Investigation on removing recalcitrant toxic organic polluters in coking wastewater by forward osmosis

doi:10.1016/j.cjche.2019.07.011

Abstract

Abstract: Investigation was made on the efficiency of two commercial membranes in removing via forward osmosis (FO) the low molecular weight organic compounds typical of coking wastewater. The membranes were supplied by Poten and HTI companies. The organics in the simulated coking water were indole and pyrridine. Under FO mode, the rejection to the organics by Poten membrane was around 50%, whereas that for HTI membrane was obviously higher, ranging from 65% to 74%. The response of the two membranes in terms of Water flux and reverse salt flux (RSF) towards changing feed/draw solution (DS) flow rates in FO mode showed similar tendency, but different degree. Generally, the flux in FO using HTI membranes was lower. For HTI membrane, FO operated with pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) mode was also performed and the overall rejection of the organics was slightly lower than that in FO mode. In the long term FO test within 15 days, both Poten and HTI membranes displayed flux reduction and rejection enhancement. But the variation with Poten membrane was much more obvious. Discussion was carried out about the reasons and the mechanisms behind the FO performance difference between two membranes and the variation in flux and rejection with operation conditions. Characterizations by SEM, FTIR, AFM, XRD and XPS were tried to support the proposed explanations.

Key words: Coke wastewater, Organics rejection, Forward osmosis, Water flux, Reverse salt flux

摘要： Investigation was made on the efficiency of two commercial membranes in removing via forward osmosis (FO) the low molecular weight organic compounds typical of coking wastewater. The membranes were supplied by Poten and HTI companies. The organics in the simulated coking water were indole and pyrridine. Under FO mode, the rejection to the organics by Poten membrane was around 50%, whereas that for HTI membrane was obviously higher, ranging from 65% to 74%. The response of the two membranes in terms of Water flux and reverse salt flux (RSF) towards changing feed/draw solution (DS) flow rates in FO mode showed similar tendency, but different degree. Generally, the flux in FO using HTI membranes was lower. For HTI membrane, FO operated with pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) mode was also performed and the overall rejection of the organics was slightly lower than that in FO mode. In the long term FO test within 15 days, both Poten and HTI membranes displayed flux reduction and rejection enhancement. But the variation with Poten membrane was much more obvious. Discussion was carried out about the reasons and the mechanisms behind the FO performance difference between two membranes and the variation in flux and rejection with operation conditions. Characterizations by SEM, FTIR, AFM, XRD and XPS were tried to support the proposed explanations.

关键词: Coke wastewater, Organics rejection, Forward osmosis, Water flux, Reverse salt flux

Zhiqiang Li, Lanying Jiang, Chongjian Tang. Investigation on removing recalcitrant toxic organic polluters in coking wastewater by forward osmosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2020, 28(1): 122-135.

Zhiqiang Li, Lanying Jiang, Chongjian Tang. Investigation on removing recalcitrant toxic organic polluters in coking wastewater by forward osmosis[J]. 中国化学工程学报, 2020, 28(1): 122-135.

