1995a Three UF 5.4E4-1.5E5 >4.7->5.2 >4.4->4.9

Bull Run Reservoir Three MF 2.8E4-1.3E5 >6.4->7.0 l.lE4-7.4E4 >6.0->6.9 Lake Elsman Three UF 2.6E4-1.OE5 >6.4->7.0 2.434-9.1E4 ~6 .3 ->7 .0 Seine River

Kachalsky New York Moustic MF NR 5.0 NR 4.9

1995 treated sewage Ceramem MF 5.8 5.7

Membralox MF 7.3 >7.3

and Masterson conventionally Moustic UF 7.3 6.9

Ceramem UF 7.4 7.0

Membralox UF >7.3 >7.1 Memcor CMF >6.6 >6.4

Movahed et al. Guyardotte River Memcor CMF 1.0E7TN >7.0 NR NR 1995

Coffey et al. Colorado River Memcor CMF 2.8E4TN >4.4 NR NR 1993 2. 8E4TN >4.4

2.6E4TN >4.4

Pearce and England surface Fibrotex MF NR NR 1,000 2-3 Hanks 1993 water

Olivieri et al. Fishing Creek Memcor CMF 1.OE4 >5.6 42.5 >4.8 1991

NR = Not reported TN = Total number of cysts added to system

Jacangelo et al. (1991) and Coffey et al. (1993) studied the removal of Giardia by MF and UF. Both studies demonstrated removals greater than 4 log, with no cysts measured in the filtrate. In these cases, the level of removal was limited by the concentration of the organism in the feedwater. A more recent study reported that at bench scale, all the tested membranes (three MF and three UF) except one (MF, which contained a defective O-ring seal) removed the Cryptosporidium and Giardia to below the detection limit (1 cystfL) (Jacangelo et al. 1995b). These results were confirmed a t pilot scale. Removals ranged from 6 to 7 logs and were limited only by the influent concentration of the Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Therefore, it appeared that both polymeric MF and UF membranes were absolute barriers to protozoan cysts as long as the membrane was intact for the microbial challenge concentrations studied.



Table 2-3 Other microbial results for MF and UF membrane systems ~ ~~ ~

Reported Influent Mean* Log Parameter Reference Water Membrane "ype (#/lo0 mL) Removal

Total coliform

Fecal coliform

Total coliform

Total coliform

E. coli

Pseudomonas Aerusginosa

Total coliform

Fecal coliform

Total coliform

Total Coliform E. coli

Fecal Coliform and Enterocoeci

Pseudomonas dimunuta

E. coli

Adham et al. 2001

DeCarolis et al. 2001

Glucina and Laine, 2001

Jacangelo et al. 1997

Kachalsky and Masterson, 1995

Movahed et al. 1995

Coffey et al. 1993

Willinghan et al. 1993

Olivieri et al. 1991

Primary treated ZeeWeed 500 UF wastewater Sterapore UF

ZeeWeed 500 UF Sterapore UF

Tertiary-treated HYDRAcap UF wastewater wt FeC13

Seine River Aquasource UF

Laboratory clean Three MF Three UF

Laboratory clean Three MF Three UF

Lake Elsman Two MF Bull Run Res. Two UF

New York Moustic MF conventionally Moustic UF treated sewage Ceramem MF

Ceramem UF Membralox MF Z8 UF

Guyardotte River Memcor CMF

Colorado River Memcor CMF

Secondary-effluent Memcor CMF wastewater

Fishing Creek Memcor CMF

(2.2E6-9E7) 1.7E7 & (2.3E6-5E7) 9.536

(2.8E5-1.7E8) 5E6 & (7.OE5-1.1E7) 2.336

479,000

(800-1E5) 2.OE4

6.637 6.637-9.638

1.5E8 1.5E8-5.3E8

11-972 6-160

NR

2.836

(14-240) 90 (9.837-2.738)

NR

7.OE9

2.OE7 3.OE7 2.937

>6.9 & >6.7 5.6 & >6.7

>6.4 & >6.1 >6.4 & >6.1

1.2-> 7.0

>4.3

>7.8 5.6->9.0

>8.2 >8.2->8.7

>0.7->3.0 >0.7->2.2

1.4 1.8 2.8 2.2 4.9 4.0

>6.1

>1.7 >6.0->6.4

2-6

>9.8

>7.3 >7.4 >7.4

*Influent range shown in parentheses. NR = Not reported

Other Microbial Agents Table 2-3 shows the removals of various other microorganisms by MF and UF membranes. The studies primarily evaluated total coliform, fecal coliform, and Pseudomonas agents. The log removals varied from greater than 0.7 to greater than 9.8; however, the low removals were hampered by low influenueffluent values and the same minimum detection limitations as that seen for the Cryptosporidiun and Giardza studies. When the studies that were conducted with low influent values are excluded (below 100,000 #/ 100 mL), the log removals are above 5.5 for both membrane types.


