technical document with low cost recycled membranes. … · wp / task responsible facsa author (s)...

Project Funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme. Grant Agreement No 641998

D2

.2

Technical document with low cost recycled membrane’s properties and performance in WATERCER pilot plant

D2.2 TECHNICAL DOCUMENT WITH LOW COST RECYCLED MEMBRANES. WATERCER 2 | 31 2 | 31

PROGRAMME H2020 – Water

GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER 641998

PROJECT ACRONYM REMEB

DOCUMENT D 2.2

TYPE (DISTRIBUTION LEVEL) ☒ Public

☐ Confidential

☐ Restricted

DUE DELIVERY DATE 29/04/2016

DATE OF DELIVERY 29/04/2016

STATUS AND VERSION Final version

NUMBER OF PAGES 31

WP / TASK RELATED 2

WP / TASK RESPONSIBLE FACSA

AUTHOR (S) FACSA and ITC-UJI

PARTNER(S) CONTRIBUTING FACSA, ALL

FILE NAME Technical document with low cost recycled membrane’s properties and performance in WATERCER pilot plant

DOCUMENT HISTORY

VERS ISSUE DATE CONTENT AND CHANGES

v00 23/02/2016 First version

v01 25/03/2016 Second version

vFinal 29/04/2016 Final version


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 7

2. LABORATORY SCALE RESULS ..................................................................................... 8

2.1. Membrane composition based on starch .......................................................... 8

2.2. Membrane composition based on agroindustrial wastes ............................... 17

3. PILOT SCALE RESULTS .............................................................................................. 21

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 29


LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Water permeameter ........................................................................................ 11

Figure 2. Pore size distribution curves obtained by mercury pore sizing for pressed

supports. ......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3. Pore size distribution curves obtained by mercury pore sizing for extruded

supports. ......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4. FEG-ESEM micrographs of low-cost ceramic membrane obtained in the

Watercer project. ........................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Critical flux determination ............................................................................... 16

Figure 6: Evolution of TMP with time at constant flux of 15 L/m2h ............................... 17

Figure 7: Aspect of the compositions during the extrusion process .............................. 18

Figure 8. Pore size distribution curves obtained by mercury pore sizing for extruded

supports with different compositions of type C2 .......................................................... 20

Figure 9. FEG-ESEM micrographs of recycled low-cost ceramic membrane obtained

with a composition of the C2 group ............................................................................... 20

Figure 10: Onda-Betxí-Villareal-Alqueríes wastewater treatment plant ....................... 21

Figure 11: Pilot MBR tank and control panel ................................................................. 22

Figure 12: Wastewater inlet to the MBR tank ................................................................ 22

Figure 13: Control panel with the chemicals used for the cleaning stage ..................... 23

Figure 14: Air diffusers located behind the membrane module .................................... 23

Figure 15: Pilot plant scheme ......................................................................................... 24

Figure 16. Ceramic membrane, cassette and connections ............................................ 25

Figure 17: Example of pilot ceramic membranes without and with inner channels ..... 25


Figure 18: Ceramic membranes placed inside the tank ................................................. 26

Figure 19: MBR in operation........................................................................................... 26

Figure 20: Evolution of MLSS during experiments ......................................................... 27

Figure 21: Chemical oxygen demand in the influent and permeate (mg/L) .................. 28

Figure 22: SCADA of the pilot plant ................................................................................ 28


LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Chemical and mineralogical compositions of the raw materials used (wt %) ... 9

Table 2. Ceramic membrane compositions (%) .............................................................. 10

Table 3. FEG-ESEM micrographs of pressed and extrude supports ............................... 12

Table 4. Water permeability of the sintered membranes ............................................. 14

Table 5: Synthetic wastewater composition .................................................................. 15

Table 6. Formulated compositions (% by weight) .......................................................... 18

Table 7. Physical properties of the compositions .......................................................... 19

Table 8: Properties of fired supports .............................................................................. 19

Table 9: Permeate flow and permeability obtained during the experiments................ 29


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nowadays, the necessity of water reclamation due to the water scarcity in the

Mediterranean Regions, has promoted the study of different techniques that allow

water reuse.

A membrane bioreactor (MBR) is a wastewater treatment that combines the biological

treatment with membrane technology. The main difference between MBRs and

conventional activated sludge (CAS) process is that it is not required a secondary

clarifier to separate the effluent from the sludge. The membrane acts as a barrier

between the microorganisms and the treated water.

