Desalination 249 (2009) 960968

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

Controlling oc sizes in a pipe between pump and membrane inlet

Taeyoung Kim a,1, Heekyung Park a,
a

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, 305-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Cake resistance is inuenced by oc size deposited on membrane surface. Enlarging oc size can reduce cake resistance. The small particles are enlarged by coagulation and occulation processes in conventional mixing tank at membrane ltration system. Fully-grown ocs for reducing the cake resistance, however, are ruptured while passing through a pump. In light of this fact, this study aims to experimentally look at the reaggregation phenomenon through control of G-values in pipe from pump to inlet of membrane. In addition, reaggregation phenomenon of the mixing system is compared with rst-aggregation in-line injection system in which coagulant is injected just before a pump. These results suggest that rstaggregation of in-line injection system is better than reaggregation of mixing system for G-value above 3100 s 1. G-values in pipe of real world membrane ltration system are usually much larger than 3100 s 1. Due to reason, in-line injection system is expected to perform better than mixing tank as proved in this study. 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 19 July 2008 Accepted 27 June 2009 Available online 7 October 2009 Keywords: Reaggregation First-aggregation G-value Membrane-feed-pipe In-line injection system Cake resistance

1. Introduction A major issue in design of membrane ltration is to get enough permeate ux. For this reason, conventional coagulation and occulation process in mixing tank has been frequently selected as a pretreatment since they increase particle size and thus reduce membrane fouling. It has been reported that the ocs increased in size by the process are totally broken up while passing through a pump [1 3]. Interestingly, however, it has also been reported that they are increased and cake layer is reduced and thus permeate ux increases [46]. According to Kim et al. [2,3], that is largely due to reaggregation of broken ocs occurring somewhere after the pump. Kim et al. [3] analyzed particle size distribution of samples taken at 4 different points which were at mixing tank, right after pump, inlet of membrane module, and retentate line of membrane module. Then they discussed that the reaggregation generally occurred nearby and within movable cake layer of membrane due to near-zero uid velocity and high particle concentration in the movable cake layer region. Interestingly, we nd from their results that reaggregation partially occurred in a pipe which exist between pump and inlet of membrane module, which is largely due to turbulent energy in the pipe. (This pipe is called membrane-feed-pipe (MFP) in our study just for simplicity.) We also think that for improving overall removal efciency of a membrane system it will be easier to control the reaggregation in MFP than in the membrane module since turbulent energy in MFP can be

controlled by changing its shape, size, and other operating conditions. This lead us to initiate this study to look at the following: controlling sizes of the reaggregates by changing turbulent energy in MFP with ow rate in and diameter of MFP, analyzing effect of detention time in MFP on the reaggregation (It is noted that detention time in MFP is only a few seconds but we think its effect need to be reviewed.), and evaluating effect of the reaggregation in MFP on cake resistance of membrane. In addition, previous study has shown that in-line injection system can make more permeable cake layer and reduce membrane resistance [7]. Furthermore, hydraulic cleaning and permeate ux are better with an in-line injection due to enhanced removal of turbidity and natural organic matter (NOM). Also, Kim et al. [3] compared mean oc size and cake resistance between an in-line injection system and a conventional mixing tank system for crossow microltration and discussed that the former resulted in larger ocs and thus less cake resistance than the latter. They explained that this is due to the attractive forces between reaggregated particles after pump in the latter system which were weaker than the one between rst-aggregated particles in the former system in which coagulant was injected just before a pump. Accordingly, this paper investigates impact of hydrodynamic condition in MFP of an in-line injection and a conventional mixing tank system on oc size and cake resistance for comparison.

2. Theory 2.1. EDPD (Effective Diameter for Polydisperse condition in Dead-end ltration) To represent polydisperse conditions in models for monodispersity and crossow ltration, Kim and Park [2] proposed a representative size

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 869 3620; fax: +82 42 869 3610. E-mail addresses: kty2005@kaist.ac.kr (T. Kim), hkpark@kaist.ac.kr (H. Park). 1 Tel.: +82 42 869 5660; fax: +82 42 869 3610. 0011-9164/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2009.03.019

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968

961

of EDSD (Effective Diameter for Shear-induced Diffusion in crossow ltration) using behavior characteristics of particles in cake formation on the crossow membrane surface. Some researchers indicated that cake resistance is proportional to 4/3 power of a particle radius at monodisperse condition in crossow ltration [8,9]. This further means that smaller particles contribute more on the cake resistance. In light of this, EDSD was derived as follows: EDSD = PFi dpi = Pi wi dpi ^ subjected to wi Rc 1 = dpi wi = k = dpi
4= 3 4= 3 4= 3