WATER QUALITY 13

Table 2-4 Bacillus spore results for MF and UF membrane systems

Reported Influent Mean* Reference Water Membrane Type (cfu/L) Log Removal

Robert et al. Bowling Green reservoir MF NR 3.5 1999 UF w/ ferric 3.6

Trimboli et al. 1999 Tau Tau stream, Memcor CMF New Zealand

(5.OE3-l.lE6) >3.7->6.0

Freeman et al. 1997 Finished water Memcor CMF 1.890 1.7

Owens et al. 1999 Hillsborough River ZeeWeed 500 M F

ZeeWeed 500 MF w/alum

Memcor CMF

Memcor CMF wlaium

1.OE8 5.0 5.4

4.2 4.9

6.3 6.3

6.9 5.6

* Influent range shown in parentheses. NR = Not reported

Aerobic Spores As a surrogate measure for Giardia and Cryptosporidium, Bacillus spores have shown great promise based on the limited number of studies conducted (Table 2-4). The log removals for the four studies varied between 1.7 and greater than 6.9, with no distin- guishable difference between MF and UF membranes, or whether a coagulant was also used. The 1.7-log removal result was likely influenced by low influent values that resulted in low effluent values. Excluding that reference, the log removals are above 3.5 logs.

Viruses The general distinction between MF and UF membranes is that UF membranes can reject viruses whereas MF membranes cannot. Table 2-5 shows studies that have been conducted with viruses. The predominant virus of choice was MS-2 bacteriophage because of the ability to obtain large amounts for spiking purposes and its acceptance as a good surrogate for enteric viruses. Generally, UF membranes removed a greater percentage of viruses. UF membranes typically removed greater than 3.0 logs of viruses, while MF membranes typically removed less than 2.5 logs. Given the size of MS-2 phage (0.024 micron) relative to the pore size of the MF membranes tested (0.1 to 0.2 pm), the relatively high level of virus removal by MF membranes is explained by either attach- ment of the viruses to larger-sized particulates naturally occurring in the feedwater or by the retention of viruses by the fouling (cake) layer at the membrane surface.

ORGANIC CONTROL MF and UF membranes are designed to remove particulates, not dissolved organic species, although some reduction has been noted in piloting and full-scale installa- tions. To remove dissolved organics with MF and U F membranes, other processes, such as coagulants and adsorbents, have to be integrated into the treatment scheme.



Table 2-5 MS-2 bacteriophage results for MF and UF membrane systems

Reference Reported Influent Mean*

Water Membrane Type (#lt) Log Removal

Adham et al. 2001

Gramith et al. 2001

NSF 2000f

NSF 2000g

NSF 2000h

Kruithof e t al. 1999

Jacangelo et al. 1997

Kruithof et al. 1997

Dwyer et al. 1995

Jacangelo et al. 1995a

Coffey et al. 1993

Olivieri et al. 1991

Primary treated wastewater

San Diego Aqueduct

San Diego Aqueduct

San Diego Aqueduct

San Diego Aqueduct

Yssel Lake

Laboratory clean

Ijssel Lake

Laboratory clean

Bull Run Reservoir Lake Elsman Seine River

Colorado River

Australian Wastewater

Zenon UF Mitsubishi UF

UF #1 w/ alum UF #3 UF #4

Hydranautics (HYDRACap UF)

Ionics UF (UF-1-7T)

Zenon UF (ZW-500) w/ alum

X-flow UF

Three MF Three UF

MF UF

Koch Lab 5UF (PMPW) (PM10) (PM500)

Three MF Three UF

Memcor MF (4M1)

Memcor M F (CMF)

(1.7E4-2.5E6) 1.4E5 & >4.1 & >3.7+ (4E3-8E5) 4.534

(8E7-6E9)

(2.8E 9-1.7E10) (4.5E9-1.1E10)

(7.438-2.839) (3.5E9-6.OE9)

(3.5El0-5.9E10) (2.4El0-4.6E10)

18.000

(140-745) NR

(l.OE5-l.lE5) (2.234-2.534)

(2.4E3-1.4E4)

NR NR

10E5-10E12

1.3E9 3.OE10 1.6E10

(2-2.034)

>4.1 & >3.7'

5.4-5.6 4.0-4.7 4.0-5.6

3.9-4.7 3.44.3

4.0-5.7 2.9-4.3

>5.5-~5.8 1.7-2.1

4.9

>1.5 1.5->7.0

0.7-2.3 >5.4

2.0-6.3

>6.2->6.8 1.5-4.0

7

1.7 2.0 2.9

>2->6*

*Influent range shown in parentheses.

$Human enterovirus. Total coliphage.

NR = Not reported

The organic contaminants can then coagulate or adsorb, hence associating themselves with particulates that can be rejected by the MF or UF membrane.

Dissolved Organic Carbon/Disinfection By-Prod uct Precursors Integrated MF and UF membranes can control DOC and disinfection by-product (DBP) precursors when coupled with coagulation adsorptive processes. A list of such studies is included in appendix 2C. Appendix 2C does not distinguish between DOC and total organic carbon (TOC). The percent difference between the two is typically small as inferred by the low percent removal (generally below 20 percent) for systems that did


WATER QUALITY 15

not use a coagulant or adsorbent. Also, no distinction is made between the various methods of assessing DBP precursors. The differences in results between formation potential, uniform formation condition, and simulated distribution system assessments can be great; but generally the percent removal conclusions will be similar, especially considering the wide range of removals caused by the operational differences between the membrane studies.

Coagulation Appendix 2C shows DOC, trihalomethane (THM) precursor, haloacetic acid (HAA) precursor, and a limited amount of total organic halide (TOX) precursor data from referenced MF/UF studies with and without coagulants. The data show that without coagulants the DOC, THM precursor, HAA precursor, and TOX precursor removals were generally below 20 percent. With alum or ferric coagulants, the percent removals ranged between 12 and 83 for DOC, 30 and 88 for THM precursors, 39 and 92 for HAA precursors, and 20 and 85 for TOX precursors. The amount of removal was a function of coagulant dose, coagulant type, pH, temperature, mixing time, and mixing velocity. This is the same removal mechanism as seen in conventional treatment plants, although slightly higher removals can theoretically occur in integrated membrane systems because greater coagulant concentrations can be obtained with membrane systems because of the ability to control the average floc retention time.

