Desalination, 75 (1989) 213-240 Else&r Science Publishers B.V.

, Amsterdam -Printed

in The Netherlands

213

MUNICIPAL

WASTEWATER

RENOVATION

BY REVERSE OSMOSIS

STATE OF THE ART

A. H. Ghabris,

M. Abdel-Jawad

and G.S. Alg2

Kuwait Kuwait Kuwait Kuwait

Institute for

Scientific

Research, P. 0.

&nt 24885,

Safat

13109,

University, Chemical Engineering Dept., P. 0. Box 5969, Safat 13060,

Reverse Osmosis technology has proven to be technically efficient, cast effective and pollution controlling process for the renovation of different municipal wastewater streams. A critical review on the application of reverse osmosis technology to renovate municipal wastewater will be presented. Special emphasis is given to recent process developments, flow sheet configurations, membrane efficiency in reducing effluent IDS, microorganisms, organ.&, nutrients and others. Major problems encountered, pollution aspects, economic feasibility and areas of product water utilization is also discussed.

INTRODUtZION Desalination of seawater and brackish water has been the principle historic focus of reverse osmosis application. Based on 1987 statistics, RO covers

more than 65% of all desalting plants available in the market, with a capacity of 100 m3/day and more (ref. 1). Increasing demand for water sources coupled with improving quality of the environment necessitates the review of available water resources. The con-

tinuous development and refinement of RO membranes and hardware has now

214

made This

it possible separation

to implement process is usually

the

technology

to municipal

sewage

effluents.

used as a polishing Limited work was

step for the treatment done on raw sewage

of secondary and primary

and

tertiary

effluents.

effluents. and valuable research efforts, carried in the mainly out sponsored during the by the

Comprehensive U.S. Environmental such

Protection efforts reverse Factory have

Agency, slowed

were down

1970s. the is

Unfortunately, largest located guished

1980s.

However, effluent The

commercial at Water contribution

osmosis plant 21 (WF21),

(5 mgd) treating Orange County,

secondary

California.

distinshould

of its research

and operation

personnel

to this field

be acknowledged. Experimental reverse osmosis in pilot plants and some large effluents scale commercial showed range plants using

renovating dissolved

secondary

remarkable

efficien-

cies in reducing microorganisms ing

total

solids, a broad

of organic

contaminants, in the followfor community

and nutrients review. and irrigation

at relatively The utilization

low cost as presented of product water

comprehensive

reuse, industrial

purposes

gives the process more importance.

PRETREATIkIENT

The removal largely

objective

of

pretreatment and undesired quality,

for

reverse

osmosis from the

is the feed.

reduction Pretreatment

or

.of hazardous depends

constituents membrane

on feed water

type and configuration,

meas-

215

ures ratio, and/or

arranged and

for

fouling water

prevention, quality.

cleaning

frequency,

designed

recovery mechanical to pumpblock dia-

product

Several

pretreatment on sewage

techniques, effluents prior

chemical,

are usually

implemented

ing the feed to the gram showing

RO membranes. pretreatment

Figure methods.

(1) is an informative

different MlYSIL cn.CW_.~

Fig. 1.

Pretreatment methods osmosis (ref. 2).

of

municipal

secondary

effluent

for

reverse

Unit tion, tion

operations

in common

use include carbon

chemical adsorption,

clarification chlorination, for

or flocculaacid addiscale control. sequence. effluent followed This

multi-media for

filtration, and

activated sodium first

pH control clarification a lime

hexametaphosphate step ppm in almost

addition any

Chemical At WF21, reduces

is the

pretreatment to secondary clarification

dose of 350-500 (ref. 3).

as CaO applied a direct lime

COD by 40-60% carried

In fact,

by ROwas simple

out in 1984 at WF21, proved to be remarkably

as described effective

by Argo (ref. 4). in terms

combination

of constituents

216

removal in pilot the

and batch

cost.

Wechsler of

(ref.

5) used

500 ppm

alum

L412&0~>~18H20> for an RO

clarification

secondary

effluent

as pretreatment et al. (ref. recycling

facility

in Leider, Netherlands. ash (Na2C03) for

Kalinske

6) proposed facility for

the use Petromin

of Lime&da refinery calcium that

a wastewater in Fig. 2.

at Saudi Arabia, ions associated

as shown

Soda ash is added to precipitate Stenstrom (ref. 7) showed can

with

non-carbonate

hardness.

the evolutionary water recovery Several

development from

of cleaning

and pretreatment 30 percent organic The latest

techniques

improve

an average were

of less than including sulfate.

to more than ferric was

70 percent. chloride, alum

coagulants and

tested

polymers, coagulant

(Al(OHj3) of all.

aluminium

the least efficient

Media filtration, cal and widely used

also referred pretreatment

to as rapid step for

sand It

filtration, could

is an economiremove dissolved sand

RO.

organic-s and and garnet

suspended

solids (> 10 pm>.

Typical

media

are coal, silica

(refs. 3,891 or only filters

sand and anthracite small and particles is used in

(ref. 6). in the almost 5 to 25 pm every range.

Cartridge It

can remove polishing organics step and Such

is a preliminary chlorinated carbon

RO process. removed by

Dissolved activated by (refs

refractory organics carbon

organics might not

are usually be removed

adsorption. use of

efficiently

RO, so the 3, 10).

activated removal

adsorption

prior

to RO is necessary carbon adsorption are

At WF21,

efficiencies

of activated respectively.

6540, 58% and 99% for COD, TOC and phenol,

217

Ultrafiltration molecules It is very sen (ref. are at least efficient

is a low two

pressure

membrane

process than

used

when

solute

orders

of magnitude

larger

solvent

molecules.

in removing

suspended

solids and BOD. process.