A membrane bioreactor is a compact system, which allow high concentrations of

mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), low production of excess sludge and high

quality effluent. This effluent can be discharged to sensitive receiving bodies or be

reclaimed for applications such as irrigation.

Conventional membranes applied in MBRs are made of polymeric materials. Ceramic

membranes can offer more robust and long-term alternative to organic membranes

for both microfiltration and ultrafiltration processes. The main advantage of ceramic

membranes is that they have better chemical, thermal and mechanical properties,

which make possible to operate them under severe conditions and also to apply harsh

cleaning procedures (high temperature, strong cleaning reagents) [1-5].

The main drawback of ceramic membranes is that they are more expensive, mainly

due to the materials required for their manufacture (alumina and titania or zirconia

oxides). The objective of Watercer project was to develop low cost ceramic

membranes for wastewater treatment, for both MBRs and tertiary treatments.

The consortium was formed by: Sociedad Fomento Agrícola Castellonense, S.A.

(FACSA) , Instituto de Tecnología Cerámica from University Jaume I (ITC-UJI), the

research group Catálisis, Separaciones Moleculares e Ingeniería de Reactores from

Zaragoza University and the company EXAGRES.

Watercer project was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation

through the National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technology

Innovation 2008–2011 (INNPACTO programme, project IPT-2011-1069-310000).


2. LABORATORY SCALE RESULS

Instituto de Tecnología Cerámica from University Jaume I from Castellón (ITC-UJI) was

the partner involved in the membrane manufacture at laboratory scale. It has to be

highlighted that this partner is also a partner of the REMEB consortium.

ITC-UJI developed different membrane compositions with ceramic materials (clay,

chamotte, etc.) with lower cost than the commercial membranes have in their

composition such as oxides, carbides or nitrides, being the most important aluminum

oxide (Al2O3), silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4) and zirconia (ZrO2) combined

with some refractory oxides. A cost reduction in ceramic manufacturing can be

expected by replacing the more expensive raw materials by these minerals in ceramic

membranes.

In recent years has been found literature to develop porous ceramic materials based

on low cost raw materials such as clay, kaolin, zeolite, bauxite, diatomite, andalusite,

etc., which require lower sintering temperatures than those needed for metal oxide-

based materials. [6-16]. As an example, the sintering temperature for alumina-based

composition decrease from 1600 ºC to 1200 ºC when using kaolin [17].

Consequently, there are many works related with the manufacture of low-cost ceramic

membranes based on clayey compositions with the addition of a poreformer (mainly

starch and/or calcium carbonate), for example, the paper published with some of the

results obtained in the Watercer project [17]. Nevertheless, the introduction of wastes

in the ceramic composition has been considered in few works, being most of them just

related to laboratory scale.

2.1. Membrane composition based on starch

Firstly, it was studied the development of low cost ceramic supports for membranes

based on raw materials typically used in the ceramic industry, such as clay and calcium

carbonate (an inorganic pore former) together with starch as an organic pore former.

This composition is used as a standard, since the raw materials used in it are

commercial, which characteristics are provided by the supplier.

The raw materials used in the synthesis of the porous support should contribute to the

final properties of the membrane, such as high porosity, mechanical strength and


chemical resistance. In addition, most of these raw materials used are widely used in

the ceramic sector to obtain ceramic tiles. The raw materials initially used were:

Clay

0omercial cChamotte

Potassium feldspar

Magnesium feldspar

Quartz

On the other hand, the use of other materials was analyzed to provide to the support

the necessary workability and final characteristics for use it as a filter medium. These

raw materials are economic and most of them are related to the ceramic sector:

Wollastonite

Calcium Carbonate

Potato starch

To improve the mechanical strength of the porous support, it is advisable to add to the

composition materials which provide calcium (calcium carbonate and wollastonite),

since this element allows the formation of calcium phases during sintering.

To obtain the desired porosity in the support during sintering, raw materials which

create pores during burning should be used, as calcium carbonate and starch. Calcium

carbonate decomposition and starch combustion is performed at moderate

temperatures, generating pores in both cases, which increase the membrane

permeability to a great extent.