Adsorbents Adsorbents, such as PAC and iron oxides, can remove DOC/DBP precursors. The removal is dependent on the DOC concentration, adsorbent dose, DOC adsorbability, pH, temperature, and contact time. In conventional treatment plants, PAC is usually not chosen for DOC or DBP precursor removal because the heterogeneous precursor material is not adsorbed well enough and the contact time is too short to allow PAC to be more cost-effective than granular activated carbon. Less is known about using iron oxide adsorbents, but similar conclusions are likely. For integrated adsorbent membrane systems, the average adsorbent contact time can be increased, resulting in greater adsorbent concentration within the membrane system. This can lead to greater effectiveness for using adsorbents with membranes for organic compound control.

Appendix 2C lists studies conducted with integrated adsorbent membrane systems. Without adsorbent or coagulant, the removal of DOC, THM precursors, HAA precursors, and TOX precursors were generally below 20 percent. With PAC addition, the percent removals ranged between 7 and 82 for DOC, 0 and 97 for THM precursors, 26 and 81 for HAA precursors, and 20 and 85 for TOX precursors. For iron oxide addition, the percent removals ranged between 21 and 75 for DOC, and between 30 and 88 for THM precursors. These results show that integrated adsorbent membrane systems can be effective in removing precursors, but it is a site-, adsorbent-, and dose-specific phenomenon that must be evaluated for each utility contemplating such a system.

Color and Taste and Odor The issues involving the removal of color-causing compounds are similar to that for DOC, although color-causing compounds tend to be somewhat easier to remove than DOC. Color removal is highly variable, ranging between 0 and 100 percent as shown in Table 2-6. Coagulants will greatly assist in the removal of color-causing compounds, as demonstrated by Thompson and Galloway (2001) and Reiss et al. (1999). Clair et al. (1997) found that PAC can assist in the removal of color, although as with DOC removal, it is expected that high PAC closes would be required for substantive removal.



Table 2-6 Color results for MF and UF membrane systems -~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~

Reported Influent Color* Color Removal Reference Water Membrane Type Coagulant (Pt-Co) (%)

Best et al. 2001

Bourke et al. 2001

Cat6 et al. 2001

Crawford and Bach 2001

Glucina and Laine 2001

Gluzman et al. 2001

Gramith et al. 2001

Mueller and Sloan 2001

Sorgini and Ashe 2001

Thompson and Galloway 2001

NSF 2000h

Maurato et al. 1999

Reiss et al. 1999

Clair et al. 1997

Lozier and Jones 1997

Red Deer River

River Murray

California surface water

Jackson. Miss.

Seine River

Pelican Lake

San Diego Aqueduct

Salmon River

Jesse Creek

Lincoln pond

Stonington pond

San Diego Aqueduct

Lake Ontario Huntsville Croton Lake

Hillsborough River

Kansas River

Isatkoak Reservoir

ZeeWeed 500 UF 25 mg/L alum 25-35 mg/L alum 50 mg/L alum

MIEX + Memcor MIEX resin CMF-s

ZeeWeed 1000 UF None

ZeeWeed 500 UF KMn04

Aquasource UF None

ZeeWeed 500UF FeCl3, CaCls, or alum

UF 30 mgiL alum

ZeeWeed 500 UF 10-15 m g L ACH

Microza MF 10-15 mg/L alum

Memcor CMF None

Ozone + UF None 10 mg/L FeC13 22 mg/L FeC13

30 mg/L Alum

40 mg/L FeC13

ZeeWeed 500 UF

ZeeWeed 500 UF

ZeeWeed 500 UF None Fez (so41 3

Memcor CMF None

Memcor CMF None 5 mgiL FeCl3 5 mgiL PAC 20 mg/L PAC

Memcor CMF None

5-85 5-85

35

15

23

26-32

(6.5)

(48)

NR

14

17.4

140

8.5

21 33 10

195 101

48

8-15

60

73 64 83

80

78

86

0

>90

76

66

67

100

17-54 50-75 82-90

76

95 100 100

22 90

23

10 7 27 37

25-66

*Influent range shown in parentheses. ACH = Aluminum chlorohydrate

Integrated adsorbent membrane systems can be very effective for T&O control as shown in Table 2-7. The removals without a coagulant or adsorbent were between 21 and 49 percent. With coagulation or PAC, most of the removals ranged from 49 to 100 percent for T&O, geosmin, and 2-methylisoborneol. The issuesDimitations for T&O removal are similar to those for the removal of DOC and color.