Olsen and HaagenBy ultrafiltration, unchanged, reverse thus

11) used ultrafiltration matter will filtrate

as a pretreatment leaving further injection

the colloidal producing Normal

be removed, suitable further for

the salt contents refinement of chlorine by

a clear

osmosis. acid

RO processes require and antiscalant

as disinfectant, at WF21

for pH control

such as SHMP as practiced

and shown

in Fig. 3 (ref. 3).

Ml?MBRANl3

DEVELQPMENT

Membrane when

preparation (ref.

and

testing

received that

serious

attention

since

1957 were Loeb

Reid and Breton permeable (ref.

12) reported and

cellulose

acetate

membranes to salt. in first

sufficiently and

to water 13) did

sufficiently

impermeable works The

Sourirajan

remarkable acetate

experimental membranes.

developing reported
WilS

asymmetric work on

semipermeable the application

cellulose of reverse Health

osmosis

to wastewater

reclamation

sponsored

by the U.S. acetate

Public

Service during used

1964 (ref. 14). secondary sewage effl-

Cellulose uent. Ultrathin

membranes with

were

to treat

membranes

thickness

from

0 500 to 6000 A were osmosis treatment 0-propyl

inves-

tigated .by Rozelle et al. (ref. 15,161 for reverse wastewater. Three polymers, cellulose

of municipal sulfonic acid

acetate

218

Fig. 2.

Proposed ref. 6).

wastewater

reclamation

plant

in

Riyadh(reproduced

from

219

(CAOPSA), were and tested. above.

cellulose

acetate

methyl results average After

sulfonate. show flux forty general of hours 43

and

ultrathin

cellulose removal day

acetate, of 95% was water to flux

Documented The highest

comaminants gallons/sq.ft.

(gfd)

observed

for the CAOPSA. this membrane cellulose

of operation,

the average was lower

flux the

for

remained acetate

at about

36 gfd which Much

comparable average

ultrathin

membrane acetate

(34 gfd).

was observed ly (1976).

for the cellulose and Chian membranes

methyl

sulfonate

(20 gfd).

More recentstudy butyrate, (NSsulfonated tested on

Fang

(ref.

17) conducted

an extensive acetate,

experimental acetate

on 12 different cellulcse series),

made of cellulose

cellulose

triacetate, poly-2,

polysulfone-polyethyleneimine-toluene-2,4-di-isocyanate 5, 5-bibenzimidazole and polar aromatic organic (PBI polyamide compounds. series), were

2_(m-phenylene) oxide

polyphenylene removing 13 model

(SPPO - series) weight between

13 low

molecular ranged polyamide

Rejection

of the ace-

compounds

13-27, 50 and

75% for the cellulose respectively. membranes

tate base, aromatic were

and the NS-type

membranes,

Fluxes com-

6.02 and 7.63 gfd for the cellulose 2.45 gfd for the aromatic years study

acetate

and NSseries flat

pared with

polyamide

sheet membranes. of cellulose (ref. ace18).

A three tate reverse The than film UOP. study what

had been made on the performance using secondary effluent

osmosis membranes showed the that the

by Winfield performance developments et ah (ref. developed

deterioration theory are well predicts

in salt The

rejection recent by

is less of thin 19) of

hydrolysis membranes generation

composite A new

summarized

Riley

of low

pressure

RO membranes

by Filmtec

220

Corp.

and Desalination 21. The thin

System film

Inc., were type,

tested in a pilot primarily

study

at Water (PA) than Flux for

Fac-

tory

compcsite lower

polyamide

materials, the for conthese

can operate ventional low lulose

at considerably cellulosic

pressure

(17 bar vs 31 bar) by Argo (ref. 20).

membranes

as stated ranged only

pressure acetate

TFC membranes membrane it was

between 8 gfd.

11-15 gfd, whereas In general, cellulose at higher

the cel-

the use of polyamide membrane due to pH

membranes its chemical ranges, cleaning conducted designs, 9, 22,

is favoured stability

over the conventional which allows operation attack

acetate

temperatures, resistance plant of hollow streams

wider

better

resistance (ref.

to bacteria 21). and flat Several compare

and

better pilot

to aggressive had been modular fibers Since (refs. spiral and

chemicals to namely 231,

comparative the

studies different fine

evaluate tubular,

performance wound and

cells, spiral to municipal

when

applied

wastewater

wound

membranes and

are less prone to fouling, available at competitive

easy to handle, prices they are

easy to clean usually

manufacture, over other

favoured

configurations

(refs. 3, 21).

REMOVAL

OF INORGANICS

Reverse work

Osmosis

is known

as a demineraLizing effluents

process.

Most

of

the with cri-

done on the renovation Salt content, This

of municipal however,

has been concerned the most important total dissolved

salt rejections. terion of quality.

is by no means to the fact that

is attributed

solids in

221

sewage in very variables, required. tions.

effluents small

is relatively amounts.

low, and the inorganic rejection ionic

pollutants

usually

present

Membrane type,

of TJX is a function charge, interest feed in sour=

of different and recovery separaa per-

mainly Strauss A system

membrane (ref. started

24) cited

increased

RO wastewater to produce

in 1978 treating The units et

secondary

effluent

meate with at

20-30 ppm of TDS. recovery. acetate effluent, Feige

had 98.9% solid rejection 25) concluded types that of and

capability using streams effl-

70% water cellulose primary

al. (ref. with

when

tubular namely uent,

membranes lime

different raw

sewage secondary

clarified

wastewater Smith using

TDS rejection obtained

in all cases was above 95%. at Pomona plant, California, between

et al. (ref. 26) reportspiral wound

~el.hlo~e

ed results acetate 27)

membranes.

TJX rejection rejection Na2S04,

ranged

93 to 95%. by cellulcse and

Sourirajan acetate In

(ref. memmost

presented mainly

percentage MgS04,

of various CaC12, NaCl,

salts

branes,

NaN03,

NH4C1.

cases, rejection effluent always removing More than 90%. ity, an at above

was above 99%. the city of

Reverse Osmosis was used to renovate California (ref. 28). TDS

primary was

Corona,

reduction

94%.