Nevertheless, the final composition was based mainly in a mixture of clay, calcite,

chamotte and starch. The chemical and mineralogical compositions of these raw

materials are typical of the Spanish ceramic industry and are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Chemical and mineralogical compositions of the raw materials used (wt %)

Clay Calcite Chamotte

SiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3

67.2

20.3

1.1

0.24

0.15

0.02

70.1

20.4

1.7


CaO

MgO

Na2O

K2O

TiO2

Loss on ignition

0.4

0.5

0.2

3.0

1.0

6.3

55.7

0.14

-

0.01

-

43.7

0.5

0.4

4.3

2.0

0.7

-

Mineralogical composition

Kaolinite, Quartz; Albite, Microcline (potassic feldspar)

Muscovite, Hematite

Calcite Quartz, Albite,

Microcline, Hematite

Since the initial design of the low-cost ceramic membranes was flat, they could be

manufactured by pressing or extrusion, both methods normally used in the

manufacture of ceramic tiles. Because of this, the first study carried out was to

compare the membrane manufacture by extrusion and by pressing, using the same

compositions. The microstructures and properties obtained by these two shaping

methods were compared and the differences between them analyzed. Table 2 shows

the different compositions studied:

Table 2. Ceramic membrane compositions (%)

Ref. Clay Calcite Chamotte Potato starch

1

2

3

60

85

40

20

15

20

20

-

20

-

-

20

To measure the water permeability of the flat ceramic support obtained, the

equipment shown in Figure 1 was used. Being: membrane holder (1), pressure gauge

(2), valves (3 and 4), feed inlet duct (5) and permeate outlet duct (6).


Figure 1. Water permeameter

Figure 2 and Figure 3 compare pore size distributions of supports obtained by different

methods (pressing and extrusion), with different compositions (1, 2 and 3) and

different thermal cycles (dwelling time: 6 and 60 min). It is remarkable the influence of

the manufacture process, having the support obtained by pressing larger pore size; on

the other hand, the addition of the pore former increases the pore size and reduces

the influence of the manufacturing method.

Figure 2. Pore size distribution curves obtained by mercury pore sizing for pressed supports.

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.1 1 10 100

Dpore (µm)

Inc

rem

en

tal

intr

us

ion

vo

lum

e (

cm

3/g

)*1

03

P1 (6')

P1 (60')

P2 (60')

P3 (60')


Figure 3. Pore size distribution curves obtained by mercury pore sizing for extruded supports.

shows the images of the microstructure of the different samples. As it has been shown

in the pore size distribution, it is remarkable the influence of the shaping method, the

thermal cycle and the addition of a pore former, as well as the proportion and kind of

ceramic raw materials (clays, chamotte, calcite, etc.).

Table 3. FEG-ESEM micrographs of pressed and extrude supports

Composition

/ dwell time Pressed samples Extruded samples

1 / 6’

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.1 1 10 100

Dpore (µm)

Inc

rem

en

tal

intr

us

ion

vo

lum

e (

cm

3/g

)*1

03

E1 (6')

E1 (60')

E2 (60')

E3 (60')


1 / 60’

2 / 60’

3 / 60’

Finally, the water permeability of the supports was evaluated and it is shown in

Table 4. As it can be stated, water permeability strongly depends on the support

composition (type and amounts of ceramic raw materials and poreformer), the

manufacture method and the thermal cycle used during the sintering step.


Table 4. Water permeability of the sintered membranes

Composition / Dwell time Water permeability (L∙h-1∙m-2∙bar-1)

Pressed Extruded

1 / 6’

1 / 60’

2 / 60’

3 / 60’

6,200

15,800

3,800

45,700

450

1,480

< 30

34,900

As a conclusion, it was stated that the properties of the ceramic membrane will change

notably when changes in composition, manufacturing process or thermal cycle are

done. As a consequence, these parameters should be fixed and controlled to

reproduce the membranes. Nevertheless, although some parameters (as the

manufacturing process) can be fixed in advance, other variable (as the raw materials

characteristics or the thermal cycle) should be controlled, since some variations during

the study can appear. The fixed parameters were determined as follows:

Since the industrial ceramic membranes can have different configurations (flat,

tubular, multitubular, etc.), it was decided to shape supports by extrusion,

process which allows a wider range of configurations.

The support composition should contain clayey materials, since they are

necessary to carry out the extrusion.