2.2. Calculation of G-value in MFP A typical design parameter for mixing in static and in-line mixers is G-value. Clark [11] and Graber [12] discussed that the G-value was originally derived using two-dimensional ows and its use for threedimensional cases was inappropriate. Further they indicated that the G-value alone cannot be universally applied to different types and sizes of mixers. Nonetheless, it has been used to characterize mixing intensity in many types of mixers for many years. This is mainly because the G-value is easy to use in eld. In this study, for the same reason, we use it to quantify mixing intensity in MFP. In addition, we also use another index of mixing, Reynolds number, for comparison. Using a pressure drop, some researchers developed a G-value model to quantify mixing intensity in a mixer [13,14]. Firstly, for analysis of mixing in in-line mixer, as Godfrey et al. [13] explained, friction factor, Reynolds number and pressure drop are related as follows. f = Dp p = Re 2L2 2L2 3 a a 5

PFi = wi Pi = kP = dpi = 1 Where PFi = probability of fouling for a particle with diameter dpi; Pi = distribution ratio of the particle based on the number of particles; wi = weighted factor; and k = correlation factor [2]. For the same purpose, we developed a representative particle size for a polydisperse condition for dead-end ltration as follows. Cake layer on membrane surface is formed in dead-end ltration by convective mass transfer which decreases with decline of ux. That is, when a suspension contains particles which are larger than membrane pores and ow through, the larger ones are retained and accumulated on membrane surface in dead-end ltration. Through these processes, cake layer increases resistance against ltration. Cake resistance (Rc) can be expressed as a product of specic cake resistance (Rc) and cake thickness (c). The specic cake resistance per unit thickness (Rc) of incompressible cake in monodisperse condition can be expressed with the CarmanKozeny model as shown in Eq. (2). 1801c ^ Rc = 3 P d2 c 2

Where f = friction factor; D = diameter of pipe (m); p = pressure drop across a pipe (kg m 1 s 2); L = mixer length (m); = density of water (kg m 3); = dynamic viscosity of water (kg m 1 s 1); and a = average velocity (m/s). Secondly, to relate G-value and pressure drop in a pipe, the following equation is used. s s P Qp G= = V V 6

Where c = void fraction of cake; P = particle density (kg m 3); and d = diameter of a rigid spherical particle (m). The model explains that the specic cake resistance per unit thickness (Rc) is inversely proportional to square of a particle diameter in monodisperse condition. It is hard to apply the model for polydisperse condition. Thus, Endo and Alonso [10] proposed a new specic cake resistance model of Eq. (3) using a mean diameter and standard deviation of particle size distribution of a polydisperse condition. 1801c K ^ Rc = 3 c P d2 exp4 ln2 P pavg 3

Where P = power dissipated in a pipe (kg m2 s 3); V = uid volume in a pipe (m3); Q = volumetric ow rate (m3 s 1); and p = pressure drop across a pipe (kg m 1 s 2). In addition, the pressure drop is expressed as a product of and hL (m) where (kg m 2 s 2) is specic weight of water and hL head loss for which DarcyWeisbach equation shown in Eq. (7) is used. hL = f L 2 a D 2g 7

Lastly, we combine all the equations to develop a model for Gvalue which includes pipe diameter, kinematic viscosity, average velocity, and friction factor. Its derivation and result are shown in Eq. (8). s s s s r r P Q p = QrhL a = rhL a = ghL a = ghL a = G= V QL L L vL V s f 3 a P = Q p; p = hL ; = g; v = = = 2vD s s   f 3 f 2 Ref 1 = 2 a 1=2 a a 8 = = Re G= 2 2D D 2 2D with f = p 64 1 Re < 2000; p = 2 logRe f 0:8Re 3000 Re f

Where, dpag = mean diameter of particles; K = particle shape factor; and P = standard deviation of particle size. In the same way which Kim and Park [2] did in their derivation of EDSD, we develop a representative particle size by relating particle diameter, dpi, to probability of fouling (PFi). The representative particle size is called EDPD (Effective Diameter for Polydisperse condition in Dead-end ltration) and derived as follows: EDPD = PFi dpi = Pi wi dpi
2 subjected to wi Rci 1 = dpi 2 wi = k = dpi

Where = kinematic viscosity (m2 s 1). 3. Materials and experimental methods

PFi = wi Pi =

2 kP = dpi

=1

where PFi = probability of fouling for a particle with diameter dpi; Pi = distribution ratio of the particle based on the number of particles; wi = weighted factor; and k = correlation factor.