McCarty pollutants were

et al. (ref. such

29) showed and

effectiveness elements almost

of RO in at WF21. above

inorganic

as heavy and

trace was

20 components

tested

removal

always

Feuerstein indirect treated effluent

et al. (ref. 30) presented measure secondary and of TDS, for effluent,

the reduction waste effluent, reported

of electrical streams primary

conductivfor raw 87.640,

various

Rejections effluent,

carbon. sewage

secondary was

digester

effluent

to be 92%, 91.7%.

222

82.8% and a six years as recovery

77.6%, respectively. period averaged increases, IDS reported

IDS rejection 87).

by RO at Hemet.

California

for that all by thin

97% (ref. rejection

Wechsler and

(ref. 5) demonstrated visa versa. Briefly

decreases results newly

workers RO. film

in this field

impressive of the

in terms developed

of TDS reduction high rejection

Furthermore, composite

manufacturers guarantee

membranes

minimal

rejection

of 98%.

REMOVAL

OF MICROORGANISMS

Microorganisms counts/ml, percent analyzed in sewage of all the

are

usually

present Clarke

in

enormous

numbers,

measured that about

as 39

effluents.

et al. (ref. effluents

31) reported

samples viruses. sewage

of chlorinated More than (refs. 32, 33).

of conventional

treatment can

contained

100 different

types of enteroviruses

occur in domestic treatment water

The conventional from

processes of sewage In any waste-

do not remove

all microorganisms

wastewater. of these at very low

reclamation

process, the removal Viruses,

or inactivation active

microorganisms numbera, and are

is of utmost considered that might the

importance. most

being very all

dangerous

among

other

microorganisms

pathogens

exist in domestic of the size

sewage supplies of viruses and the generally accepted have 34). membrane long insist-

Because transport

theory,

manufacturers should

of reverse

osmosis membranes water that (ref.

ed that .no viruses study by Hindin

appear

in the product found

In an early and bac-

et ah (ref. 35). it was

coliform

bacteria

223

teriphage permeate

of approximately through studies

the

same shape

and

sire as entric

viruses

did not

a porous cellulose

acetate membrane. 34) showed almost complete acetate and removal

Early of both Coliphage

of Sorber et al. (ref. T2 and poliovirus the most

coliphage T2 is

by RO using complex

cellulose virus and

membranes. of a

structurally

consists tail

polyhedral-shaped pm in diameter

head 95 pm and 100 pm

long and 65 pm long. Poliovirus

wide

complex

of 25 with a

is roughly study,

spherical rejection was

diameter

of 25 pm. the small

In all runs permeation

Performed of viruses, problems.

in this

above to ran-

99.99% and

if cccurred,

is attributed

dom phenomena

and operational studies

More recent (refs. teria

done by Leong et al. (ref. of RO in removing by Wojcik the celh&se

36) and

McCarty

et al.

37, 38) showed at WF21. trickling

the efficiency

enteroviruses 39) utilizing plant

and bacthe Las removed

In a case study filters effluent,

et al. (ref. acetate

Gallinas

RO pilot

99.95% of coliform The wastewater complete

bacteria

and 85.53% of coliphage of viruses and

viruses. typically present in

elimination

bacteria

by RO was also discussed

by Cooper et al. (ref. 40).

REMOVAL

OF ORGANICS

Conventional soluble 41, 42). and colloidal

water

treatment matter other

methods that types

are not exist

capable

of removing streams

all (refs.

organic

might

in sewage

Sewage

and many

of wastewater

are considered

heteroge-

224 nous mixtures

Normally,

the hinds

and concentrations effluent might

of specific vary

organic

con-

taminant location

present and time.

in the treated

sewage

according

to both

Standards tances, almost

for water all organics,

supplies

were

provided Health

for some 300 harmful Organization

subs-

by the World

(WI-IO) according

to studies Even tion been

conducted though

by the Ministry reverse osmosis water

of Health was

of the USSR (ref. 43). developed water, for demineralizaattention of has

originally potable rejecting exist in

of sea and given

brackish its

to obtain of

much

to study and

characteristics that removal

a wide domestic on

range

organic supplies and 46, and the

compounds (refs. physical 50, 51). chemical membrane. In (ref.

contaminants Contaminant

might

sewage the

44-49).

usually

depends and showed

chemical (refs. shape through

characteristics Early

of both

the membranes (refs. 52-55)

the contaminants that the sire, rate

investigations

characteristics

of a compound

influence

its passage

a series

of reverse rejection size

osmosis was

tests found

performed

by

Duvel

and

Helfgott related to also to

461, the organic weight and

to be semiquantitatively by steric geometry. particularly It its

molecular found form that

as determined of

was ability

chemical

characteristics

a molecule,

hydrogen

bonds are also important (refs. 4556.5758) extent

in determining that solute

permeability. separation in

Matsuureverse by the

ra and

Sourirajan

declared

osmosis is membrane

a function material,

of the which

of preferential is a function

sorption

of water nature

in turn

of the chemical

of the

225

organic functional Should ing will

solutes. and the

Polar the

effect

of the

solute also

molecule affect

which the

includes

both

the

substituent have

groups

organic increasing

permeability. the branch-

compound

the same functional separation of soluble (ref. 59). organics

groups,

increase

the solute

Typical reported es such

composition

in

secondary

effluents

was

by Rebhum as humic

and Marka and fulvic

(ref. 60) to consist hymathomelamic

of 40-50% humic 8.3% ether and

substanc-

acids,

extractables, Even as COD, indi-

13.9% detergents, though such

11.5% carbohydrates, are usually several

22.4% proteins in gross

1.7% tannins such

organics

defined trials were

parameters

TOC and BOD, however, vidual groups. Ea,$y studied acetate acids, acetone last five the works

done by researchers

to study

in this

field

were

done

by

Hindin chemical

et al. (ref. species using

441, who cellulose

permeation

of about

30 different soaps, motor

membranes. peptone, and

Detergents,

oil, DDD, DDT, tan& lindane,

and humic starch, for (ref. the 48)

2,4diisopropyl

ester, was was

p-chloronitrobenze, in most below

soluble

cellulose.