Chamottes should be added to increase the porosity and permeability of the

supports, both in green and sintered bodies.

Calcium carbonate should be added to introduce calcium phases in the

composition, together with the formation of small pores.

A pore former should be added to increase the porosity and permeability of the

membrane support, by means of the formation of large pores.

With all the results obtained it was published a paper in a journal of high impact,

Journal of the European Ceramic Society [17].

Once the supports have been obtained, selective layers were applied on the support.

These layers were formulated with low-cost ceramic raw materials, and were sintered

at lower temperature that the supports. The water permeability of the obtained

membranes was between 1200 and 800 L∙h-1∙m-2∙bar-1 and the mean pore size was

between 1.5 and 0.4 µm, depending on the synthesis conditions. Figure 4 shows the


microstructure of one of the membranes obtained during the experimentation, at

laboratory scale.

Figure 4. FEG-ESEM micrographs of low-cost ceramic membrane obtained in the Watercer project.

Performance of ceramic membranes based on starch - Laboratory scale experiments

In order to evaluate the adequacy of low-cost ceramic membranes as filtering medium

in a MBR, laboratory scale experiments were performed with membranes obtained at

laboratory scale (support + selective layers). The dimensions of the flat-sheet

membranes were approximately 96 mm x 98 mm x 9.5 mm, with a membrane area of

0.093 m2. The mean pore size of the membranes used for the laboratory tests was 0.8

m and the water permeability was approximately 500 L/m2h.

Experiments were performed with synthetic wastewater by using Bovine Serum

Albumin (BSA) and yeast, the composition is shown in Table 8.

Table 5: Synthetic wastewater composition

BSA protein 0,6 g/L

Yeast

0,022 g/L

0,043 g/L

0,18 g/L

Distilled water 65 L


First of all, the critical flux was determined. In Figure 5 is shown the transmembrane

pressure (TMP) versus the permeate flux. The critical flux is defined as the permeate

flux above which an irreversible deposit (fouling) appears. The critical flux is dependent

on the hydrodynamics and system properties (pH, ionic strength, membrane

characteristics, particle characteristics, etc).

Once it was determined the critical flux, the operating mode was at constant flux.

Figure 5: Critical flux determination

In Figure 5 can be seen the hysteresis produced due to the membrane fouling. In a red

circle it is shown the critical flux (CF), from this point, TMP vs flux trend is not linear. It

means that if the flux is higher than 15 L/m2h, the fouling begins to be irreversible.

Next, it was tested different filtration times (5 min, 9 min and 20 min) and the

obtained results pointed that it was better for the system to work with long permeate

cycles. An example of the obtained results is shown in Figure 6, flux was maintained at

15 L/m2h (CF). The length of cycles was 19 min with 1 min of backflushing.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TMP

(kP

a)

J (L/m2 h)

CF


Figure 6: Evolution of TMP with time at constant flux of 15 L/m2h

As a conclusion, it was stated that, taking into account the laboratory results, low-cost

ceramic membranes could be suitable membranes to be used as a filter medium in

MBRs.

2.2. Membrane composition based on agroindustrial

wastes

Based on the standard support obtained in the previous section, the next step was the

introduction of wastes in the composition of the membrane’s support. Since clayey

materials are necessary to perform the extrusion, the raw materials substituted by

wastes were:

Calcite was replaced by marble dust, waste which is generated in the processes

of transformation of the quarried blocks into slabs and pieces with the shape,

size and finish required by the market; it consists of carbonate particle (calcite

and dolomite), together with minor amounts of other minerals present in the

processed rocks, and small quantities of products stemming from the marble

working process (resins, grinding tools, etc.). [18,19]

Commercial chamotte was replaced by fired tile scrap. This scrap, which is

generated by the tile ceramic industry, consists of tiles with dimensional or

aesthetic defects which have been transformed into inert waste through firing.

[20-22]

Starch was replaced by olive wastes, which are residual by-products of the olive

oil production industry. Olive wastes used were bones (also called orujillo),

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

TMP

(kP

a)

t (min)


which have a residue after calcination of 4-6% and 8–10% of moisture. This

waste has been used previously as poreformer in some ceramic bricks [23].

