RO System Troubleshooting

November, 2019
Dupont Water Solution
Somil Mehta, Technical Service

Add footer here per the Risk Classification overview

Try to find what/where/how is the problems

What is the performance problems?

• Loss of normalized permeate flow rate
• Increase in normalized salt passage
• Increase in pressure drop
• Hitting max operating pressure
•
Where is the performance problems in the system?
• Individual vessel or same trend in all vessels in a stage
• 1st stage or 2nd stage?
• Lead element or tail element?

How is the problem occurred?

• Suddenly or over time?
Understand the situation

Try to detect what happens in the system and

possible to provide countermeasure earlier, no need
element autopsy and analysis.

3
Localization of high solute passage
– Probing test

4
How to conduct Probing Test?

5
Questions to understand the situation
Background Questions
• Application / Feed Water Source & Analysis?
• Operating Conditions? Applicable Normalization Data?
• Any Recent Upsets?
• Pretreatment Methods and Chemicals?
• Membrane Model(s) and Age?
• System Layout / Loading Diagram?

Cleaning Questions
• When was the System Cleaned?
• How Was it Cleaned?
• Results of Cleaning? (Normalized Data can show the cleaning effectiveness)
• Cleaning Logs?
• Any Special Procedures (e.g., sanitization)?

6
Feed Water Source
• Well water:

iron fouling, scaling

• Surface water, City water:

scaling, colloidal, organic, and microbiological fouling

• Waste water:

scaling, colloidal, organic, and microbiological fouling

• Analyze feed water and concentrate sample

• Analyze cartridge filter residue or SDI filter residue

Sometimes foulant source cannot be analyzed by feed water analysis, i.e. heavy metal
caused by excess coagulant dosing, pre-treatment system may be changed like bypass of pre-
treatment, this method can be good option to detect what the cause of fouling.

7
Cause & Effect
Effect on membrane performance if something
goes wrong

Fouling/Scaling
Mechanical Damages
Chemical Damages

9
Fouling/Scaling
Fouling often originates in a specific part of the RO/NF system:

10
Element Weight

11
Colloidal and particle fouling –Cause of dP
Increase
Caused by solids from the pretreatment entering the first
stage elements

Correction: Alkaline/detergent cleaning, Acid cleaning

Prevention: Pre-treatment improvement, Wider feed
spacer element (lower dP)
12
Biofouling -Cause of dP Increase
Biofilm growing and/or any
particle in the element creates a
pressure drop rise triggers early
cleaning
Typical Biofouling Situation –Only 1 or 2 Lead Elements
have high differential pressure

First Stage

First Element

average last 5 elements

M.J. Boorsma, et al., Desalination and Water Treatment, 31, 347 (2011) 14
Biofouling

Correction: Alkaline Cleaning

Prevention: Pre-treatment improvement, Fouling resistant
membranes, Regular cleaning to avoid severe fouling
15
 Organic Fouling –Cause of Trans Membrane
Pressure (TMP) Increase
Dissolved Organic Carbon concentrated on
membrane surface creates less permeate flow
rate which is also triggers early cleaning

TMP

16
Example of Organic Fouling: Precipitated
scaling inhibitor

Correction: Alkaline Cleaning

Prevention: Pre-treatment improvement, Fouling resistant
membranes
17
Heavy Metal Fouling

Correction: Acid Cleaning

Prevention: Pre-treatment improvement (Iron & Manganese removal,
Proper coagulant dosing), Wider feed spacer element (lower dP)

18
Iron Fouling

19
Aluminum Silicate
Permeate flow rate became ¼, but the membrane looks clean. Actually
there was white fine particle thick layer foulant on membrane surface.
Organic acid like citric acid cleaning was very effective.
PAC overdosing with high concentration of silica in the feed

20
Scaling
Precipitation and deposition of sparingly soluble salts.

Starts in tail end of the system

Caused by:
• Raw water changes
• Improper dosage of scaling inhibitor
• Too high recovery

21
Calcium Carbonate Scaling

Correction: Acid cleaning, extended acid contact time

Prevention: Feed pH control, Pre-treatment improvement
(softening, scale inhibitor, etc.)
22
Sulfate Scaling

Correction: High pH EDTA cleaning (difficult!)