WATER QUALITY 17

Table 2-7 Taste-and-odor results for MF and UF membrane systems

Reported Influent T&O Removal Reference Water Membrane Type Coagulant (ng/L) (%I

Braghetta et al. Medina River Aquasource UF 2001 Koch UF

HYDRAcap UF

Aquasource UF Koch UF HYDRAcap UF

Saltonstall Lake ZeeWeed 500 UF Ford et al. 2001

Schideman et al. Lake Michigan ZeeWeed 1000 UF 2001

Sorgini and Ashe Lincoln Pond Memcor CMF 2001

Laine et al. 1999 Delta River UF Apie Reservoir Delta River

h i s s et al. 1999 Hillsborough River ZeeWeed 500 UF

Memcor CMF

10 mg/L PAC

20 mg/L PAC

20 mg/L alum 10 mgL PAC 20 mgL alum 20 mg/L PAC

10 mg/L PAC 20 mg/L PAC 30 mg/L PAC

None

None 8 mg/L PAC 40 m g L PAC

None

Fez(SOd3

None

NR

37 M 30 G

30-150

3.2 TON

9 TON 5 TON 9 TON

63 G

G = Geosmin M = Methylisoborneol NR = Not reported TON = Threshold odor number

Pesticides Integrated PAC/membrane systems can be effective for removing pesticides. Anselme et al. (1991) found that a PACKJF system was effective for removing pesticides and synthetic organics. Jack and Clark (1998) found that a PACKJF system was able to remove 61 percent of the influent atrazine, and 70 percent of the influent cyanazine, at 10 mg/L PAC. Clair et al. (1997) reported atrazine removals of 57 percent at 5 mg/L PAC, and 89 percent at 20 mg/L PAC. These results are likely similar to those obtained with PAC addition in conventional plants, although as previously discussed, the adsorbent retention time can be increased in integrated membrane systems, which can lead to greater adsorption. The final degree of adsorption is dependent on other factors as well, such as PAC type, competitive adsorption from natural organic matter or other contaminants, contact time, PAC dose, temperature, and pH (if the pesticide is ionic in nature).



INORGANIC CONTROL Like the removal of organics by MF and UF membranes, removal of inorganics are related to what percentage of the species is in particulate state. This can be enhanced by using a coagulant, oxidant, or ion-exchange resin. Some studies have shown that inorganic species can be removed by a charged-repulsion phenomena if the membrane is highly charged. However, this phenomena occurs to the greatest extent in laboratory- clean waters, which do not have naturally occurring ions that can neutralize the membrane surface. Therefore, for MF and UF membranes, removal of inorganic species is limited to the integrated use of a coagulant, oxidant, or ion-exchange resin.

Iron and Manganese The removal of iron and manganese is dependent on the oxidation of these species so that they precipitate. The precipitate can be rejected by MF or UF membranes. Like conventional plants, iron and manganese can be oxidized by either aeration or by chemical oxidants, such as permanganate, chlorine, or ozone. Aeration is usually more effective for iron control than for manganese control.

The number of studies evaluating iron and manganese removal is limited and show variable results (Table 2-8), especially for the harder-to-oxidize manganese. Seven studies with iron showed greater than 70 percent removal. For manganese control, Schneider et al. (2001) evaluated the effectiveness of various oxidants with MF and found that chlorine dioxide was the most effective. Crawford and Bach (2001) found that manganese removal was highly variable depending on coagulant and pH. Neemann et al. (2001) found that manganese removal was highly variable depending on the potassium permanganate dosage used. Generally, integrated membranes can remove iron reliably because of the ease of oxidation, whereas manganese removal is more difficult, being more dependent on the oxidant and the oxidant dose.

Other Inorganics Arsenic can be removed with MF or UF membranes but only if an adsorbent or ferric coagulant is used. Jeffcoat et al. (2001) showed good arsenic removal using an integrated UF system with activated alumina. The removal of the strongly adsorbing As(V) was much greater than the poorly adsorbing As(II1). As shown in Table 2-8, Chang et al. (2001) found good arsenic removals using ferric chloride, while Shorney et al. (2001) found good removals using ferric sulfate.

In some instances, such as arsenic, transforming the species to a higher oxidation state allows for charge repulsion by a tight and charged UF membrane. Amy et al. (1995) found that a 10,000 Dalton membrane was able to achieve 63 percent rejection of As(V), whereas it was not able to reject As(II1). However, Yoon et al. (2001) and Liang et al. (2001) demonstrated that a charged UF membrane was not able to reject perchlorate in natural water because of the neutralization of the membrane surface by the natural mixture of ionic species in the water (Table 2-8). It should be noted that for arsenic and perchlorate removal, a coagulant or an ion-exchange resin must be incorporated into the membrane system.

Hydrogen sulfide is not generally removed with MF and UF membranes because of the relative costs when compared to removal via aeration. However, in specific applications, such as those requiring high removals, MF and UF can be effectively uti- lized. Studies by Talton et al. (2001) showed essentially complete removal of dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas using a chlorine-oxidatiodmembrane filtration process.


WATER QUALITY 19

Table 2-8 Inorganic results for MF and UF membrane systems

Removal Reported Oxidantl Influent Parameter Reference Water Membrane Type Coagulant (gn) (%)

Arsenic Chang et al. Yellowstone River Two UF units 200 1 Two MF units

Arsenic Shorney et al. Salt River Project Microza MF 2001 Canal (Arizona)

