Assessment of different nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes for simultaneous removal of arsenic and boron from spent geothermal water

被引:0
|
作者
Jarma, Yakubu A. [1 ]
Karaoğlu, Aslı [1 ,2 ]
Tekin, Özge [1 ]
Baba, Alper [3 ]
Ökten, H. Eser [4 ]
Tomaszewska, Barbara [5 ,6 ]
Bostancı, Kamil [7 ,8 ]
Arda, Müşerref [7 ]
Kabay, Nalan [1 ]
机构
[1] Ege University, Department of Chemical Engineering, Izmir,35100, Turkey
[2] Ege University, Graduate School of Science, Division of Environmental Sciences, Izmir, Turkey
[3] Izmir Institute of Technology, Department of International Water Resources, Urla,Izmir,35430, Turkey
[4] Izmir Institute of Technology, Department of Environmental Engineering, Izmir, Turkey
[5] Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
[6] AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicza 30 Av., Kraków,30-059, Poland
[7] Ege University, Department of Chemistry, Izmir, Turkey
[8] Dokuz Eylul University, Torbalı Vocational School, Mining Technology Programme, Izmir, Turkey
关键词
Arsenic - Chemicals removal (water treatment) - Groundwater - Testing - Irrigation - Osmosis membranes - Boron - Crops - Nanofiltration - Water filtration - Water quality;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
One of the factors that determine agricultural crops’ yield is the quality of water used during irrigation. In this study, we assessed the usability of spent geothermal water for agricultural irrigation after membrane treatment. Preliminary membrane tests were conducted on a laboratory-scale set up followed by mini-pilot scale tests in a geothermal heating center. In part I, three commercially available membranes (XLE BWRO, NF90, and Osmonics CK- NF) were tested using a cross-flow flat-sheet membrane testing unit (Sepa CF II, GE-Osmonics) under constant applied pressure of 20 bar. In part II, different spiral wound membranes (TR-NE90-NF, TR-BE-BW, and BW30) other than the ones used in laboratory tests were employed for the mini-pilot scale studies in a continuous mode. Water recovery and applied pressure were maintained constant at 60% and 12 bar, respectively. Performances of the membranes were assessed in terms of the permeate flux, boron and arsenic removals. In laboratory tests, the permeate fluxes were measured as 94.3, 87.9, and 64.3 L m−2 h−1 for XLE BWRO, CK-NF and NF90 membranes, respectively. The arsenic removals were found as 99.0%, 87.5% and 83.6% while the boron removals were 56.8%, 54.2%, and 26.1% for XLE BWRO, NF90 and CK-NF membranes, respectively. In field tests, permeate fluxes were 49.9, 26.8 and 24.0 L m−2 h−1 for TR-NE90-NF, BW30-RO and TR-BE-BW membranes, respectively. Boron removals were calculated as 49.9%, 44.1% and 40.7% for TR-BE-BW, TR-NE90-NF and BW30-RO membranes, respectively. Removal efficiencies of arsenic in mini-pilot scale membrane tests were all over 90%. Quality of the permeate water produced was suitable for irrigation in terms of the electrical conductivity (EC) and the total dissolved solids (TDS) for all tested membranes with respect to guidelines set by the Turkish Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation (TMEU). However, XLE BWRO, CK-NF and NF90 membranes failed to meet the required limits for irrigation in terms of boron and arsenic concentrations in the product water. The permeate streams of TR-BE-BW, TR-NE90-NF and BW30-RO membranes complied with the irrigation water standards in terms of EC, TDS and arsenic concentration while boron concentration remained above the allowable limit. © 2020 Elsevier B.V.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Nanofiltration & reverse osmosis technical assessment for pesticides removal
    Rubén Rodríguez-Alegre
    Laura Pérez Megías
    Sonia Sanchis
    Carlos Andecochea Saiz
    Xialei You
    Discover Environment, 2 (1):
  • [22] Application of electrodeionization (EDI) for removal of boron and silica from reverse osmosis (RU) permeate of geothermal water
    Arar, Ozgur
    Yuksel, Umran
    Kabay, Nalan
    Yuksel, Mithat
    DESALINATION, 2013, 310 : 25 - 33
  • [25] Removal of arsenic and pesticides from drinking water by nanofiltration membranes
    Kosutic, K
    Furac, L
    Sipos, L
    Kunst, B
    SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY, 2005, 42 (02) : 137 - 144
  • [26] Impact of pH on the removal of fluoride, nitrate and boron by nanofiltration/reverse osmosis
    Richards, Laura A.
    Vuachere, Marion
    Schaefer, Andrea I.
    DESALINATION, 2010, 261 (03) : 331 - 337
  • [27] Evaluation of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes on removal of carbofuran in drinking waters
    Bueno, Marcelo Zawadzki
    Coral, Lucila Adriani
    Sens, Mauricio Luiz
    Lapolli, Flavio Rubens
    ENGENHARIA SANITARIA E AMBIENTAL, 2016, 21 (03) : 447 - 458
  • [28] Modeling micropollutant removal by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes: considerations and challenges
    Osorio, S. Castano
    Biesheuvel, P. M.
    Spruijt, E.
    Dykstra, J. E.
    van der Wal, A.
    WATER RESEARCH, 2022, 225
  • [29] Removal of N-Nitrosamines and Their Precursors by Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membranes
    Miyashita, Yu
    Park, Sang-Hyuck
    Hyung, Hoon
    Huang, Ching-Hua
    Kim, Jae-Hong
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 2009, 135 (09) : 788 - 795
  • [30] Removal of haloacetic acids from swimming pool water by reverse osmosis and nanofiltration
    Yang, Linyan
    She, Qianhong
    Wan, Man Pun
    Wang, Rong
    Chang, Victor W. -C.
    Tang, Chuyang Y.
    WATER RESEARCH, 2017, 116 : 116 - 125