An Amicon UF membrane Cell (AUC) used for dead-end ltration in this study is a disc membrane of polysulfone with MWCO (Molecular Weight Cut Off) of 30,000 Da and effective surface area of 28.7 cm2. For crossow ltration, MF membrane of polysulfone hollow ber (SKM-103 model, SK chemical Co., Korea) is used having

962

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968

Fig. 1. Schematics of experimental setups (a) dead-end ltration with mixing tank; (b) crossow ltration with in-line injection (Da = diameter of MFP, i.e., pipe after pump; Db = diameter of pipe before pump; and Ta = retention time in MFP).

whose pore size with a range of 0.010.1 m and effective surface area is 600 cm2. It is 36 cm in length, and 0.8 mm in inner diameter. Coagulant used is Al2(SO4)31418H2O (Junsei Chemical Co., Japan). Monodisperse latex particles (Sigma-Aldrich production GmbH) which are 1 0.04 m in diameter and 2 109 particles/L in concentration are added together with the coagulant to distilled water, which results in forming aggregated particles of various sizes. This is to make polydisperse conditions. Its pH is maintained at 4.5 for charge neutralization. This is done to more focus on oc reaggregation since charge neutralization is known to be more advantageous for oc reaggregation than sweep occulation due to more polymeric alum ions [3,15]. Three types of experiments were conducted. The rst type is only for evaluating reaggregation in MFP. Therefore, a system is used with a mixing tank to coagulate and occulate and no membrane which is similar to Fig. 1(a) without a membrane. The second type is conducted with an in-line injection system in which coagulant is injected just before a pump as shown in Fig. 1(b) without membrane. The third type is together with membrane and conducted with four different setups of mixing tank (M), in-line injection (I), dead-end (D) and crossow (C) ltration. This is done to nd relationships between oc size in MFP and cake resistance of membrane. The rst experimental setup (DM) is with dead-end ltration and mixing tank as shown in Fig. 1(a). The second setup (CM) is with crossow ltration and mixing tank. The third one (DI) is with dead-end ltration and in-line mixing. The forth one (CI) is with crossow ltration and in-line mixing which is shown in Fig. 1(b). Whenever it is used, a conventional mixing tank coagulates and occulates a solution of 70 L with a coagulant of 5 mg/L which is determined using ZetaPlus (Brookshaven Co.) to make zeta potential

close to zero. At in-line injection setups, the same coagulant of 5 mg/L is injected just before a pump. Thus, it is coagulated by the pump and expected to be occulated to a certain degree in MFP. The ocs in MFP are considered as the ones aggregated rst time. They are thus called the rst-aggregated ocs while the ones with the mixing tank setups are called the reaggregated ocs. During experiments with a mixing tank, samples are taken at four points which are at the inlet to the pipe (i.e. the outlet of the mixing tank) (point 1), just before the pump (point 2), right after the pump (point 3), and just before the membrane (point 4) as shown Fig. 1(a). With in-line injection setups, however, samples are taken only at two places points 1 and 4 as shown in Fig. 1(b). They are taken to measure particle sizes with a particle size analyzer (Sympatec GmbH, Germany). For that, in fact, a sample is taken into a cylinder of 5 mL using a valve at each point. To keep the particles in the samples as intact as possible, we place each sample directly into a cell between lenses of the particle analyzer. The analyzer uses a micro-pump to supply a suspension of particles for measurement with a laser beam and thus the ocs to be measured may break while being pumped through the micro-pump. This may result in some discrepancies between the samples and what is actually measured. The manual operation is to minimize such discrepancies by reducing possible oc breakage. As shown in Fig. 1, diameters of the polyurethane MFP used in the experiments are 4, 5 and 8 mm and ow rates vary in a range of 350 to 1050 mL/min. This is to create various hydrodynamic conditions in MFP with different G-values and Reynolds numbers. To check effect of detention time in MFP, in addition, we use two detention times of 5 and 10 s which are obtained by adjusting the length of MFP from 1 to