Rejection rejection

cases above 70%. Chian

90% except and Fang

species where 14 model amines,

covered ketones,

toxic species belonging ethers and eaters using

to aromatics, both cellulose B9) and

acids, alcohols, acetate and

aldehydes, polyamide

membranes. ultrathin lulose

Polyamide membranes

membranes

(Dupont superiority

non-cellulose of rejection

derivatives
over cel-

(NS-1) showed

in terms

acetate

membranes.

226

McCarty extensive ing trace work

et al.

(refs.

29,

61)

and

Reinhard

et

al.

(refs.

49,

62)

did

on performance and

and reliability The advanced pollutants (ref. 3). weight

of Water of

Factory reverse

21, in removosmosis Removal and was of a

organics

pollutants. of other priority

performance treatment as identified These organ&s organ& and

studied wide (ref.

in combination range of organic tested high

processes. by Keith were

Telliard chlorinatrejec-

63) were

at WF21 molecular

mainly

ed hydrocarbons, tion

pesticides. 99%.

Overall

of such species by RO ranged using by cellulose et acetate al. and

between

45% and

Recent were

comparable done at

studies, WF21

polyamide 49).

membranes,

also

Reinhard

(ref.

Volatiles

(trihalomethanes), phenols and

purgeables acids were

(non-chlorinated tested. and was Overall

aromatic rejection

hydrocarbons), was expressed

base neutrals, in terms

of TOC (Total

organic Hrubec

carbon) et al.

89% for CA membranes

and 99% for PA membranes. treatment carbon toxins filtration. plant

(ref. 64) used the effluent including identified and reverse organic

of a sewage

as a feed to a system The majority by reverse of the osmosis

osmosis and activated micropollutants activated were were and

filtration. were removed

by subsequent

carbon

Trihalomethanes,

dichlorometh-

anes and alkylphenols Organic dues, including pesticides

not removed studied

by this system. et al. (ref. and others, 65). impart Pesticide resi-

by Chian herbicides

insecticides,

fungicides,

an unplea-

sant odour and taste to water. Using performance CA membranes in removing of NS-100, Chian a wide variety of et al. (ref. 65) obtained pesticides, including excellent chlorinated

227

hydrocarbons, tams.

organophosphorus,

halogeneous

cyclodienes, promising

triazinea results

and

mercap-

Johnston

and Lim (ref. 66) reported elimination Chlorinated result from of organic

of the efficiency and other chloriand

of RO in complete nated hydrocarbons. which

phosphate

pesticides

hydrocarbons, the chlorination

known process

to be very can only

toxic

cancerigenic,

be removed

by Reverse Osmosis (ref. 67).

REMOVAL

OF NUTRIENTS

Studies especially received ment

of nutrient or full than and and

removal

(nitrates,

phosphates have

and been

ammonia) very

by

RO, and treati.e.,

in pilot

scale plant many Johnston ammonia, other

operations biological,

limited

less attention Lim

chemical

or physical that raw nutrients, and

methods.

(refs. can

68, 69) concluded be separated from

nitrates, municipal months

phosphates

secondary four Ammo56%. filtracarbon even and

wastewaters of pilot plant

by

cellulose

acetate

membranes. approached removals

Throughout 100%. about media

operation,

phosphate

removals

nia removals

averaged

85% and nitrate

and nitrite

were

Besik (ref. tion, break point

70) used a process sequence chlorination, dechlorination, secondary prime

consisting reverse

of dual

osmosis,

activated that

adsorption though

and ozonation osmosis

in treating was not the

effluents.

He found

reverse

process in removing by 99% and et al. (ref.

ammonia

phosphor&s, ly, should

however, they

it removed

the residues Smith

80-85%, respective 26). using cellulose

exist after

chlorination.

228

acetate and

membrane and

in three tubular,

different

configurations that all three

namely

spiral

wound,

plate of

frame

concluded

configurations

are capable

rejecting

phosphates

by 90-99%, ammonia

nitrogen

by SO-90% and nitrate

nitro-

gen by 60-70%. Olsen nitrite et al. (ref. nitrate 11) showed nitrogen and excellent total removal of ammonia treating nitrogen, secondary

nitrogen, effluent

phosphor

when

municipal

by subsequent

ultrafiltration

and RO processes.

MAJOR

OPERATION

PROBLEMS

Fouling in the field

and brine of

disposal

are the most challenging renovation into by

problems reverse

encountered osmosis. RO sparmat71) foulefflorganorder to the

municipal

wastewater

membrane ingly ters,

foulants

can be classified compounds compounds

broadly

the following colloidal growth.

categories:

soluble dissolved that

inorganic organic

such as CaS04, and biological affect

or particulate Winfield (ref.

showed

gross solids do not significantly in which controlling feed. index they

the rate of membrane secondary sewage

ing on the concentration uents. The major of the the flux effluent pH of factor liquid decline

exist in normal

the rate of fouling

is the dissolved that in

ic content mimmize sewage meate fouling

Winfield

also recommended hydrolysis

and chemical

of the membrane, corresponds shear fouling

feed should 5.0. Belfort

have a pH value (ref. 2) speculated and

of 6.0 which that that

to persensitive probably

reversible,

probably

occurs

on the surface,

irreversible

229

OCCURS inside teins, major

the membrane. and

True

dissolved in addition

organics to

include

humic growth

acids, prowere that the the

carbohydrates fouling

tannins Belfort

biological

constituents. of fouling

and Marx (ref.

72) also concluded with

deleterious brane Water treated ganisms flux,

effect

and compaction reduced et al. (ref.

are reduced

increased

memat

curing Factory

temperature

and

pressure.