References

[1] M.K. Ghose, Complete physico-chemical treatment for coke plant effluents, Water Res. 36(5) (2002) 1127-1134.
[2] Z.H. Liang, S. Li, W.Q. Guo, The kinetics for electrochemical removal of ammonia in coking wastewater, Chinese. J. Chem. Eng. 19(4) (2011) 570-574.
[3] Y.M. Kim, D. Park, D.S. Lee, J.M. Park, Inhibitory effects of toxic compounds on nitrification process for cokes wastewater treatment, J. Hazard. Mater. 152(3) (2008) 915-921.
[4] G.X. Liu, H. Zhen, S.L. Sun, X.Y. Hu, Aerobic degradation and microbial community succession of coking wastewater with municipal sludge, Environ. Sci. 38(9) (2017) 3807-3815.
[5] Y.M. Li, G.W. Gu, J.F. Zhao, H.Q. Yu, Y.L. Qiu, Y.Z. Peng, Treatment of coke-plant wastewater by biofilm systems for removal of organic compounds and nitrogen, Chemosphere 52(6) (2003) 997-1005.
[6] B. Li, Y.L. Sun, Y.Y. Li, Pretreatment of coking wastewater using anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR), Journal of Zhejiang University Science 6(11) (2005) 1115-11123.
[7] W. Xue, E. Chao, G. Shun, Z.F. Qiu, Q. Sui, Coking wastewater treatment for industrial reuse purpose:Combining biological processes with ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, J. Environ. Sci. 25(8) (2013) 1565-1574.
[8] X. Hu, L. Xie, H. Shim, S.F. Zhang, D.H. Yang, Biological nutrient removal in a full scale anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic/pre-anoxic-MBR plant for low C/N ratio municipal wastewater treatment, Chinese. J. Chem. Eng. 22(4) (2014) 447-454.
[9] Y. Wei, W. Zhan, S. Peng, The cake layer formation in the early stage of filtration in MBR:Mechanism and model, J. Membr. Sci. 559(2018) 75-86.
[10] M. Bodzek, J. Bohdziewicz, M. Kowalska, Immobilized enzyme membranes for phenol and cyanide decomposition, J. Membr. Sci. 113(2) (1996) 373-384.
[11] M. Kowalska, M. Bodzek, J. Bohdziewicz, Biodegradation of phenols and cyanides using membranes with immobilized microorganisms, Prog. Biotechnol. 33(2) (1998) 189-197.
[12] W.T. Zhao, X. Huang, D.J. Lee, M. He, Y. Yuan, Feasibility study on coke wastewater treatment using membrane bioreactor (MBR) system with complete sludge retention, Environ. Sci. 30(11) (2009) 3316-3323.
[13] Y. Ren, C.H. Wei, C.F. Wu, G.B. Li, Analysis of water quality composition and environmental and biological characteristics of coking wastewater, Environ. Chem. 27(7) (2007) 1094-1100.
[14] D. Su, P.J. Li, S. Frank, X.Z. Xiong, Biodegradation of benzo[a]pyrene in soil by Mucor sp. SF06 and Bacillus sp. SB02 co-immobilized on vermiculite, J. Environ. Sci. 18(6) (2006) 1204-1209.
[15] Y.L. Qu, M.Y. Li, X.D. Zhai, Advanced treatment technology of coking wastewater and its present status, Industrial Water Treatment 35(1) (2015) 14-17.
[16] X.W. Jin, E.C. Li, S.G. Lu, Z.F. Qiu, Q. Sui, Coking wastewater treatment for industrial reuse purpose:Combining biological processes with ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, J. Environ. Sci. 25(8) (2013) 1565.
[17] Q. Li, M. Elimelech, Organic fouling and chemical cleaning of nanofiltration membranes:Measurements and mechanisms, Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(17) (2004) 4683-4693.
[18] H.S. Oh, C.H. Tan, J.H. Low, A.G. Fane, Quorum quenching bacteria can be used to inhibit the biofouling of reverse osmosis membranes, Water Res. 112(2017) 29-37.
[19] J.S. Vrouwenvelder, D.V.D. Kooij, Diagnosis, prediction and prevention of biofouling of NF and RO membranes, Desalination 139(1-3) (2001) 65-71.
[20] K. Kimura, Y. Oki, Efficient control of membrane fouling in MF by removal of biopolymers:Comparison of various pretreatments, Water Res. 115(2017) 172-179.
[21] K. Kimura, K. Shikato, Y. Oki, K. Kume, S. A.Huber, Surface water biopolymer fractionation for fouling mitigation in low-pressure membranes, J. Environ. Sci. 554(15) (2018) 83-89.
[22] T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis:Principles, applications, and recent developments, J. Environ. Sci. 281(1-2) (2006) 70-87.
[23] S. Zhao, L. Zou, C.Y. Tang, D. Mulcahy, Recent developments in forward osmosis:Opportunities and challenges, J. Environ. Sci. 396(1) (2012) 1-21.
[24] E.R. Cornelissen, D. Harmsen, E.F. Beerendonk, J.J. Qin, H. Oo, K.F.D. Korte, J.W.M.N. Kappelhof, The innovative osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) for reuse of wastewater, Water Sci. Technol. 63(8) (2011) 1557-1565.
[25] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, E.A. Marchand, A.E. Childress, The forward osmosis membrane bioreactor:A low fouling alternative to MBR processes, Desalination 239(1) (2009) 10-21.
[26] M.A. Shannon, J.G. Georgiadis, B.J. Marias, A.M. Mayes, et al., Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades, Nature 452(7185) (2008) 301-310.
[27] T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis:Principles, applications, and recent developments, J. Membr. Sci. 281(1) (2006) 70-87.
[28] J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Influence of membrane support layer hydrophobicity on water flux in osmotically driven membrane processes, J. Membr. Sci. 318(1) (2008) 458-466.
[29] Q. Wei, S. Qiao, B. Sun, S. Lei, Study on the treatment of simulated coking wastewater by O₃ and O₃/Fenton processes in a rotating packed bed, RSC Adv. 5(113) (2015) 93386-93393.