Iron Clark and Lower Sunshine Griffin 2001 Reservoir

Iron Paxman et al. Rockport 2001 Reservoir

Iron Chan et al. 1997 West River

Iron/ Lynk et al. Edwards Aquifer Manganese 2001

Iron/ Schneider et al. Alcovy River Manganese 2001

Iron/ Sorgini and Lincoln pond Manganese Ashe 2001

Iron/ OConnell and Spectacle pond Manganese Danos 1997

Manganese Crawford and Jackson, Miss. Bach 2001

Perchlorate Liang et al. Colorado River 2001

Perchlorate Yoon et al. Laboratory 2001 Colorado River

Memcor CMF-s MF ZeeWeed 500 UF UF

Microza MF Memcor CMF-s MF ZeeWeed 500 UF UF

Microza MF Memcor CMF-s MF ZeeWeed 500 UF UF

Memcor CMF

Memcor CMF Aquasource UF Koch UF ZeeWeed 500 UF

MF Aquasource UF

Aquasource UF

MF

Memcor CMF

UF

ZeeWeed 500 UF

Osmonics GM UF

Osmonics GM UF

None 5 mg/L FeC13

None

5-15 mg/L Fez(SO4h

10-15 mg/L FedS04)3

None

10 mg/L FeC13

15 mg/L AC

None

None chlorine ClOZ KMnO4

None

Ozone

10-15 mg/L ACH 10 mg/L alum

None

None

14.1-17.1 1.3-6.7

5

16-18

4

320

45-101

190 242

1,390 Fe 50 Mn

NR

140 Fe 120 Mn

20-300 Fe 300-490 Mn

180

85 & 1,760

NR

8 77-85

4 ASW 8 As(v) 8 As(V) 4 AsW)

4- >96 AS(V) 41- >96 AdV) 36- >96 As(V) 23- >96 As(V)

- 56-83 As(II1) 60-82 As(II1)

90 AdIII)

91

70 70 70 70

90 >96

> 96 Fe > 40 Mn

100 Fe 122 Mn 98 Fe I 2 9 Mn 100 Fe I 99 Mn 98 Fe I 7 0 Mn

100 Fe 91 Mn

97 Fe 91 Mn

50-100

0-10

75-80 < 5

AC = Polyaluminum chloride ACH = Aluminum chlorohydrate NR = Not reported



REFERENCES Adham, S., P. Gagliardo, R.P. Merlo, R.S.

Trussell, and R. Trussell. 2001. Evaluation of Submerged MBR Technology for Water Reclamation. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Adham, S.S., J.G. Jacangelo, and J.M. Laine. 1995. Low-Pressure Membranes: Assess- ing Integrity. Jour. AWWA, 87(3):62.

Akesson, K., K. Marine, and M. Dimitriou. 2001. Small System Uses UF Membranes to Increase Capacity and Improve Water Quality. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Amy, G., P. Brandhuber, S. Dundorf, S. Kang, and P. WesterhofE 1995. Arsenic Rejection by Membranes: A Comparison of Arsenic Forms and Membrane Types. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Anselme, C., J.L. Bersillon, and J. Malle- vialle. 1991. The Use of Powdered Acti- vated Carbon for the Removal of Specific Pollutants in Ultrafiltration Processes. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.

Atencio, M., S. Chellam, and S. Adham. 1999. Treatment of Utah Lake Water with Mem- brane Processes. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo: American Water Works Association.

Bersillon, J.L., C. Anselme, and J. Malle- vialle. 1991. Ultrafiltration in Drinking Water Treatment Long Term Estimation of Operating Conditions and Water Quality for 3 Water Production Plants. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Best, G., D. Maurato, M. Singh, and D. Olson. 200 1. Application of Immersed Ultrafiltra- tion Membranes on High Turbidity and High TOC Surface Waters. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Bourke, M., S. Harrisonn, B. Long, and T. Lebeau. 2001. MIEX Resin Pretreatment Followed by Microfiltration as an Alterna- tive to Nanofiltration for DBP Precursor Removal. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Braghetta, A., M.L. Hotaling, J. Vickers, J.G. Jacangelo, and B.A. Utne. 1997. Impact of DAF Pretreatment of a Surface Water with Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration: Performance and Estimated Cost. In Pro- ceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Braghetta, A., M. Price, C. Kolkhorst, and J. Thaxton. 2001. Use of Physical and Chem- ical Pretreatment Ahead of Ultrafiltration or Surface Water Treatment in San Anto- nio, Texas. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Chan, U.S., Y.B. Feng, T.C. Wang, Z.J. Zhou, H.U. Song, and S. Zhu. 1997. Microfiltra- tion and Ultrafiltration for Drinking Water Treatment in Macao-A Case Study. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Chang, Y., K. Choo, M.M. Benjamin, and S. Reiber. 1998. Combined Adsorption-UF Process Increases TOC Removal. Jour.

Chang, Y., S. Reiber, and Z. Chowdhury. 2001. Using Coagulation Assisted Mem- brane Processes for Arsenic Removal: A Long-Term Evaluation. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Clair, D., S. Randtke, P. Adams, and S. Shreve. 1997. Microfiltration of a High-Turbidity Surface Water With Post-Treatment by Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Clark, J.R., and D.V. GriEn. 2001. Mem- brane Microfiltration for Small Wyoming Community. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Coffey, B.M., M.H. Stewart, and K.L. Wattier. 1993. Evaluation of Microfiltration for Metropolitans Small Domestic Water Sys- tems. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Colvin, C., R. Brauer, K. DiNatale, and T. Scribner. 2001. Comparing Laser Turbi- dimetry with Conventional Methods for Monitoring MF and UF Membrane Integ- rity. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

AWWA, 90(5):90-102.


WATER QUALITY 2 1

C8t6, P., R. Simon, and D. Maurato. 2001. New Developments in Immersed Mem- branes. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Crawford, S.L., and D.P. Bach. 2001. Expand- ing and Upgrading a Conventional Water Treatment Plant-The Membrane Alter- native. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Crozes, G., and T. Seacord. 1999. Ultrafiltra- tion Meets Multiple Treatment Objective in Lime SoRening Plants. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

DeCarolis, J., S. Hong, J. Taylor, S. Naser, S. Alt, and M. Wilf 2001. Effect of Operating Conditions on Flux Decline and Removal Efficiency of Solid, Organic and Microbial Contaminants During Ultrafiltration of Tertiary Wastewater for Water Reuse. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.