Based on their

experience

21. Ridgway

73) quoted:

Demineralization supplies,

of pre-

wastewater and

by reverse osmosis yields substances efficiency many in the

safe, potable

but microormembrane et ah attached bacteria irre-

chemical plant that

feed water

rapidly cost.

impede

reducing

and increasing microorganisms

treatment are present

Ridgway

(ref. 74) showed to the feed and

in the biofilm The fouling

product

water

sides of the membranes. Flavobacterium, diacetate possibly Pseudomonas membranes

(Mycobacterium, versibly large protein flux adhere amounts

Acinetobacter,

and Klebsiella) surfaces

to the RO cellulose of extracellular leading slime,

by producing or glycoconsequently

of mucopolysaccharide pores and

composition

to plugging

of membrane

decline. The lack of adequate methods for waste brine disposal presents a serious and

limitation Patterson

in the (ref.

use of RO to municipal that the unique

wastewater waste

effluents. produced sludge

Jennett by

75) proved

streams activated

reverse In a the

osmosis processes are treatable pilot plant study

by a conventional area (ref. treated

system. that

at Milwaukee can be successfully obtained

76), it was biologically.

demonstrated TOC removals

RO concentrates range vated

in the

of 87 to 93% were sludge

in 4 to 10 hours the suspended

aeration

time

in an acti-

process depending

upon

solids maintained.

230

Brine ponds (ref. via

disposal,

in general,

may

be accomplished spreading

by

evaporation arid

in lined land, ocean site

6). underground pipeline, stream

injection, discharge,

on unusable

discharge (ref. 77).

or abandonment

at the

operation

Van Den Heuvel brine considered The combined stream

et al. (ref. 78) recently by feediig in

proposed

a genuine

method

of optimizing process aspects. mainly: is

it to an anaerobic of both energy

digester. and

The overall environmental advantages because of cost and

efficient process

terms

RO-anaerobic water,

digestion reduction

has

several sire

production

of raw

potable

of plant

the concentration reduction finally by

step and the high loading the digest product

rate of the anaerobic methane surface into waters chemicals et al. and electric

digestion, energy

converting

reduction Even

of organic though

load of receiving recovery

measured

in terms that

of BOD5 might widely

the

of saleable

or products (ref.

exist in brine practiced, designer

solution

as suggested system

by Buckley of lime

791 is not was in proSaudi

a novel

recovery

magnesium plant

posed by Arabia

of Petromin

refinery

wastewater

treatment

(ref. 6).

PRODUCT

UTILIZATION

Industrial recycle attempts in Riyadh, and a

reuse is the major gocd review 3 types using was

area in which published by

wastewater Smith (ref.

was 80).

treated In

for their

to provide

of industrial secondary

water effluents,

to Petromin Kalinske

Refinery

located

Saudi Arabia,

et al. (ref. 6) sug-

231 gested two of water such water stages reverse are low must osmosis followed needed by ion exchange. and fire These three protection types

grade water be low next

for utility

systems, stable

in suspended is a better

solids, biologically quality water with

and chemically

and non pathogenic, in cooling towers

TDS -z 500 ppm used quality water for

and crude

oil desalters

and finally

highest

high pressure An

boilers. of RO to sewage & Light pr ocessing for boiler feed was carried

application Power

out by Pacific Wyodak system reclaimed At Station

Co. and Black Hills as presented 30-40

Power

& Light et ah (ref.

Co. at their 81). The using

in Gillette, water from

Wyo, with

by Gray

has supplied wastewater Water

ppm TDS to its 136 bars boiler, system. into

the citys sewage disposal 21, RO product water against

Factory

is injected Pacific

a series

of

coastal wells

to provide

hydraulic

barrier water

Ocean water

incursion

and to supplement A tertiary tion, settling to produce (ref. human (ref. other the 82).

the domestic water treatment

supply

(ref. 3). of coagulation and flocculawas evaluated

scheme consisting reverse

rapid potable Although

sand filtration, water the from

osmosis and ozonation secondary potable effluent water,

the municipal can produce

by Roy et al. however, direct

process

use is not recommended 83). Application of reverse

and is widely

unaccepted,

as stated

by Ikehata and in In is

osmosis product more and

to irrigation, more attention

landscaping especially

agricultural arid, and

purposes

is receiving

developing

countries,

as discussed water

by from

Bowler seawater

et al. (ref.&Q). by distillation osmosis

such areas, the production rather high compared

cost of fresh

to reclamation

of secondary

effluents

by reverse

232 COST

The effluents

cost of

treatment

for

use, reuse of many

or disposal engineers sewage

of

municipal

sewage Cost of

has been the prime of reverse variables: size and location.

concern

and researchers is a function

of application the following 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Plant

osmosis to renovate

streams

Membrane Pretreatment Product

type and configuration and post treatment quality required. needed.

water

Feed quality. Capital amortisation. cleaning frequency.

Membrane

Local conditions. Smith (ref. processes 881, hypothetically, To treat 1 mgd, compared 10 mgd the and cost 100 of RO with cost other

treatment were

mgd,

estimates Cruver et

$ 0.37, S 0.30 and S 0.276 per 1000 US gallons, 10) conducted Lcs Angeles, osmosis a 3 year pilot plant

respectively. Water

al. (ref. Plant, reverse

test at Pomona analysis

Renovation that

California.

A rough

economic

demonstrated

treatment

cost ranged

between

S 0.38, S 0.29 and

S 0.26 per

1000 US. gallons

for 1 mgd, 10 mgd and 100 mgd plants,

respectively.