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968 Table 1 Experimental conditions and EDPD and EDSD at points 1, 2, 3 and 4. Flow rate (mL/min) 350 400 500 Da (mm) 8 8 8 5 4 600 8 5 4 700 8 4 750 800 850 900 920 950 980 1000 1050 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Friction factor (f) 0.06160 0.05390 0.04312 0.04681 0.04367 0.03593 0.04422 0.04132 0.03080 0.03947 0.03868 0.03796 0.0373 0.03684 0.03647 0.03621 0.03582 0.03562 0.03513 Re G (s 1) 82 94 117 480 1335 141 810 1707 164 2104 2309 2521 2736 2962 3046 3185 3319 3411 3645 Ta (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 EDPD (m) Point 1 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 77.76 Point 2 52.42 48.63 49.58 46.46 47.34 36.89 41.78 41.75 31.70 35.09 46.72 43.85 50.21 35.96 45.73 48.65 38.32 43.51 32.10 52.68 28.65 35.52 25.81 24.8 19.12 18.83 14.11 13.77 13.52 12.97 10.47 9.89 7.52 7.67 6.98 7.05 5.87 5.78 Point 3 22.41 20.73 21.85 20.03 27.31 29.32 23.45 24.52 20.21 19.54 31.84 26.44 15.62 19.83 8.92 4.59 14.80 15.80 7.66 6.25 4.23 3.91 3.45 2.98 2.54 2.47 1.82 1.74 1.57 1.68 1.45 1.52 1.41 1.48 1.39 1.42 1.23 1.21 Point 4 55.62 56.37 52.42 53.38 48.73 49.48 59.05 49.46 40.57 35.13 41.32 42.75 53.29 48.49 35.08 28.65 34.46 36.13 24.44 21.50 19.93 18.45 16.43 15.37 10.92 10.53 6.54 6.38 4.41 4.23 2.97 2.91 2.74 2.65 2.24 2.12 1.82 1.74 DP 1.35 1.83 1.54 16.24 13.41 3.46 9.01 18.33 4.85 12.03 7.43 6.45 3.57 2.45 4.08 2.02 3.28 5.36 4.40 EDSD (m) Point 1 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 62.23 Point 2 47.64 44.51 43.69 43.18 41.20 31.64 32.15 32.28 21.56 24.89 39.10 35.48 35.64 22.24 39.87 42.45 27.42 31.25 18.25 27.59 13.57 18.84 11.24 10.56 7.65 7.98 4.52 4.15 4.21 3.98 2.54 2.45 2.48 2.34 1.94 1.87 1.58 1.23 Point 3 21.25 19.65 16.82 16.74 22.58 14.47 18.25 19.42 12.14 11.54 24.84 21.12 6.27 11.64 5.54 3.45 13.25 14.34 5.41 4.89 3.25 3.14 2.54 2.47 2.14 2.04 1.98 1.84 1.64 1.78 1.35 1.42 1.24 1.21 1.18 1.14 1.11 1.07 Point 4 50.37 51.21 46.54 47.63 40.96 41.74 49.41 41.18 28.44 23.48 37.82 39.33 45.95 41.14 25.45 19.86 26.74 28.55 14.45 12.58 13.52 12.24 11.89 10.98 9.15 8.67 4.98 4.74 3.91 3.67 3.14 3.02 2.48 2.35 1.75 1.63 1.42 1.34 DP

963

1039 1187 1484 2375 2969 1781 2850 3562 2078 4156 4453 4750 5047 5343 5462 5640 5818 5937 6234

1.67 2.34 1.90 16.66 17.44 3.99 10.47 21.96 6.77 12.94 9.47 7.65 5.25 4.82 6.14 3.82 5.24 6.86 5.63

7 m together with the ow rates. The rpm of a centrifugal pump is controlled from 80 to 420 rpm. All experimental cases for the rst type are each conducted ten times and an average of the ten results is taken as a nal result for each case. The dead-end ltration with AUC for the second type of experiments is operated at a xed TMP of 1.5 atm and permeate is measured by volumetric permeate ux. Its feed volume is 1.5 L and ltration time is in a range of 15 and 21 min. The crossow ltration is also operated at xed owrate from 850 to 1050 mL/min and its TMP varies in a range of 3.25 to 4.03 105 N/m2. From experiment results, cake resistance of membrane (Rc) is calculated using Eq. (9). Rc = TMP Rm J 9

where Rm = membrane resistance (1.13 1012 m 1), J = permeate ux at 25 C; TMP = transmembrane pressure; and = dynamic viscosity of water (8.91 10 4 kg m 1 s 1 at 25 C). As well as those of the rst type, all the experimental cases of the second type are each conducted ve times and an average of the ve results is taken as a nal result. 4. Results and discussions 4.1. Effects of G-value and detention time on oc reaggregation in MFP To evaluate oc reaggregation in MFP, a total of 40 cases of the rst type are tested under various hydrodynamic conditions whose G-values