[30] B. Kim, G. Gwak, S. Hong, Review on methodology for determining forward osmosis (FO) membrane characteristics:Water permeability (A), solute permeability (B), and structural parameter (S), Desalination 422(2017) 5-16.
[31] A. Tiraferri, N.Y. Yip, W.A. Phillip, J.D. Schiffman, M. Elimelech, Relating performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes to support layer formation and structure, J. Membr. Sci. 367(1-2) (2011) 340-352.
[32] I. Sutzkover, D. Hasson, R. Semiat, Simple technique for measuring the concentration polarization level in a reverse osmosis system, Desalination 131(1) (2000) 117-127.
[33] J.R. McCutcheon, R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Desalination by ammonia-carbon dioxide forward osmosis:Influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on process performance, J. Membr. Sci. 278(1) (2006) 114-123.
[34] K. L. Lee, R. W. Baker, H. K, Lonsdale. Membrane for power generation by pressure retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 8(2) (1981) 141-171.
[35] V.M.M. Lobo, Mutual diffusion coefficients in aqueous electrolyte solutions, Pure Appl. Chem. 65(12) (1993) 2613-2640.
[36] Q.Y. Wu, Z.G. Zhong, L. Yang, D. Liu, Review on draw solution in forward osmosis process, Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(6) (2015) 139-145.
[37] G.D. Mehta, S. Loeb, Internal polarization in the porous substructure of a semipermeable membrane under pressure-retarded, J. Membr. Sci. 4(00) (1978) 261-265.
[38] M. Xie, W.E. Price, D.N. Long, M. Elimelech, Effects of feed and draw solution temperature and transmembrane temperature difference on the rejection of trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 438(7) (2013) 57-64.
[39] A.V. Raghunathan, N.R. Aluru, Molecular understanding of osmosis in semipermeable membranes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(2) (2006), 024501.
[40] Y. Wang, L. Liu, J. Xue, J.M. Hou, D. Li, H.H. Wang, Enhanced water flux through graphitic carbon nitride nanosheets membrane by incorporating polyacrylic acid, AICHE J. 64(2018) 2181-2188.
[41] J.N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and surface forces:With applications to colloidal and biological systems, Q. Rev. Biol. 63(1) (1985) 77.
[42] B. Kim, G. Gwak, S. Hong, Review on methodology for determining forward osmosis (FO) membrane characteristics:Water permeability (A), solute permeability (B), and structural parameter (S), Desalination 422(2017) 5-16.
[43] J.R. Mccutcheon, R.L. Mcginnis, M. Elimelech, Desalination by ammonia-carbon dioxide forward osmosis:Influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on process performance, J. Membr. Sci. 278(1) (2006) 114-123.
[44] M. Sauchelli, G. Pellegrino, A. D'Haese, Transport of trace organic compounds through novel forward osmosis membranes:Role of membrane properties and the draw solution, Water Res. 141(15) (2018) 65-73.
[45] K.L. Lee, R.W. Baker, H.K. Lonsdale, Membrane for power generation by pressure retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 8(2) (1981) 141-171.
[46] L.D. Nghiem, S. Hawkes, V. Chen, Effects of membrane fouling on the nanofiltration of trace organic contaminants, Desalination 236(1) (2007) 273-281.
[47] M. Xie, D.N. Long, W.E. Price, M. Elimelech, Comparison of the removal of hydrophobic trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis and reverse osmosis, Water Res. 46(8) (2012) 2683-2692.
[48] M. Khayet, J.I. Mengual, T. Matsuura, Porous hydrophobic/hydrophilic composite membranes application in desalination using direct contact membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 252(1) (2005) 101-113.
[49] M. Xie, D.N. Long, W.E. Price, M. Elimelech, Relating rejection of trace organic contaminants to membrane properties in forward osmosis:Measurements, modelling and implications, Water Res. 49(2) (2014) 265-274.
[50] A.H. Hawari, N. Kamal, A. Altaee, Combined influence of temperature and flow rate of feeds on the performance of forward osmosis, Desalination 398(2016) 98-105.
[51] S. Phuntsho, S. Sahebi, T. Majeed, Assessing the major factors affecting the performances of forward osmosis and its implications on the desalination process, Chem. Eng. J. 231(3) (2013) 484-496.
[52] G.T. Gray, J.R. Mccutcheon, M. Elimelech, Internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis:Role of membrane orientation, Desalination 197(1-3) (2006) 1-8.
[53] Q. She, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, C.Y. Tang, Membrane fouling in osmotically driven membrane processes:A review, J. Membr. Sci. 499(2016) 201-233.
[54] X. Ming, D.N. Long, W.E. Price, M. Elimelech, Impact of humic acid fouling on membrane performance and transport of pharmaceutically active compounds in forward osmosis, Water Res. 47(13) (2013) 4567-4575.
[55] N.M. Mazlan, P. Marchetti, H.A. Maples, G. Boram, K. Santanu, A. Bismarck, G.L. Andrew, Organic fouling behaviour of structurally and chemically different forward osmosis membranes-a study of cellulose triacetate and thin film composite membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 520(2016) 247-261.
[56] D.K. Wang, X. Zhang, J.C.D.D. Costa, Claisen-type degradation mechanism of cellulose triacetate membranes in ethanol-water mixtures, J. Membr. Sci. 454(2014) 119-125.
[57] H.L. Gray, T.F. Murray, C.J. Staud, Effect of aniline on cellulose triacetate, J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 51(6) (1929) 1810-1814.