Taking in mind this considerations, different membranes were obtained at laboratory

scale, using wastes in their compositions, as it is shown in Table 6. Since olive bones

present a medium size around 5-10 mm, the particle size had to be reduced to obtain

supports with characteristics similar to the standard support (starch average particle

size is usually between 20 and 200 µm [24]). Initially, the particle size was reduced to a

size around 0.5-1 mm and it was used in compositions C1; nevertheless, some defects

related to the lack of plasticity of the mixture appeared during the extrusion process

(Figure 7). As a consequence, olive bones were reduced to a size between 20-300 µm

and introduced in the compositions C2, obtaining supports without visual defects.

Table 6. Formulated compositions (% by weight)

Composition C1 C2

Clayey materials 30-65 30-60

Fired tile scrap 10-30 10-50

Marble dust 0-30 0-30

Olive bones (particle size 0.5-1 mm) 5-20 --

Olive bones (particle size 0.02-0.3 mm) -- 5-30

Comparing the membranes obtained after the extrusion of the above mentioned

compositions, in Figure 7 the aspect of both membranes is shown.

Figure 7: Aspect of the compositions during the extrusion process

As it can be seen in Figure 7, the characteristics of both membranes are different. In

Table 7 is shown the physical properties of both types of compositions (C1 and C2). It

can be seen how the green properties change in a great extend when characteristics of

wastes are changed.

C1 C2


Table 7. Physical properties of the compositions

Composition group C1 C2

Moisture content (%) 25 - 32 30 - 36

Drying shrinkage (%) 3.0 - 4.5 5.0 - 6.5

Dry bulk density (g/cm3) 1.5 – 1.6 1.4 - 1.5

In Table 8 are shown the properties of both membranes after sintering with the same

thermal cycle. As has been stated previously, properties of the fired supports vary

greatly depending on the composition and materials’ characteristics.

Table 8: Properties of fired supports

Composition group C1 C2

Linear shrinkage (%) 2.0 - 3.5 0.5 - 4.5

Loss on ignition (%) 20 -22 22 - 32

Water absorption (%) 34 - 39 37 - 56

Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.2 - 1.4 1.0 - 1.4

Modulus of rupture (Kgf∙cm-2

) -- 80 - 120

Water permeability (L h-1

m-2

bar-1

) 900 – 10,000 800 – 2,100

Open porosity (%) 46-50 40-50

Permeability values of composition C1 fluctuated, owing to the large number of

defects and cracks that these membranes presented (particle size of orujillo used in

the compositions was too large).

Figure 8 shows the pore size distribution de some compositions of the C2 group, in

which olive bones of smaller particle size where used. As was stated in the previous

section, the proportions used of every material used in the composition influences to a

large extend the properties of the sintered support, especially those related with the

porosity, pore size and permeability.


Figure 8. Pore size distribution curves obtained by mercury pore sizing for extruded supports with different compositions of type C2

Finally, the microstructure of the obtained supports was studied by SEM. Figure 9

shows one of the membranes analyzed, belonging to the group C2. It was observed

that the differences between supports obtained with pure materials (starch, calcite,

etc.) and with wastes were appreciable not just in the membrane’s properties, but also

in the microstructure.

Figure 9. FEG-ESEM micrographs of recycled low-cost ceramic membrane obtained with a composition of the C2 group

To sum up, it was concluded that the manufacture of recycled low-cost ceramic by

extrusion was feasible, obtaining ceramic supports that could be used as filter media in

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.1 1 10 100Dpore (µm)

Inc

rem

en

tal

intr

us

ion

vo

lum

e (

cm

3/g

)*1

03

C2-a

C2-b


MBRs. Nevertheless, as has been stated in the previous section, it was remarked that

the properties of the ceramic membrane will change notably when changes in

composition, manufacturing process or thermal cycle are done.

3. PILOT SCALE RESULTS

A pilot scale MBR was tested in Onda-Betxí-Villareal-Alqueríes wastewater treatment

plant (WWTP), shown in Figure 10, designed to treat 22,486 m3/d.

Figure 10: Onda-Betxí-Villareal-Alqueríes wastewater treatment plant

In Figure 11 and Figure 12 are shown the tank used to place the membrane module

and the control panel, which can be seen open in Figure 13 with the chemical used for

membrane cleaning (30 wt % citric acid and 12 wt % sodium hypochlorite).


