Influence of Natural Organic Matter on Fouling Mechanisms and Hexavalent Chromium Removal by Nanofiltration Membranes
Abstract
งานวิจัยนี้มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อศึกษาประสิทธิภาพของเยื่อกรองนาโน (Nanofiltration, NF) ในการกำจัดโครเมียมเฮกซะวาเลนต์ (Cr⁶⁺) (10, 20 และ 30 mg/L) ในน้ำเสียสังเคราะห์ร่วมกับสารอินทรีย์ธรรมชาติ (Natural Organic Matter, NOM) (10 mg/L as NOM) ภายใต้ระบบการไหลแบบตายตัว (dead-end Filtration System) โดยมุ่งเน้นการวิเคราะห์ค่าฟลักซ์สารละลายและรูปแบบจำลองการอุดตันของเยื่อกรองด้วยแบบจำลอง Hermia ผลการทดลองพบว่าการร่วมกันของ Cr⁶⁺ และ NOM ส่งผลให้ค่าฟลักซ์ลดลงอย่างมีนัยสำคัญ อันเนื่องมาจาก การสะสมไอออนและการตกตะกอนของสารอินทรีย์ทำให้เกิดการอุดตันของเยื่อกรอง โดยแบบจำลองของ Cake Filtration Model (CFM) มีความสอดคล้องกับข้อมูลเชิงทดลองมากที่สุด นอกจากนี้การมี NOM ยังช่วยเพิ่มประสิทธิภาพการกำจัด Cr⁶⁺ ซึ่งสามารถอธิบายได้จากการเกิดชั้นเค้กบนผิวเยื่อกรองและกลไกการผลักทางไฟฟ้า ผลการศึกษานี้แสดงให้เห็นถึงบทบาทสำคัญของ NOM ต่อพฤติกรรมการอุดตันและประสิทธิภาพการกำจัด ของเยื่อกรองแบบนาโน ซึ่งสามารถใช้เป็นข้อมูลพื้นฐานในการออกแบบและพัฒนากระบวนการบำบัดน้ำที่มี โลหะหนักร่วมกับสารอินทรีย์ได้อย่างเหมาะสม
This research aimed to evaluate the performance of nanofiltration (NF) membranes for the removal of hexavalent chromium (Cr⁶⁺) (10, 20 and 30 mg/L) from synthetic wastewater in the presence of natural organic matter (NOM) (10 mg/L as NOM) under a dead-end filtration system. The investigation focused on permeate flux behavior and fouling mechanisms using Hermia’s models. The results revealed that the coexistence of Cr⁶⁺ and NOM resulted in a significantly flux decline, which was attributed to ion accumulation and the deposition of organic matter on the membrane surface, leading to membrane fouling. Among the models, the Cake Filtration Model (CFM) showed the best agreement with the experimental data. In addition, the presence of NOM enhanced the removal efficiency of Cr⁶⁺. This improvement can be explained by the formation of a cake layer on the membrane surface and the electrical repulsion mechanism. This study highlights the significant role of NOM in membrane fouling behavior removal performance of nanofiltration membranes. The findings provide useful insights for design and development of appropriate water treatment processes for wastewater containing both heavy metals and natural organic matter.
Keywords
[1] M. Danouche, N.E. Ghachtouli and H.E. Arroussi, Phycoremediation mechanisms of heavy metals using living green microalgae: physicochemical and molecular approaches for enhancing selectivity and removal capacity, Heliyon, 2021, 7(7), e07555.
[2] D. Vishnu and B. Dhandapani, Integration of Cynodon dactylon and Muraya koenigii plant extracts in amino-functionalized silica-coated magnetic nanoparticle as an effective sorbent for the removal of chromium(VI) metal pollutants, IET Nanobiotechnology, 2020, 14(6), 449–456.
[3] D. Vishnu, A. Rajendran and B. Dhandapani, A potent insight into the microalgal and surface-modified magnetic microalgal biomass synthesis and treatment strategies in the removal of selenium and chromium metal ions, Energy Ecology and Environment, 2024, 9(2), 113–129.