are in a range of 82 to 3645 s 1 and detention times in MFP are 5 and 10 s. As noted, an experiment for each case is conducted ten times and an average is taken as a result. The average EDPD and EDSD values at the four points of each case are shown in Table 1 together with other data. As shown, all the smallest sizes for the cases are at point 3 which is just after the pump and the sizes at point 4 become larger. This indicates that the fully-grown ocs in a conventional mixing tank are broken down while passing through the pump and the ruptured ocs are aggregated again in MFP. The results at point 4 are classied into four groups according to EDPD, EDSD and the two detention times and are each shown in Fig. 2. As clearly shown, in all four groups, the change of the two representative particle sizes with respect to Gvalue is divided into two, i.e., laminar and turbulent ow conditions. This clear division is presented because particle collision and thus oc reaggregation in MFP is dominated by hydrodynamic characteristics. As expected, it is shown that in both hydrodynamic conditions and with the two detention times, EDPD and EDSD decrease as G-value increases and they are directly related. As shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2, the EDPD values of reaggregated ocs at point 4 are in a range of 1.74 to 59.05 m and the EDSD values at point 4 are in a range of 1.32 to 51.21 m. The results of previous studies indicated that in a conventional mixing tank, the recovery rate of broken ocs was inuenced by mixing time for reaggregation [15,16]. They also discussed that the reaggregated oc sizes were larger with less mixing intensity and longer mixing time. In light of these ndings, we selected two detention times (Ta) of 5 and 10 s in MFP to estimate effect of mixing time in MFP on the

964

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968

Fig. 2. Relationships at point 4 between G-value and (a) EDPD with Ta = 5 s; (b) EDPD with Ta = 10 s (c) EDSD with Ta = 5 s; (d) EDSD with Ta = 10 s (Db = 4 mm).

reaggregated oc size, given actual eld applications could not permit long detention time in MFP. Representative particle sizes of both detention times at a same G-value are measured and compared as follows: Detention time PercentageDP = RPS5 RPS10 100% RPS5 10

Where RPS5 = Representative Particle Size at point 4 with Ta = 5 s (m); and RPS10 = Representative Particle Size at point 4 with Ta = 10 s (m).

As shown in Fig. 3, at G-values in laminar ow conditions (i.e., Reynolds numbers are less than 2078), the DPs are negative which means that representative particle sizes of reaggregated ocs get larger at a longer detention time of 10 s. It is reversed, on the other hand, in turbulent ow conditions (i.e., for Reynolds number larger than 2100). The reversed pattern is due to stronger turbulent energy in MFP with higher G-values dominating over the positive effect of the longer detention time. That is, rebreakage by stronger shear rates becomes larger than reaggregation between broken ocs by attractive forces as the G-value increase in turbulent conditions. As noted, the sizes at Ta = 5 and 10 s are a little different but not large enough for us

Fig. 3. Detention time percentages with G-values and Reynolds numbers.

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968 Table 2 EDPD and EDSD at point 4 of mixing tank and in-line injection systems. Flow rate (mL/min) 500 600 500 600 700 750 800 850 900 920 950 980 1000 1050 Da (mm) 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Friction factor (f) 0.04681 0.04422 0.04367 0.04132 0.03947 0.03868 0.03796 0.0373 0.03684 0.03647 0.03621 0.03582 0.03562 0.03513 Re G (s 1) 480 810 1335 1707 2104 2309 2521 2736 2962 3046 3185 3319 3411 3645 EDPD (m) Mixing tank 59.05 53.29 40.57 35.08 24.44 19.93 15.48 10.92 6.54 4.41 2.97 2.74 2.24 1.82 In-line injection 8.25 7.58 7.02 6.69 5.72 5.09 4.98 4.87 4.67 4.56 4.09 3.51 3.43 2.98 AP 86.03 85.78 82.70 80.93 76.60 74.46 67.83 55.40 28.59 3.40 37.71 28.10 53.13 63.74 EDSD (m) Mixing tank 49.41 45.95 28.44 25.45 14.45 13.52 11.35 9.15 4.98 3.91 3.14 2.48 1.75 1.42 In-line injection 7.47 6.80 6.21 5.88 4.91 4.27 4.16 4.05 3.86 3.82 3.58 2.81 2.25 1.92 AP