Figure 11: Pilot MBR tank and control panel

Figure 12: Wastewater inlet to the MBR tank


Figure 13: Control panel with the chemicals used for the cleaning stage

Figure 14: Air diffusers located behind the membrane module

In Figure 15 the flowchart of the MBR pilot plant is shown.


Figure 15: Pilot plant scheme

B-01 Permeate tank

B-02 Cleaning reagent tank nº1 (citric acid)

B-03 Cleaning reagent tank nº2 (sodium hypochlorite)

I-01 Permeate flowmeter

I-02 Manometer (-1 a 3 bar)

P-01 Filtration and backflush pump

P-02 Cleaning reagent dosing pump nº1

P-03 Cleaning reagent dosing pump nº2

P-04 Blower

V-01 Ball valve

V-02 Bleeder valve


In order to introduce the recycled low-cost ceramic membranes in the MBR tank,

different configurations where to install pilot membranes were analyzes. As an

example, one of the designed modules is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Ceramic membrane, cassette and connections

Nevertheless, it was observed that the best configuration was those in which the

membranes had inner channels, as it is shown in Figure 17, where it can be seen the

channels of the membrane to collect the filtrated permeate:

Figure 17: Example of pilot ceramic membranes without and with inner channels

Next, the ceramic membranes with channels were placed in the module and it was

introduced in the MBR tank, as can be seen in Figure 18.


Figure 18: Ceramic membranes placed inside the tank

In the above figure (Figure 18), it can be seen the membranes module located inside

the tank. In next figure (Figure 19), it is shown the MBR in operation, it is important to

take into account that air difusion has two purposes, on the one hand to support

oxygen for the biological process and on the other hand, to prevent membrane fouling.

The bubbles allow detach the sludge attached to the membrane surface.

Figure 19: MBR in operation


Operating parameters

The MBR work in cycles, in this case, the regular filtration time was 9:50 min and the

backflush time 0:50 min. These times were modified during the operation of the plant,

increasing the filtration time until 58 min and the backflush until 2 min. Pressure

applied to suck out the permeate was -0.340 bar.

For the start-up of the process the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) were 3.6 g/L.

This concentration is low for an MBR treatment, but it was selected to verify that the

plant worked properly. Then, the solid concentration was increased gradually between

5 and 14 g/L.

In Figure 20 is shown the evolution in the concentration of MLSS in the MBR tank

during 65 days of experiment.

Figure 20: Evolution of MLSS during experiments

As can be seen in Figure 21, COD removal efficiency was higher than 98%.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

6 17 22 22 27 28 30 34 38 43 48 52 57 62 64

MLS

S (m

g/L)

Day


Figure 21: Chemical oxygen demand in the influent and permeate (mg/L)

In Figure 22 the appearance of the SCADA software is shown. In green it is shown the

power, in red the pressure and in blue the permeate flow treated in the plant. The

permeate flow was 1.42 L/h at a MLSS of 5 g/L.

Figure 22: SCADA of the pilot plant

In Table 9 the values of permeate flow and permeability are shown. The pressure is

also shown.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

CO

Dp

erme

ate (mg/L) C

OD

infl

uen

t (m

g/L)

Day

Influent Permeate


Table 9: Permeate flow and permeability obtained during the experiments

Permeate Flow (L/h)

119.6 126 121.1 118.4 117.1 12.2 122 117.8 116.6 114.6

P (bar)

0.336 0.353 0.303 0.318 0.309 0.361 0.335 0.389 0.349 0.392

Permeability (L/m

2h bar)

88.86 89.18 99.85 93.02 94.47 8.45 90.94 75.55 83.45 73.12

As a conclusion, it can be said that it was possible to manufacture ceramic membranes

with quality enough for wastewater treatment,

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. J.M. Benito, A. Conesa, M.A. Rodríguez, Membranas cerámicas. Tipos, métodos de

obtención y caracterización, Bol. Soc. Esp. Ceram. V. 43 (2004) 829–842.

2. R.W. Baker, Membrane technology and applications, 2nd ed., Wiley, Chichester,

2004.

3. R. Mallada, M. Menéndez, Inorganic membranes synthesis, characterization and

applications, 1st ed., Elsevier B.V., Oxford, 2008.

4. A.J. Burggraaf, L. Cot, Fundamentals of Inorganic Membranes, Science and

Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996.