Delphos, P.J., D.L. Klausner, and E.D. Hunt- ley. 2001. A Small Systems DBP Compli- ance Strategy Using Low Pressure Membranes. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Duranceau, S.J., J.A. Manning, R.K. Ander- son, J. Foster, H.J. Losch, F. Kane, and C. Anderson. 2000. Integration of Lime SoR- ening and Ultrafiltration: A Powerful Water Quality Combination. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Water Quality Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Durand-Bourlier, L., K. Glucina, and J.M. Laine. 1999. Assessment of Filtration Mode for Ultrafiltration Membrane Pro- cess. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Dwyer, P.L., M.R. Collins, A.B. Margolin, and S.B. Hogan. 1995. Assessment of MS2 Bacteriophage Giardia Cysts, Cryptospo- ridium Oocysts, and Organic Carbon Removals by Hollow Fiber Ultrafiltration. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Ford, R., L. Wancho, N. Wiley, J. Lozier, C. Weng, G. Huntley, and D. Smith. 2001. Optimizing DBP and Taste and Odor Removal Using Coagulation and PAC in Conjunction With an Immersed Mem- brane System. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Freeman, S.D.N, L.A. Robbins, and R.R. Alberts. 1997. Cost Comparison: Microfil- tration vs. Conventional Surface Water Treatment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Furrey, M., J. Schaefer, M. Geho, and T. Gallo. 2000. Microfiltration for Treatment of Waste Filter Washwater at a North Jer- sey Surface Water Treatment Plant. In Proceedings of the AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Gagliardo, P., S. Adham, R. Merlo, and R. Trussell. 2001. Evaluation of Three Pre- treatment Processes on RO Membrane Performance on Reclaimed Water. In Pro- ceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Galjaard, G., J.A.M.H. Hofman, E.T. Baars, and J.P. van der Hoek. 1999. Quick-Scan: Comparing Ultrafiltration Membranes Performances on Amsterdam Rhine Canal Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Glucina, K., and J.M. Laine. 2001. Integrated Membrane Systems for Surface Water Treatment: Comparison of UF Versus Con- ventional Pretreatment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Glucina, K., J.M. Laine, and C. Robert. 1997. Integrated Multi-Objective Membrane Systems for Surface Water Treatment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.

Gluzman, R., R. Home, and J. Gemin. 2001. Organic Color Removal With Mem- branes-A Small System Success Story. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.



Gramith, K., S. Adham, P. Gagliardo, R. Sakaji, and B. Bartely. 2001. Testing of Low-Pressure Membrane Systems for CDHS Certification and EPA/NSF. In Pro- ceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Heneghan, K.S., and M.M. Clark. 1991. Sur- face Water Treatment by Combined Ultra- filtrationPAC AdsorptiodCoagulation for Removal of Natural Organic, Turbidity, and Bacteria. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Huey, B., J. Heckler, R. Joost, G. Crozes, and T. Gallier. 1999. Combination of Powdered Activated Carbon and Low Pressure Mem- brane Filtration: A Process Alternative for SRP Water Treatment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Jacangelo, J.G., S.S. Adham, and J.M. Laine. 1995a. Mechanism of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and MS2 Virus Removal by M F and UF. Jour: AWWA, 87(9):107-121.

Jacangelo, J.G., S.S. Adham, and J.M. Laine. 1997. Membrane Filtration for Microbial Removal. Denver, Colo.: Awwa Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.

Jacangelo, J.G, E.M. Aieta, ICE. Carns, E.W. Cummings, and J. Mallevialle. 1989. Assess- ing Hollow-Fiber Ultrafiltration for Particle Removal. Jouz AWWA, 81(11):6&75.

Jacangelo, J.G, J.M. Laine, K.E. Carns, E.W. Cummings, and J. Mallevialle. 1991. Low- Pressure Membrane Filtration for Remov- ing Giardia and Microbial Indicators.

Jacangelo, J.G., J.M. Laine, E.W. Cummings, and S.S. Adham. 1995b. UF With Pre- treatment for Removing DBP Precursors.

Jack, A.M., and M.M. Clark. 1998. Using PAC-UF to Treat a Low-Quality Surface Water. Jour: AWWA, 90(11):83-95.

Kachalsky, L.A., and T. Masterson. 1995. Membrane Filtration of Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Kostelecky, J.D., M.C. Ellersick, W.W. Trask Jr., B.M. Coffey, and D.A. Foust. 1995. Implementation of Microfiltration for Met- ropolitans Small Domestic Water Sys- tems. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

JOUZ AWWA, 83(9):97-106.

JOUK AWWA, 87(3):100-112.

Kothari, N., W.A. Lovins, C. Robert, S. Chen, K. Kopp, and J.S. Taylor. 1997. Pilot Scale Microfiltration at Manitowoc. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Kruithof; J.C., P. Hiemstra, P. Kamp, J.P. van der Hoek, and J.C. Schippers. 1997. Inte- grated Multi-Objective Membrane Sys- tems for Control of Microbials and DBP- Precursors. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Kruithof, J.C., P. Hiemstra, P. Kamp, J.P. van der Hoek, and J.C. Schippers. 1999. Disin- fection by Integrated Membrane Systems for Water Treatment. In Proceedings ofthe AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Laine, J.M., A. Bruchet, J. Jacangelo, K. Glu- cina, and M.R. Chevalier. 1999. Use of Membrane Processes for Taste-and-Odor Removal. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Liang, S., K. Scott, R. Scherzinger, and G.L. Amy. 2001. Perchlorate Removal by Reverse Osmosis, Nanofiltration, and Ultrafiltration. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Lozier, J.C., and G. Jones. 1997. Meeting the Challenges of the New Drinking Water Regulations With Dual-Membrane Treat- ment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Lozier, J.C., G. Jones, and W. Bellamy. 1997. Integrated Membrane Treatment in Alaska. Jour: AWWA, 89(10):50.