965

2375 2850 2969 3562 4156 4453 4750 5047 5343 5462 5640 5818 5937 6234

84.88 85.20 78.16 76.90 66.02 68.42 63.35 55.74 22.49 2.30 14.01 13.31 28.57 35.21

to take into consideration for further analysis. As a result, this study takes only a detention time of 5 s for further analysis. 4.2. Effects of reaggregation and rst-aggregation on particle size in MFP Kim et al. [3] reported that crossow membrane ltration with inline injection resulted in lower cake resistance than that with coagulation and occulation in a mixing tank since the former created larger ocs than the latter did. Considering that ocs are rst time aggregated in MFP in the former system while they are reaggregated in MFP in the latter system, they speculated the lower cake resistance was due to the rst-time aggregation with stronger attraction between particles. To look at more details of this, this study experiments a total of 15 in-line injection cases with various turbulent hydrodynamic conditions in MFP whose G-values are in a range of 480 to 3645 s 1 and Reynolds numbers in a range of 2375 to 6234 as shown in Table 2. All the cases are in turbulent ow conditions. Since most of eld systems are operated in turbulent conditions, laminar conditions are not tested any more in this study. Each case is also tested ten times to get an average of the oc sizes at point 4. For comparison, the G-values of which all are exactly same with those of the 15 cases with a mixing tank system shown in Table 1. As discussed above, a detention time in MFP is kept 5 s. To more quantitatively analyze, the representative particle sizes of both systems at a same Gvalue are compared as follows and their data and results are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 4. Aggregation PercentageAP = MSIS 100% MS 11

To analyze the effects of oc reaggregation and rst-aggregation on cake resistance, dead-end ltrations with a conventional mixing tank and an in-line injection are each tested. Use of dead-end ltration is to exclude any effects of crossow in membrane on cake formation. For unstirred dead-end ltration, in which uid motion is perpendicular to membrane surface, cake formation is affected by void fraction of a cake and particle size as shown in Eqs. (2) and (3). As shown in Table 3 and Fig. 5(a), EDPD of dead-end ltration decrease and the cake resistances of steady state increase as G-values in MFP increase. Also, for G-values larger than 3100 s 1, the EDPD of the in-line

Where MS = representative particle size at point 4 of the mixing tank system (m); and IS = representative particle size at point 4 of in-line injection system (m). As shown, the EDPD and EDSD linearly decrease as G-value increases. Furthermore, as G-value goes over around 3100 s 1 where Reynolds number is around 5500, interestingly, the RPSs of the in-line injection system become larger than those of the mixing tank system by at least 0.33 m and the aggregation percentages (APs) are changed from positive to negative. This suggests that the reaggregated ocs of the latter can't be larger than the rst-aggregated ocs of the former as Gvalues and Reynolds numbers become larger than those. This further suggests that a membrane with the latter is subject to smaller particles than that of the former and thus has more potential to be blocked by cake layer. Given that G-values in MFP of the real world membrane ltration systems are usually much larger than 3100 s 1, it is also suggested that an in-line injection system may perform better than a mixing tank system due to the effect of rst-aggregation.

Fig. 4. EDPD and EDSD at point 4 of mixing tank and in-line injection systems with Ta = 5 s.

966 Table 3 EDPD and EDSD at point 4 and cake resistances. Condition G (s-1) 2736 3046 3185 3319 3411 3645 Detention time (s) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mixing tank dead-end ltration EDPD (m) 10.92 4.41 2.97 2.74 2.24 1.82

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968

In-line injection dead-end ltration EDPD (m) 4.87 4.56 4.09 3.51 3.43 2.98 Rc ( 1011 m 1) 9.82 10.12 10.84 11.94 12.53 14.77

Mixing tank cross ow ltration EDSD (m) 9.15 3.91 3.14 2.56 1.75 1.42 Rc ( 1011 m 1) 0.19 0.89 1.22 1.72 3.19 4.52

In-line injection cross ow ltration EDSD (m) 4.05 3.82 3.58 2.81 2.25 1.92 Rc (1011 m 1) 0.83 0.90 0.99 1.49 2.43 3.11

Rc (1011 m 1) 6.42 10.13 14.72 15.92 19.15 22.35

injection system are larger than those of the mixing tank system. These are all in conformity with what has been discussed above. The reason for the as mentioned results is that the cake resistance is more inuenced by smaller particles. Since the EDPD is developed to account for that as explained in Eq. (4), there is supposed to be direct relationships among EDPD, cake resistance and G-value. To derive them, a basic regression model is postulated as follows: Rc = ARPS