5. M. Mulder, Basic Principes of Membrane Technology, 2nd ed., Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996.

6. Bouzerara F, Harabi A, Achour S, Larbot A. Porous ceramic supports for

membranes prepared from kaolin and doloma mixtures. J Eur Ceram Soc 2006;

26:1663–71.

7. Akhtar F, Rehman Y, Bergström L. A study of the sintering of diatomaceous earth

to produce porous ceramic monoliths with bimodal porosity and high strength.

Powder Technol 2010; 201:253–7.

8. Bejjaoui R, Benhammou A, Nibou L, Tanouti B, Bonnet JP, Yaacoubi A et al.

Synthesis and characterization of cordierite ceramic from Moroccan stevensite

and andalusite. Appl Clay Sci 2010; 49:336–40.

9. Dong Y, Feng X, Feng X, Ding Y, Liu X, Meng G. Preparation of low-cost mullite

ceramics from natural bauxite and industrial waste fly ash. J Alloys Compd 2008;

460:599–606.


10. Dong Y, Hampshire S, Zhou J, Lin B, Ji Z, Zhang X, Meng G. Recycling of fly ash for

preparing porous mullite membrane supports with titania addition. J Hazard

Mater 2010; 180:173–80.

11. Zhou J, Zhang X, Wang Y, Larbot A, Hu X. Elaboration and characterization of

tubular macroporous ceramic support for membranes from kaolin and dolomite. J

Porous Mater 2010; 17:1–9.

12. Weir M, Rutinduka E, Detellier C. Fabrication, characterization and preliminary

testing of all-inorganic ultrafiltration membranes composed entirely of a naturally

occurring sepiolite clay mineral. J Membr Sci 2001; 182:41–50.

13. Dong Y, Chen S, Zhang X, Yang J, Liu X, Meng G. Fabrication and characterization of

low cost tubular mineral-based ceramic membranes for micro-filtration from

natural zeolite. J Membr Sci 2006; 281:592–9.

14. Le Van Mao R, Rutinduka E, Detellier C, Gougay P, Hascoet V, Tavakoliyan S et al.

Mechanical and pore characteristics of zeolite composite membranes. J Mater

Chem 1999; 9:783–8.

15. Harabi A, Zenikheri F, Boudaira B, Bouzerara F, Guechi A, Foughali L. A new and

economic approach to fabricate resistant porous membrane supports using kaolin

and CaCO3. J Eur Ceram Soc 2014; 34:1329–40.

16. Fakhfakh S, Baklouti S. Elaboration and characterisation of low cost ceramic

support membrane. Adv Appl Ceram 2010; 109:31–8.

17. M.-M. Lorente-Ayza, S. Mestre, M. Menéndez, E. Sánchez, Comparison of extruded

and pressed low cost ceramic supports for microfiltration membranes, Journal of

the European Ceramic Society 35 (2015) 3681–3691.

18. García-Ten, J. et al. Recycling marble working wastes in manufacturing ceramic

products. Part II Ceramic wall tile manufacture. Cfi Ber. DKG, 80(10), 30-32, 2003.

19. García-Ten, J. et al. Recycling marble working wastes in manufacturing ceramic

products. Part I Waste characterization. Cfi Ber. DKG, 80(9), 84-90, 2003.

20. Montfort, E. et al. Reciclado de tiesto en composiciones de pavimento y

revestimiento rojo (II). Técnica Cerámica, 293, 629-633, 2001.

21. Montfort, E. et al. Reciclado de tiesto en composiciones de pavimento y

revestimiento rojo (I). Técnica Cerámica, 292, 450-458, 2001.

22. Montfort, E. et al. Recycling red-fired tile scrap in red-firing floor and wall tile

compositions. Tile Brick Int., 16(6), 420-427, 2000.


23. Kornmann, M. Clay bricks and rooftiles: manufacturing and properties. Paris:

Société de l'industrie minérale, 2007. ISBN: 2-9517765-6-X.

24. M.-M. Lorente-Ayza, M.J. Orts, V. Pérez-Herranz, S. Mestre, Role of starch

characteristics in the properties of low-cost ceramic membranes, J. Eur. Ceram.

Soc. 35 (2015) 2333–2341.

technical document with low cost recycled membranes. … · wp / task responsible facsa author (s)...

Documents