Prevention: Pre-treatment improvement (softening, scale
inhibitor, etc.), System recovery reduction
23
Effect on membrane performance if something
goes wrong
Fouling/Scaling
Mechanical Damages
Chemical Damages

24
Permeate Backpressure Damage –Increased
Salt Passage
Delamination and tearing of the membrane
• if permeate pressure > concentrate pressure
• typically during shut-down
• typically tail-end elements affected
• can be localized by probing
• positive leak test of element

25
Telescoping
Axial displacement of the scroll by high pressure differential
feed-concentrate
caused by
• Water hammer
• High feed flow rate
• Feed channel plugging
• Missing thrust rings

26
High Pressure Drop/ Water Hammer

27
Abration –Increased Salt Passage
• Membrane scratched by crystalline or sharp-edged solids in the feed water
• Lead elements mostly affected

28
Intrusion of the membrane /Collapsing in the permeate
carrier/Compaction –Flux Loss

Cased by
• Water Hammer
• Too high pressure
• Too high temperature

29
Effect on membrane performance if something
goes wrong
Fouling/Scaling
Mechanical Damages
Chemical Damages

30
Chemical Damages –Most reasons for salt
rejection decline in my experiences

Correction: Membrane replacement, Special chemical application

Prevention: De-chlorination, Free chlorine control like ORP, Review
chemical dosing in feed water and CIP method

31
Chemical Cleanings & Element
Replacement
Cleaning Criteria, When to clean
–Recommendation…

• Normalized flow declines by 10%

• Pressure drop increases by 10-15%
• Normalized salt passage increases by 5-10%*
*Dependent on individual system design

I would recommend to review chemical cleaning

efficiency in previous CIP cleaning…
Incorrect Cleaning Criteria?
• Pump pressure cannot be further increased
• RO system barely produces permeate
• Pressure drop is 15 psi per element or 50 psi per multi-
element vessel

A typical pressure drop for a multi element vessel in the first stage is
approximately 15-20 psi. The 50 psi pressure drop cleaning criteria would mean
that the pressure drop has increased 333%.
Operating at 50 psi pressure drop may cause irreversible element damage due to
high axial load. In addition, high pressure drop typically indicates severe fouling.
Cleaning or repeated cleanings are often not able to restore the membrane
element performance decline caused by the fouling. Further, cleaning will not
restore the performance decline caused by the mechanical damage

34
Typical Cleaning Frequency

• Well water (SDI <3) 2 / year

• City water (SDI 3-5) 3 - 4 / year
• Surface water (SDI 3-5) 4 - 6 / year
• Waste water (SDI 3-5) 4-12 / year

In case of waste water application, some customers apply

preventive cleaning once per month to clean not only
element but also overall system (piping, vessels, etc.)

35
Cleaning Maintenance

36
FILMTEC™ membranes -pH and Temperature
limits

37
 Why Clean at High pH?
• Much greater efficiency for
removal of biofouling and organic
fouling.

• The another key is to increase

chemical solution temperature to
35C.

• Overnight soaking can be

applied for more efficient
cleaning.

• 0.1w% NaOH with 1.0w% Cleaning pH<12 is not effective

Na4EDTA (pH12) was really to remove bio-fouling
effective to remove humic
substances in agricultural water.
38
Why Clean at Low pH?

H2SO4 cleaning may cause sulfate scale with calcium on membrane surface
and is not recommended to be used, but some of engineering companies
confirmed there is no problem.
39
Citric Acid Concern
• Less effective for removal of calcium carbonate, iron
oxide/hydroxide
• Can contribute/accelerate biofouling

• Sometimes very effective to remove heavy metal fouling

like aluminum
• Recommendation when heavy metal seems to be fouling
source and HCl cleaning is not effective to recover
normalized permeate flow rate.

40
Alkaline Cleaning First!

Acid reacts with organics, silica, and biofouling which

causes more severe fouling
→ further membrane performance decline.

Subsequent cleanings may not restore the performance

decline caused by the acid cleaning

It is difficult to detect the cause of membrane performance

decline after the above situations.

41
CIP System

42
Recommended feed flow rates during high flow
cleaning

43
Other Cleaning Tips
Stages should be cleaned separately

Recommend to start CIP cleaning only by standard

chemical cleaning, NaOH for alkaline cleaning and HCl for
acid cleaning. If the chemical cleaning cannot recover
membrane performance efficiently, next is to change
cleaning conditions such as pH, temperature, and soaking
time. After that, other chemical will be applied.

Recommend to conduct both alkaline and acid cleaning at

the same time.

44
Cleaning Must Do’s
• Permeate flush between cleanings
• Permeate for cleaning chemical solution preparation
• Inspect CIP tank prior to each cleaning
• Measure pH during cleaning: adjust pH when needed
• Chemical solution preparation: take dilution effect into account
• Alkaline cleanings at elevated temperatures: 35°C (95°F)
• Acid cleanings can be carried out at minimum 25°C (77°F)
• When using commercial cleaners: verify their compatibility
• Never use laundry soaps/detergents or household cleaners

45
 Element Replacement
•Even though the performance of each vessel in the same stage is
different, it is recommended to apply same replacement concept to all
vessels.
•To detect which elements have low performance (lead or tail, 1st or 2nd
stage), those elements are removed. Used elements are installed at
removed elements position, and new elements are installed at used
elements position.