12

Where A and are constants; and RPS is the representative particle size (m). In the case of the monodisperse conditions, for instance, particle size is a particle diameter and equals 1/2 as shown in Eq. (2). Using the least-squares method and the experimental results shown in Table 3, A and are determined for the polydisperse conditions. Table 4 shows the results of regression analysis for each system with dead-end ltration. As shown, their R2 values are very high. We think that this is because EDPD is reasonably well dened to reect

the relationship between cake resistance and particle size for dead-end ltration under polydisperse conditions. Just for information, we have also developed a model using the results of both systems together since we think the relationship between particle size and cake resistance does not need to be bound with a system itself. The model is called a generalized cake resistance model for dead-end ltration and shown in Table 4 and Fig. 6. As shown, its R2 is 0.9606. In addition, the same types of experiments are conducted with crossow ltration. The results of EDSD and cake resistance are shown in Table 3 and Fig. 5(b). Generally speaking, the same results are obtained as those of dead-end ltration. That is, the EDSDs decrease and the steady state cake resistances increase as G-values in MFP increase. Also, for G-values larger than 3100 s 1, the EDSD of the in-line injection system are larger than those of the mixing tank system. Accordingly, the cake resistances of the former are lower than those of the latter. All these results from both dead-end and crossow ltration support that in real world application an in-line injection system may perform better than a mixing tank system.

Fig. 5. EDPD and EDSD at point 4 and cake resistances of dead-end and crossow ltrations.

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968 Table 4 Regression models with EDPD for dead-end ltration. Condition (detention time) Mixing tank system for dead-end ltration (5 s) In-line injection for dead-end ltration (5 s) Generalized model for dead-end ltration (5 s) Regression model Rc = 32.567 (EDPD) 0.7038 Rc = 33.103 (EDPD) 0.7742 Rc = 31.998 (EDPD)
0.7251

967

Table 5 Regression models with EDSD for Crossow ltration. R2 0.9819 0.9508 0.9606 Condition (detention time) Mixing tank system for crossow ltration (5 s) In-line injection for crossow ltration (5 s) Generalized model for crossow ltration (5 s) Regression model Rc = 8.3797 (EDSD) 1.6925 Rc = 10.176 (EDSD) 1.8125 Rc = 9.249 (EDSD)
1.7292

R2 0.9989 0.9968 0.9862

An empirical relationship between particle size and cake resistance, shown in Eq. (13), was proposed by Kim [17] discussing that in polydisperse conditions, particle size and its distribution has more inuence on cake resistance than the other variables of shear rate and particle concentration.
2 Rc = AdE1 rw C

k3

13

Where A = constant; dE = EDSD; rw = shear rate; and C = particle concentration. Accordingly, from his experimental results, the constants of k1, k2 and k3 were derived 1.744, 0.445, and 0.202, respectively. As a result, he concluded that increasing EDSD is the most effective way to reduce cake resistance of crossow ltration of used particles. In his experiments, Kim [17] took samples from membrane surface for measurement of particle size and its distribution. In fact, he took the samples from backwashed water. This is a different from what we did in this study. That is, we measure particle size in MFP, i.e., at point 4, which make it unnecessary to explore effects of shear rate and particle concentration. We develop, as a result, another model which includes EDSD only. Table 5 and Fig. 7 show the models we developed for the mixing tank and in-line injection systems for crossow ltration together with a generalized model. As shown, their R2 are 0.9989, 0.9968 and 0.9862, respectively, all of which are very high. 5. Conclusions This study tries to look at the effect of pump on membrane ltration with a mixing tank for coagulation and occulation by analyzing the sizes and distributions of particles in a pipe from the pump to membrane inlet (i.e., in MFP). Also, their performances are compared with those of an in-line injection system. In summary, the conclusions are as follows: (1) Particle sizes and their distribution in MFP can be well related to cake resistance of membrane. For developing relationships

among them, two representative particle sizes are used each with dead-end and crossow ltration. They are EDPD (Effective Diameter for Polydisperse condition in Dead end ltration) and EDSD (Effective Diameter for Shear-induced Diffusion in crossow ltration), respectively. As shown above, there exist direct relationships among them. The relationships will be useful in estimating cake resistance in advance by calculating the representative particle sizes in MFP. Considering controlling hydrodynamic conditions in MFP will be much easier than adjusting the conditions in membrane module, to control G-value in MFP and thus those representative particle sizes can be a valuable option for managing cake resistance. (2) In a conventional mixing tank system, ocs totally broken by pump are reaggregated in MFP to some degree. The degree of reaggregation measured using EDPD and EDSD depends on hydrodynamic condition which is represented by G-value in MFP in this study. The G-value is a function of ow rate, pipe diameter and Reynolds number in MFP. Thus, reaggregation patterns are clearly divided into two groups which are laminar and turbulent. Generally speaking, the EDPDs and EDSDs of the reaggregated ocs in both groups decrease as G-value increases. (3) In an in-line injection system, particles are also aggregated in MFP to some degree. Compared to the reaggregation in the mixing tank system, this is called rst aggregation. As G-value becomes over 3100 s 1, the rst aggregated ocs in MFP gets larger than the reaggregated ones. That is, the EDPDs and EDSDs of the former become larger than those of the latter. This suggests that with real world membrane systems, in-line injection may better work than mixing tank for coagulation and occulation since their G-values in MFP are usually larger than 3100 s 1. (4) Our experiments were conducted only with particles no less than 1 m in diameter and no organics. Our results are thus bound by those conditions. Further study to consider other substances and conditions is required to extend our results to other cases.