Lozier, J., S. Kommineni, W. Farmer, Z. Chowdhury, and M. Ring. 2000. Impacts of Slowsand Filtration, Bio-Optimized Rapid-Sand Filtration and Microfiltration Pretreatment on Nanofiltration of Colo- rado River Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Water Quality Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Lynk, S.V., J.H. Briggs, and M. Petry. 2001. Innovative Two Stage Membrane Design Provides Efficient Solution for Meeting Immediate Water Needs: Case Study- City of Georgetown Southside WTP. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.


WATER QUALITY 23

Manning, J.A., S.J. Duranceau, and R.K. Anderson. 2001. Comparison of Sand Fil- tration and Immersed Membrane Filtra- tion for Treatment of a Lime Softened Florida Surface Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Maurato, D, G. Best, M. Singh, and S. Basu. 1999. Reduction of Disinfection Byproducts, Dissolved Organic Carbon and Color Using Immersed Ultrafiltration Membranes. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

McAleese, P., C. Moody, S. Duranceau, B. Cor- bett, and K. Thorner. 1999. Integrated Membrane Systems Pilot Test Program for the Olivenhain Water Storage Project. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.

McNamara, T.D., and T.C. Gavin. 1997. Microfiltration Project Case Study, Mar- quette MI. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Miller, M.P. 2001. The Utilization of Ultrafil- tration Technology in Surface Waters. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Moreno, T., P. Shields, C. Kolkhorst, J. Thax- ton, B. Levine, and A. Cooper. 2001. Bexar Met: Managing Water for Future Genera- tions. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Moulin, C., A.T. Tazi-Pain, V. Barraud, and M. Faivre. 1993. Use of Organic Microfil- tration Membranes for Groundwater Treatment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Movahed, B.B., T.L. Myers, and C.R. Crow. 1995. Non-Conventional Membrane Fil- tration Enhances Conventional Treat- ment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Mueller, P.A., and L. Sloan. 2001. Retrofitting Membrane Filtration Into an Existing Direct Filtration Water Treatment Plant. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Neemann, J., S. Freeman, and M. Horsley. 2001. Submerged Membrane Filtration of Coagulated Surface Waters. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Norton, M.V., J. Kleffner, J. Ding, R.G. Fuller, and J. Sharpley. 2001. Optimizing Raw Water Quality to Maximize Finished Water Production Erie Water Treatment Facility. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

NSF. 2000a. Physical Removal of Cryptospo- ridium Oocysts and Giardia Cysts in Drinking Water, Pall Corporation, WPM-1 Microfiltration Pilot System. Environmen- tal Technology Verification Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.

NSF. 2000b. Physical Removal of Cryptospo- ridium Oocysts and Giardia Cysts in Drinking Water, Aquasource North Amer- ica Ultrafiltration System Model A35. Environmental Technology Verification Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.

NSF. 2000c. Physical Removal of Cryptospo- ridium Oocysts and Giardia Cysts in Drinking Water, Leopold Membrane Sys- tems, Ultrabar Ultrafiltration System With 60 Inch Mark I11 Membrane Ele- ment. Environmental Technology Verifica- tion Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.

NSF. 2000d. Physical Removal of Cryptospo- ridium Oocysts and Giardia Cysts in Drinking Water, Zenon, ZeeWeed ZW-500 Ultrafiltration Membrane System. Envi- ronmental Technology Verification Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.

NSF. 2000e. Physical Removal of Cryptospo- ridium Oocysts and Giardia Cysts in Drinking Water, Aquasource North Amer- ica Ultrafiltration System Model A35. Environmental Technology Verification Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.

NSF. 2000f. Physical Removal of Microbiolog- ical and Particulate Contaminants in Drinking Water, Hydranautics, Hydracap Ultrafiltration Membrane System. Envi- ronmental Technology Verification Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.

NSF. 2000g. Physical Removal of Microbio- logical and Particulate Contaminants in Drinking Water, Ionics, UF-1-7T Ultrafil- tration Membrane System. Environmental Technology Verification Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.



NSF. 2000h. Physical Removal of Microbio- logical and Particulate Contaminants in Drinking Water, Zenon, Enhanced Coagu- lation ZeeWeed ZW-500 Ultrafiltration Membrane System. Environmental Tech- nology Verification Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NSF.

OConnell, J., and S. Danos. 1997. An Innova- tive Combination of Ozonatio and Ultrafil- tration. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Olivieri, V.P., D.Y. Parker, G.A. Willinghan, and J.C. Vickers. 1991. Continuous Micro- filtration of Surface Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Olson, R.A. 1999. Startup and First Year of Operation of a Seven Million Gallon per Day Microfiltration Plant. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Owens, C., J.S. Taylor, C. Robert, and C.R. Reiss. 1999. Microbial Challenge of Inte- grated Membrane System Large Scale Pilot Plants Treating a Highly Organic Surface Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Water Quality Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Panec, D.L., D.F. Peterson, and L. Joyce. 2001 California Department of Water Resources Pilot Study of Ultrafiltration for Possible Replacement of Current DWR Water Treatment Facilities. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Paxman, S., D. Wetstein, L. Boulos, and S. Adham. 2001. Evaluation of MF and UF with and without Pretreatment on Utah Surface Water Supply. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Pearce, G.K., and G. Hanks. 1993. Unique Backwashable Microfilter Offers Efficient Compliance With SWTR Requirements. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.