233 In

a pilot 86) using

plant

study

(10 gpm) membrane

at Hemet, types

California

done by Roen et utilizing disposal seconis estiand

al. (ref. dary mated about

different

and configurations brine

effluent,

an average

reverse gallons

osmosis cost, excluding for a 0.9 mgd

to be $ 0.78/1000 $ 0.73/1000 gallons

products

water

facility

for a 9 mgd product and current developed ppm

water cost data an

facility. compiled

Using

the data

collected

in a 3 year et al.

case study (ref. 88) 500

by EPA (ref. model. of $

871, Stenstrom Reclaimed water

economic be produced

simulation at a cost

containing In their (ref. 4)

TDS can efforts the

1.6/1VOO gallons. at WF21, Argo

continuous proved that

to optimize low pressure

the

reclamation

cost

membranes, lime/R0 earlier (ref. the

recently can This mem-

developed

by Filmtec

Corp. and

Desalination operating

Inc., in the cost reported gallons

process 3).

save up to 44% of the original means branes that it would cc& only be used.In

$ 0.84/1000

should

above

and combination 90) carried by reverse

Japan, Tsuge et al. (ref. on reclamation equivalent It those was that

89) and Murayama of secondary effl-

et al. (ref. uent 1000 such effect streams

the same experiments osmosis. water, Costs were respectively. with

to $ 3.44 - $ 3.9 per mentioning in the U.S. that The

US gallons

product high

is worth obtained well in high

costs are very of recovery

if compared

on reverse

osmosis economics for example,

discussed recovery

by Wechoperation

sler (ref. 5).

The study

showed,

(up to 95%), the total

reverse

osmosis costs could drop by 6.1%.

234

CONCLUSION

In spite its application and seawater Reverse cess. solved and It is an soiids,

of the

rapid

growth sewage

of reverse effluents

osmosis is limited

as desalination compared

process,

to municipal applications. osmosis proved

to brackish

to be pollution process organics

abatement where high

and

cost savings of total

prodis-

excellent a broad nutrients

separation range of

rejection

and

micropollutants,

microorganisms The recent made standards psychological agricultural human it possiusing reaand

pathogens,

and others

can be satisfactorily

achieved.

advancements ble to produce

in membrane potable

manufacturing of quality However, is suitable

and process hardware according to WHO and

water

municipal

secondary

effluents. which

due to ethical for many

sons, the product other tion. applied County, uent

water

industrial, for direct economically

reuse purposes The technology

is by no means proved

recommended and

consumpwhen

to be practical plants.

feasible

to large scale commercial California,

Water

Factory

21, located

at Orange effl-

has been demineralizing

5 mgd of secondary

municipal

by reverse Unlike

osmosis since 1977. countries where a surplus of rainfalls Kuwait and and natural Arabian at water Gulf a very

many

resources states,

are available, fresh

arid areas in particular waters needed for

and other development

produce

survival

high cost from

the sea.

235

It is a high available reclamation

time

to consider as major osmosis.

the very water

low

salinity and

municipal them

effluents through

in these states by reverse

resources

to reuse

Although of water the design (fresh

the cost effectiveness quality) is very to suit

of the process to it requires

render careful

large quantities preparation of the of

encouraging, the particular

specifications selection, and

characteristics pretreatment points

effluent. memfinal

Membrane brane

material brine

of construction,

of the

feed, before

fouling

disposal

are the major

to consider

decission

is made.

REFERENCES

1.
2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

Desalting Plants Inventory, No. 11, 1988. G. Belfort, Pretreatment and Cleaning of Hyperfilteration (Reverse Osmosis) membranes in Municipal Wastewater Renovation, Desalination, 21(1977). Evaluation of Membrane Processes and Their Role in Wastewater Reclamation, Vol. I, II and III, US Dept. of Inter., Ofce of Water Res. & Techn. Washington, D.C. (1979-1981). D. Argo, Use of Lime Clarification and Reverse Osmosis in Water Reclamation, J, of WPCF, Vol. 56, 1984. R. Wechsler, Reverse Osmosis on Secondary Sewage Effluent: The effect of recovery, Water Res. Vol. 11, Pergamon Press (1977). A. Kalinske, J. Willis, S. Martin, Wastewater Reuse in Saudi Arabia: The New Oasis, Water and Wastes Eng., Vol. 17, No. 6, June (1980). M. Stenstrom, Improvement of Reverse Osmosis for Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Through Pretreatment, SIA Jour., Vol. 10, No. 2 (1983). D. Roy, E. Chian. Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluent for Potable Water Reuse, J. AWWA, Vol. 1 (1979). G. Inoue, H. Ogasawara, C. Yanagi, Y. Murayame, Advanced Treatment of Secondary Sewage by Membrane Process, Desalination, Vol. 39, (1981). J. Cruver, I. Nasbaum, Application of Reverse Osmosis to Wastewater Treatment, J. WPCF, Vol. 46, No. 2, Feb. (1974). 0. Olsen, U. Haagensen, Membrane Filteration for the Reuse of City Wastewater, Desahatlon, 47 (1983). C. Reid, E. Breton, J. of App. Poly. Sci.. 133, I (1959). S. Loeb, S. Sourirajan, Advances in Chemistry Series No. 38, Amer. Chem. Sot., Washington, 117 (1963).

236

14. 15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29.

30. 31.

32. 33.