<Case of lead element replacement>

Before Feed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Brine
Side Side New
element

Used
After Feed 2 3 4 5 6 7 Brine elements
Side Side
46
 Copyright © 2018 DuPont and Dow. All rights reserved. The DuPont Oval Logo and DuPont™ are trademarks of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company or its affiliates.
The Dow Diamond Logo, Dow™ are trademarks of the Dow Chemical Company or its affiliates.

Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a representation that any recommendations, use or resale of the product or process described herein is permitted and complies with the rules or
regulations of any countries, regions, localities, etc., or does not infringe upon patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties.

The information provided herein is based on data DuPont believes to be reliable, to the best of its knowledge and is provided at the request of and without charge to our customers.
Accordingly, DuPont does not guarantee or warrant such information and assumes no liability for its use. If this product literature is translated, the original English version will control and
DuPont hereby disclaims responsibility for any errors caused by translation. This document is subject to change without further notice.
Dow FilmTecTM RO Product to
solve problems
 DOW FILMTEC™ Anti-Fouling Membranes Development
Membranes to stand up to today’s water challenges.

DOW FILMTECTM Fouling Resistant FORTILIFE™ CR100

Membranes FORTILIFE
a Track Record of Leading Innovation to Tackle Challenging Gen 2
Water
BW30XFR

Gen 1
BW30FR
RO Membranes
15
10
5

Zeta Potential (mV)

0
-5
-10
-15
-20

BW30
-25
-30
0 2 4 6 8 10

pH

Membrane chemistry
Innovations

Module design
Innovations
BW30XFR Membrane Chemistry Innovation – Less Flux
Loss due to Particle Fouling

Flat sheet test result

Add 200ppm of Silica Nano
Particle (~7nm), pH： ：7 - 8

Source: G. Poppe et al., IWC-10-57

50
BW30XFR Membrane Chemistry Innovation – Less
Organic Fouling by More Hydrophilicity

Source: W. E. Mickols et al., 7th IWA World Congress on Water Reclamation and Reuse (2009)
51
BW30XFR Feed Spacer Innovation – Low Differential
Pressure for Less Particle and Bio-Fouling
•Surface water with conventional pretreatment
•High-fouling environment (colloidal and bio-fouling)
•Cleaning 4+ times per year
•7-element vessels (8inch)
•Three instrumented vessels in the first stage filled with elements for comparison
•All vessels run at the same flux and recovery Pressure Drop
Pressure drop was lowest
for the 34LDP spacer,
enabling a significant
increase in the time
between cleanings,
depending on cleaning
criterion.
caustic clean
caustic clean

52
FORTILIFE™ CR100: Ultra low element differential
pressure
8” 400 ft2 element pressure drop at varying feed flows

FORTILIFE
CR100
8” 400 ft2 element with the
Std 8” 400 ft2 lowest differential pressure
RO
 Parameter Concentration

FORTILIFE™ CR100: Steel and Iron WW TDS 700–900 mg/L

COD 40–60 mg/L

Side-by-side evaluation of two banks of 7 x 8 inch elements operated in

series with matching flux and recovery. Highly biofouling Steel and Iron industrial
wastewater.
CIP 1 CIP 2 CIP 3 CIP 4 CIP 5 CIP 6
BW30FR 400/34
6 CIP / 122 days
Average CIP frequency
= 1.47 cleanings/ month

CIP 1 CIP 2 CIP 3 CIP 4 CIP 5

FORTILIFE™ CR100
6 CIP / 190 days
CIP 6

Average CIP frequency

= 0.95 cleanings/ month

FORTILIFE
CR100

34% reduced CIP Frequency

BW30FR
400/34

54
FORTILIFETM CR100: Groundwater with High Biofouling
Side-by-side evaluation of two banks of 8 elements (2540) in series Parameter Concentration

with matching flux and recovery. Softened groundwater with nutrient TDS 180–200 ppm

dosing (0.1mg/L C, 0.02mg/L N and 0.01mg/L P) to encourage bio- TOC 2–3 ppm

growth.
60 CIP 1 CIP 2 CIP 3 4

Pressure Drop (bar)

Pressure Drop (psi)
50
BW30XFR 40
3
3 CIP / 107 days 30 2
Average CIP Frequency 20
1
= 0.79 cleanings / month 10
0 0
60 0 20 40 601
CIP 80 100 120CIP 2140 160CIP 3180 4

Pressure Drop (bar)

Pressure Drop (psi) 50
3
40
FORTILIFETM CR100
30 2
3 CIP / 176 days
20
Average CIP Frequency 1
10
= 0.48 cleanings / month
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Operating Days
FORTILIFE
CR100