Fig. 6. EDPD and cake resistance in dead-end ltration.

Fig. 7. EDSD and cake resistance in crossow ltration.

968

T. Kim, H. Park / Desalination 249 (2009) 960968 Da: diameter of pipe after pump (mm) Db: diameter of pipe before pump (mm) d: diameter of a rigid spherical particle (m) dE: EDSD (m) dpg: mean diameter of particles (m) EDPD: Effective Diameter for Polydisperse condition in Dead-end ltration (m) EDSD: Effective Diameter for Shear-induced Diffusion in crossow ltration (m) f: friction factor hL: head loss (m) IS: representative particle size at Point 4 of in-line injection system (m) K: particle shape factor k: correlation factor L: mixer length (m) MFP: Membrane-Feed-Pipe MS: representative particle size at point 4 of the mixing tank system (m) P: power dissipated in a pipe(kg m2 s 3) P: distribution ratio of the particle based on the number of particles PFi: probability of fouling for a particle with diameter dpi Q: volumetric ow rate(m3s 1) R c: specic cake resistance per unit thickness (m 1 kg 1) RPS5: representative particle size at point 4 with Ta = 5 s (m) RPS10: representative particle size at point 4 with Ta = 10 s (m) Rm: membrane resistance(m 1) Ta: retention time in MFP (s) V: uid volume in a pipe(m3) a: average velocity (m/s) wi: weighted factor : specic weight of water (kg m 2 s2) rw: shear rate (s 1) c: void fraction of cake : dynamic viscosity of water (kg m 1 s 1) : kinematic viscosity of water (m2 s 1) : density of water (kg m 3) P: particle density (kg m 3) P: standard deviation of particle size p: pressure drop across a pipe (kg m 1 s 2)

Acknowledgment This work was supported by the Brain Korea 21 project and the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD) (KRF-2007-511-D00142). References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] S. Kim, S.H. Cho, H. Park, Water Sci. Technol.: Water Supply (2002) 329336. S. Kim, H. Park, J. Environ. Eng. 131 (2005) 865873. S. Kim, N.S. Park, T.Y. Kim, H. Park, J. Environ. Eng. 133 (2007) 507514. M.R. Wiesner, M.M. Clark, J. Mallevialle, J. Environ. Eng. 115 (1989) 2040. J.D. Lee, S.H. Lee, M.H. Jo, P.K. Park, J.H. Lee, J.W. Kwak, Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000) 37803788. Y. Soffer, A.R. Ben, A. Adin, Water Sci. Technol. 42 (2000) 367372. K.Y. Choi, B.A. Dempsey, Water Res. 38 (2004) 42714281. C.A. Romero, R.H. Davis, J. Membr. Sci. 39 (1988) 157185. R.H. Davis, J.D. Sherwood, Chem. Eng. Sci. 45 (1990) 32033209. Y. Endo, M. Alonso, Filtr. Sep. 38 (2001) 4346. M.M. Clark, J. Environ. Eng. 116 (1985) 741754. S.D. Graber, Dev. Theor. Appl. Mech. 17 (1994) 533556. J.C. Godfrey, Amirtharajah, Mixing in Coagulation and Flocculation, AWWARF, Denver, 1991. R.J. Latimer, A. Amirtharajah, Pilot scale comparison of static mixers and backmix reactors for coagulation, American Water Works Association Annual Conference, 1998. M.A. Yukselen, J. Gregory, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 79 (2004) 782788. M.M. Clark, J.R.V. Flora, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 147 (1991) 407421. S. Kim, Characteristics and control of cake formation in crossow microltration at polydisperse condition, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, South Korea, 2003.

[15] [16] [17]

Glossary
A: Constant AP: aggregation percentage (%) C: particle concentration (g/L) D: diameter of pipe (mm)