Rajagopalon, N., S. Qi, and J. Pickowitz. 2001. Field Evaluation of Ceramic Micro- filtration Membranes in Drinking Water Treatment. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Reiss, C.R., J.S. Taylor, C. Robert, and S. Hong. 1999. Successful Nanofiltration of 20 mg/L TOC River Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Roach, D., and J. Vickers. 2001. Treatment of Nueces River Water Using Conventional Pretreatment and Microfiltration. In Pro- ceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Robert, C., J.S. Taylor, C.R. Reiss, and N. Langenderfer. 1999. Surface Water Treat- ment by Integrated Membrane Systems With In-line Coagulation. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Roquebert, V., G. Crozes, B. Farver, and S. Luzie. 2001a. Alternative MF/UF Mem- branes with Chemical Aid for TOC Removal. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Roquebert, V., G. Crozes, T. Seacord, and J. Mahady. 2001b. Retrofit of Existing Gran- ular Media Filters With Ultrafiltration Membrane. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Scanlan, P., B. Pohlman, S. Freeman, B. Spillman, and J. Mark. 1997. Membrane Filtration for the Removal of Color and TOC from Surface Water. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Schideman, L., M. Kosterman, and L. Rago. 2001. Performance and Optimization of Hybrid Membrane-Adsorption Systems- A Case Study for Racine Water Utility. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.

Schimmoller, L., B. McEwen, and J. Fisher. 2001. Ferric Chloride Pretreatment Improves Membrane Performance: Pilot Results for Denver's New 30 MGD Water Reclamation Plant. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Schimmoller, L.J., V.L. Snoeyink, C. Anselme, and I. Baudin. 1995. Perfor- mance of a Floc Blanket Reactor-PAC-UF System for DOC Removal. In Proceedings of the A W A Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.


WATER QUALITY 25

Schneider, C., P. Johns, and R.P. Huehmer. 2001. Removal of Manganese by Microfil- tration in a Water Treatment Plant. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech- nology Conference. Denver, Colo.: Ameri- can Water Works Association.

Seacord, T.F., G.F. Crozes, and E.D. Mackey. 2000. Treating a High Turbidity, High Hardness Surface Water Supply With an Integrated Membrane System. In Proceed- ings of the AWWA Water Quality Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Shorney, H.L., W.A. Vernon, J. Clune, and R.G. Bond. 2001. Performance of MF/UF Membranes With In-Line Ferric-Salt Coagulation for the Removal of Arsenic From a Southwest Surface Water. In Pro- ceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Sorgini, L.T., and C.R. Ashe. 2001. Imple- menting the First Surface Water MF Sys- tem in Massachusetts. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Confer- ence. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Talton, E.H., C.R. Reiss, and R.A. Schuck. 2000. Integrated Membrane Systems for Multi-Contaminant Removal: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the South Caro- lina Environmental Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Thompson, M.A., and M. Galloway. 2001. Ozone Micro-Flocculation With Ultrafil- tration for Color Removal. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Trimboli, P., J. Lozier, and W. Johnson. 1999. Demonstrating the Integrity of a Full Scale Microfiltration Plant Using a Bacil- lus Spore Challenge Test. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Trussel, R., P. Gagliardo, S. Adham, and A. Olivieri. 1998. Membranes as an Alternate to Disinfection. In Microfiltration ZZ Con- ference of the National Water Research Institute Proceedings.

Tyndall, T., A. Donn, and E. Vegso. 1999. Recovery of Filter Backwash Water: Ultra- filtration Hollow Fiber Membrane for Cryptosporidium Removal. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Con- ference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Vickers, J.C., A. Braghetta, and R.A. Hawk- ins. 1997. Bench Scale Evaluation of Microfiltration-Nanofiltration for Removal of Particles and Natural Organic Matter. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Willinghan, G.A., J.C. Vickers, and C. Mc- Gahey. 1993. Microfiltration as Tertiary Treatment-Eighteen Month Trial. In Pro- ceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technol- ogy Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Won, W., and P. Shields. 1999. Comparative Life Cycle Costs for Operation of Full Scale Conventional PretreatmentAXO and MFI RO Systems. In Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.

Yoo, S.R., D.R. Brown, R.J. Pardini, and G.D. Bentson. 1995. Microfiltration: A Case Study. JOUK AWWA, 87(3):38.

Yoon, Y., J. Yoon, G. Amy, and S. Liang. 2001. Dominant Potential Mechanisms for Per- chlorate Rejection by Negatively Charged Nanofiltration and Ultrafiltration Mem- branes. In Proceedings of the AWWA Mem- brane Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association.


Appendix 2A

Table 2A-1 Turbidity results for MF and UF membrane systems ~

Reference

Influent Turbidity Effluent Turbidity Reported Range Range

Water Membrane Type (ntu)" (ntu)*

Adham et

[]_Microfiltration_and_Ultrafiltration_Membranes_f(BookZZ.org).pdf

Documents

water permeation

drinking water copyright

water quality7 introduction

entire water community

edition awwa manual

uf membrane systems

membrane science

technology awwa