Summary Report, Jan. 1962-64, Advanced Wastetreatment Research, Report AWTR-14, U.S. Public Health Service Pub. No. 999-WP-24. L. Rozelle, J. Cadotte, B. Nelson and C. Kopp, Ultrathin Membranes for Treatment of Waste Effluent by Reverse Osmosis, App. Poly. Symp. No. 22 (19731. J. Cadotte, L. Rozelle, In-situ Formed Condensation Polymers for Reverse Osmosis Membranes, US. Dept. of the Inter., Ofce of Saline Water Res. and Dev. Report, Cont. 14-30-2883NS (1972). H. Fang, E Chian, Reverse Gsmosis Separation of Polar Organic Compounds in Aqueous Solution, Env. Sci. and Tech., 10 (1976). B. Winfield, Cellulose Acetate Membranes {or the Reverse Osmosis Treatment of Sewage Effluents, Water Res., Vol. 16 (1982). R. Riley, P. Case, A. Lloyd, C. Milstead and M. Tagani, Recent Develop ments in Thin-Film Composite Reverse Osmosis Membrane Systems, Desdnation.36 (1981). D. Argo, Reducing the Cost of Wastewater Reclamation, Water Reuse Symp. II, Washington D.C. (1981). A. Peng, Reverse osmosis system treats sewage effluent for Petromin Refinery in Saudi Arabia, NWSIA, 8th Annual Conf. and Intr. Trade Fair, San Franscisco, Calif, July (1980). D. Sammon, B. Stringer, The application of membrane processes in the treatment of sewage, Process B&hem., March (1975). Hollow Fiber Technology for Advanced Waste Treatment, U.S. EPA report R2-72-103, December (1972). S. Strauss, Interest grows in RO water treatment, Power, February (1981). W. Feige, J. Smith, Wastewater applications with a tubular reverse osmosis unit, AICHE Symp. Ser. 70, 136 (1974). J. Smith, A. Masse. R. Miele, Renovation of municipal wastewater by reverse osmosis, EPA Water Pollution Control Res. Series 17040, May (1970). S. Sourirajan, Reverse Osmosis, Ch. 3, P. 242. Logos Press (1970). Reverse Osmosis renovation of primary sewage, by Envirogenics Company for EPA, Proj. 17040 EFQ, Cont. 14-12-885 (1971). P. McCarty, D. Argo, M. Reinhard, N. Goodman, M. Aieta, Performance of Water Factory 21 in Removing Priority Pollutants, Water Reuse Symp. If, Washington D.C. Aug. (1981). D. Feuerstein, T. Bursztynsky, Design considerations for treatment of solids - laden wastewaters by reverse osmosis, AICHE Water, 67 (1970). N. Clarke, G. Berg, P. Kabler and S. Chang, Human enteric viruses in water: Source, survival and removability, In Advances in Water Pollut. Res., Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, London (1962). R., Hoenn, Trihalomethanes and viruses in a water supply, J. Envir. Eng. Div. - AXE 103, (1977). L. Sekla, Entric Viruses in renovated water in Manitoba, Canadian J. Microbial. 26, 3, (1980).

231

34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39.

40.

41. 42. 43.

44.

45.

46. 47.

48. 49.

50. 51.

52.

C. Sorber, J. Malina and B. Sergik, Virus rejection by the reverse osmosis - Ultrafiltration processes, Water Res. Perg. Press, Vol. 6 (1972). E Hindin, P. Bennet, Water reclamation by Reverse Osmosis, Water & Sewage Works, 116.. February (1969). L. Leong, D. Argo and R. Trussell, Enterovirus removal by a full scale tertiary treatment plant, J. AWWA, April (1983). P. L. McCarty, Advanced treatment for wastewater reclamation at Water Factory 21, Tech. Rep. 267, Dept. of Civil Eng., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. (1982). P. McCarty, M. Reinhard, C. Dolce, H. Nguyen, D. Argo, Water Factory 21: Reclaimed water, volatile organic++ virus and treatment performance, EPA rejs. 600/2-78-076 (1978). C. Wojcik, J. Lopez, J. McCutchan, Renovation of municipal wastewater by reverse osmosis: A case study, Water Reuse Symp., Washington D.C. (1979). R. Cooper, M. Richard, The fate of viruses, bacteria and chlorination by products in the reverse osmosis process, Final report, School of Public Health, Univ. of California, Berkely (1978). D. Metzler, The reuse of treated wastewater for domestic purposes, Public Works, 90:117-119 (1959). P. Haney, Water reuse for public supply, J. AWWA 61, 2 (1969). World Health Organization, Standards were provided by the Minister of Health of the USSR at the WHO Expert Committee on Health Criteria for Water Supplies, held at Geneva, March 30-April 5 (1971). E. Hindin, J. Bennet and S. Narayanan, Organic compounds removed by reverse osmosis, Water and Sewage Works, December (1969). T. Matsuura, S. Sourirajan, Physicochemical criteria for reverse osmosis separation of aldehydes, ketones, ethers, esters and amines in aqueous solutions using porous cellulose acetate membranes, J. of App. Polym. Sci., Vol. 16 (1972). W. Duvel, T. Helfgott, Removal of wastewater organ& by reverse osmosis, J. WPCF Vo. 47. No. 1 (1975). Characterization of municipal wastewater effluents and concentration of organic constituents, Report by Gulf South Research Ins., New Orleans, LA Cont. No. PB 280547, February (1978). E. Chian, H. Fang, Evaluation of new reverse osmosis membranes for separation of toxic compounds from water, AICHE Symp. (1973). M. Reinhard, N. Goodman, P. McCarty and D. Argo, Removing trace organics by reverse osmosis using cellulose acetate and polyamide membranes, J. AWWA, April (1986). A. Turbak, Synthetic membranes: desalination, Vol. 1, ACS sym. Series 153, Amer. Chem. Sot., Washington D.C. (1981). S. .Sourirajan, Reverse Osmosis: A new field of applied chemistry and Chem. Sot. Washchemical engineering, ACS Sym. Series 153, Amer. ington D.C. (1981). S. Sourirajan, Characteristics of porous cellulose acetate membranes for separation of some organic substances in aqueous solution, Ind. & Eng. Chem. Fund. 3, 206 (1964).

238

53.

54.

55. 56.

57.

58.

59. 60. 61. 62.

63. 64.

65. 66.

67. 68.

69. 70.