39% reduced CIP Frequency

BW30XFR
400/34
FORTILIFE™ CR100: Vilaseca Wastewater
Side-by-side evaluation of two banks of 6 x 4” elements in series operated with matching flux and
recovery. Vilaseca Wastewater (Tarragona, Spain) with nutrient dosing to encourage bio-growth.
Parameter Concentration
TDS 1,700 mg/L
TOC 5.9 mg/L

Delayed CR100
Cleaned both banks of elements at the same time cleaning until dP
was >1 bar

FORTILIFE FORTILIFE
CR100 CR100
Lower dP through out operation 30% Longer on stream
Element A Element A
time before cleaning

56
DOW FILMTEC™ Membrane Oxidation and Hydrolysis
Resistance
Primary UPW system
Sand Filter – Dow Ultrafiltration – Activated Carbon (AC) filter – Cartridge Filter – RO

Test Operating Conditions

Array: 5 -3
Elements per Vessel 3
Capacity: 20 m3/hr
Recovery: 70%
Temperature: 20°C
Flux (LMH) 21.7

• Chlorine is intermittently dosed (about 0.2 ppm) per day for three minutes as
biocide.
• Side-by-side test is conducted at 1st stage.
 DOW FILMTEC™ Membrane Oxidation and Hydrolysis
Resistance
100.0
100.0
99.0
99.5
98.0

99.0 97.0

Si Rejection (%)
Cl Rejection (%)

96.0
98.5
95.0
98.0
94.0

97.5 93.0

92.0
97.0
91.0
96.5
90.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Days 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Days

Cl Rejection Si Rejection
Dow’s products show best rejection stability for 3 years
operation!!
Usually No CIP cleaning during 3 years.

58
Torture CIP Test – BW30-400/34i vs Competitor A
Competitor A shows high rejection and flux in the initial stage.
Competitor A lose its rejection gradually, after 7 cycles, lower than BW30-400/34i.
It demonstrates Competitor A’s poor stability in terms of caustic cleaning.
BW30-400/34i Flow TM720D-400 Flow BW30-400/34i Rej% TM720D-400 Rej%
14000 100
99.5
13000 Competitor A Rej%
Competitor A Flow 99
Product flow (GPD)

98.5
12000

Rejection (%)
98
11000 97.5
97
10000
96.5
96
9000
95.5
8000 95
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CIP cycle#

• Aggressive torture cleaning test:

• Caustic cleaning - 0.1% (wt) NaOH, pH 13, Temperature 35 C, 4 hours
• Caustic soaking overnight (pH 13, room temperature)
• Acid cleaning – 0.2% (wt) HCl, pH 2-3, 30 C, 30 min
• Standard EPAS check (with NaCl only @ pH 7)
Torture CIP Test – BW30XFR-400/34i vs Competitor A
Acceptable Torture tolerance of Competitor A after 15 cycles
Product flow of Competitor A gradually increased from <10000 gpd to >12000
gpd, while rejection decreased from >99.5% to 99%.
Normalized rejection after considering product flow increase: Competitor A
99.0% vs XFR 99.4%.
BW30XFR-Flow Competitor
TML-Flow BW30XFR-Rej% Competitor
TML-Rej%
A Flow A Rej%
14000 100
Normalized rejection @ 10500 gpd
99.5 99.8
13000
99
99.6
12000
Product flow (GPD)

98.5

Rejection (%)
99.4
11000 98
99.2
97.5
10000 99 BW30XFR-Norm%
Competitor A Norm %
TML-Norm%
97
98.8
9000
96.5
98.6
8000 96 0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 13 14 15
0 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 13 14 15
CIP cycle#

60
Director Service (SOS Analysis)

Three SOS Global Lab Locations

Shanghai, China
Edina, USA
Tarragona, Spain
All locations have the same testing
capabilities

61
 SOS (System Optimization Services)
Post service evaluation:

• Optimization of plant performance

• Operation and cleaning recommendations enabled by:
• Element characterization
• Autopsy
• Inorganic and organic water and foulant analysis
• Cleaning experimentation

Individual RO/NF RO/NF cleaning RO, NF & UF UF characterization and

element characterization optimization Autopsies cleaning optimization

do not share without permission 62

SOS (System Optimization Services)
Analytical Support

• 50 different techniques, for inorganic & organic water,

membrane and deposit analysis. Examples:
Water analysis Membrane and residue analysis
• Inorganic: Ion chromatography Inorganic: X-ray flourescence
(XRF)
• Organic: Gas chromatography – mass Organic: Fourier transform
spectrometry (GC-MS) infrared

do not share without permission

When we want to check anything about RO…
We can check

Dow FilmTec Technical Manual

https://dowac.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3428

Answer Center on Dow Water & Process Solutions Website

https://dowwater.custhelp.com/

Water Academy as webinar on Dow Water & Process Solutions Website

http://client.dow.com/wateracademy1

Consult Dow representative

64
Questions?