S. Sourirajan, Characteristics of porous cellulose acetate membranes for separation of some organic substances in aqueous solution, Ind. & Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Div., 4, 201 (1965). R. Kesting, J. Eberlin, Semipermeable membranes of cellulose acetate for desalination in the process of reverse. osmosis. IV. Transport phenomena involving aqueous solutions of organic compounds, J. App. Poly. Sci., 10, 961 (1966). U. Merten, Organic removal by reverse osmosis, Gulf Atomic Publ. No. GA-8744 (1968). T. Matsuura, S. Sourirajan, Reverse osmosis separation of some organic solutes in aqueous solution using porous cellulose acetate membranes, Ind. Eng. Chem, Process Des. Dev, Vol. 10 (1971). T. Matsuura, S. Sourirajan, Reverse Osmosis separation of phenols in aqueous solutions using porous cellulose acetate membranes, J. Appl. Poly. Sci., 16 (1972). T. Matsuura, S. Sourirajan, Reverse Osmcsis separation of organic acids in aqueous solutions using porous cellulose acetate membranes, J. App. Poly. Sci., 17 (1973). E. Klein, J. Smith, Reverse Osmosis Memberane Research, H-K. Lonsdale and HE. Podall, eds. Plenun Publ, New York, 65 (1972). M. Rebhum, J. Marka, Classification of Organ&x in Secondary Effluents, Env. Sci. & Tech., 5 (1971). P. McCarty, M. Reinhard, Trace Organ& Removal by Advanced Wastewater Treatment, J. WPCF, 52, 1907 (1980). M. Reinhard, C. Dolce, P. McCarty, D. Argo, Trace Organics Removal by Advanced Wastewater, J. Env. ENg. Div., Amer. See. of Civil Eng., EE4, 105 (1979). L. Keith, W. Telliard, Priority Pollutants, Env. Sci. and Tech: 13, 416 (1979). J. Hrubec, C. Van Kreijl, C. Morra, W. Slooff, Treatment of municipal wastewater by reverse osmosis and activated carbon removal of organic Env., 27 micorpollutants and reduction of toxicity, J. Sci. of Tot. (1983). E Chian, W. Bruce, H. Fang, Removal of pesticides by reverse osmosis, Env. Sci & Techn., Vol. 9, No. 1, January (1975). H. Johnston, H. Lim, Removal of persistent contaminants from municipal effluents by reverse osmcsis, Canada - Ontario agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Research Rep. No. 85 (1978). E. Madsen, Membrane technology as a tool to prevent dangers to human health by Water reuse, Desalination 67 (1987). H. Johnston, H. Lim, Bibliography on the application of reverse osmosis to industrial and municipal wastewatem, Rep. No. 18, Canada - Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality (1974). H. L.im, H. Johnston, Reverse Osmosis as an advanced treatment process, J. WPCF 48, No. 7, July (1976). F. Besii, Some aspects of renovation of domestic sewage, Water Res. Vol. 9 (1975).

239

71.

72.

73.

74.

75. 76. 77. 78.

79. 80. 81. 82.

83. 84.

85. 86. 87. 88.

89.

B. Winfield, A study of the factors affecting the rate of fouling of reverse osmosis membranes treating secondary sewage effluent, Water Res. Vol, 13, Pergamon Press Ltd. (1979). G. Belfort, B. Marx, Artificial particulate fouling of hyperfiltration membranes - II analysis and protection from fouling, Desaliantion, 28 (1979). H. Ridgway, C. Justice, C. Whittaker, D. Argo, B. Olson, Biofilm foulof water ing of RO membranes - Its nature and effect on treatment for reuse, J. AWWA, June (1984). H. Ridgway, C. Justice, C. Whittaker, D. Argo, Microbial fouling of reverse osmti membranes in used in advanced wastewater treatment and Ultrastructural Analysis, J. te&nology : Chemical, Bacteriological App. & Env. Microbial, 45 (1983). J. Jennett, C. Patterson, Treatability of reverse osmosis rafinates by activated sludge, J. WPCP, May (1971). Amenability of reverse osmcsis concentrate to activated sludge treatment, NTIS reprot PB 211027, EPA program 17040, EUE 07 (1971). R. Culp, G. Wesner, G. Cnlp, Handbook of advanced wastewater treatment, 2nd edn., Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. (1977). J. Van Den Heuvel, R. Zoetemeyer, C. Boelhouwer, Purification of municipal wastewater by subsequent reverse osmosis and anaerobic digestion, Biotech. & Bioeng., 23 (1981). C. Buckley, A. Simpson, C. Kerri, C. Schutte, The treatment and disposal of waste brine solutions, Desalination 67 (1987). D. Smith, Water reclamation and reuse, J. WPCP 50, 6 (1978). R. Gray, W. Baxter, S. Leland, Design and initial operation of the Wyodak plant, Amer. Power Conference, Chicago, April (1979). D. Roy, E Chian, Treatment of municipal wastewater effluent for potable water reuse, Water Reuse Symp. Vol. 1, Washington D.C. (1979). A. Ikehata, Reclamation and use of municipal wastewater. Kagaku to Kogyo, Vol. 28, No, 11, November (19761. C. Bowler, S. Greenhalgh, M. Brenji, Process design of a 30000 m3/day advanced water reuse facility for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Desalination, 56 (1985). R. Smith, Costs of wastewater renovation, report for EPA - PB21 3805, November (1971). D. Boen, G. Johannsen, Reverse Osmosis of treated and untreated secondary sewage effluent, Bnv. Prot. Techn. Ser. EPA 67012-74-077 (1974). Estimating water treatment cc&s, U.S. Bnv. Prot. Agency, l-4 EPA 60012-791162 a (1979). M. Stenstrom, J. Davis, J. Lopez. W. McCutchan, Municipal wastewater rechunation by reverse osmosis a 3 year case study, J. WPCP, Vol. 54, No. 1, January (1982). H. Tsuge, K. Mori, Reclamation of municipal sewage by reverse osmosis, Desalination, 23 (1977).

240

90.

Y. Murayama. G. Inoue, M. Yamagata, T. Fujoka, M. Tachibana, S. Shibanoki and M. Yamada, Advanced treatment of secondary sewage effluent by membrane process, Proc. Aust. Water k Wastewater Assoc., In. Conv. (1985).