[4] A. Zhitkovich, Chromium in drinking water: Sources, metabolism, and cancer risks, Chemical Research in Toxicology, 2011, 24(10), 1617–1629.
[5] X. Li, Y. Wang and J. Chen, Adsorptive removal of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solutions using modified biochar: Kinetics and mechanisms, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 2020, 8(4), 104131.
[6] J. Zhang, G. Yuan, H. Wang, J. Wu, G. Yang and K. Zhou, Resource utilization of waste masks in simultaneous high efficient removal of Light Green SF and Cr(VI) via microwave catalytic technology, Separation and Purification Technology, 2024, 330, 125523.
[7] E.M. Saad, I.S. Butler and S.I. Mostafa, Adsorption of reduced chromium(VI) ions by vitamin C tablets onto a tellurato-functionalized cellulose derivative and its composite with cyanobacteria green algae in aqueous media, Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy, 2021, 40(4), e13608.
[8] H. Wang, W. Wang, S. Zhou and X. Gao, Adsorption mechanism of Cr(VI) on woody-activated carbons, Heliyon, 2023, 9(2), e13267.
[9] Y. Ibrahim, V. Naddeo, F. Banat and S.W. Hasan, Preparation of novel polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-tin(IV) oxide (SnO₂) ion exchange mixed matrix membranes for the removal of heavy metals from aqueous solutions, Separation and Purification Technology, 2020, 250, 117250.
[10] M. Thanuttamavong, K. Yamamoto, J.I. Oh, K.H. Choo and S.J. Choi, Rejection characteristics of organic and inorganic pollutants by ultra low-pressure nanofiltration of surface water for drinking water treatment, Desalination, 2002, 145(1–3), 257–264.
[11] P.H. Hermans, Principles of the mathematical treatment of constant-pressure filtration, Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, 1936, 55, 1–10.
[12] W.R. Bowen and J.S. Welfoot, Modelling the performance of membrane nanofiltration—critical assessment and model development, Chemical Engineering Science, 2002, 57(7), 1121–1137
[13] L.G. Peeva, E. Gibbins, S.S. Luthra, L.S. White, R.P. Stateva and A.G. Livingston, Effect of concentration polarisation and osmotic pressure on flux in organic solvent nanofiltration, Journal of Membrane Science, 2004, 236(1–2), 121–136.
[14] P. Hongthong, S. Mattaraj and R. Jiraratananon, Effects of solution pH and ionic strength for removal of combined natural organic matter and copper (II) ion by membrane nanofiltration, Applied Environmental Research, 2013, 34(2), 39–56.
[15] N. Hilal, H. Al-Zoubi, N.A. Darwish, A.W. Mohammad and M. Abu Arabi, A comprehensive review of nanofiltration membranes: Treatment, pretreatment, modelling, and atomic force microscopy, Desalination, 2004, 170(3), 281–308.
[16] M. Owlad, M.K. Aroua, W.A.W. Daud and S. Baroutian, Removal of hexavalent chromium-contaminated water and wastewater: A review, Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 2009, 200, 59–77.
[17] J.E. Kilduff, S. Mattaraj, J.P. Pieracci and G. Belfort, Photochemical modification of poly (ether sulfone) and sulfonated poly (sulfone) nanofiltration membranes for control of fouling by natural organic matter, Desalination, 2000, 132(1–3), 133–142.
[18] G. Zolfaghari and M. Kargar, Nanofiltration and microfiltration for the removal of chromium, total dissolved solids, and sulfate from water, MethodsX, 2019, 6, 549–557.
[19] M. Muthukrishnan and B.K. Guha, Effect of pH on rejection of hexavalent chromium by nanofiltration, Desalination, 2008, 219(1–3), 171–178.
[20] A. Hafiane, D. Lemordant and M. Dhahbi, Removal of hexavalent chromium by nanofiltration, Desalination, 2000, 130(3), 305–312.
[21] B. Van der Bruggen and C. Vandecasteele, Removal of pollutants from surface water and groundwater by nanofiltration: Overview of possible applications in the drinking water industry, Environmental Pollution, 2003, 122(3), 435–445.
[22] A. Lhassani, M. Rumeau, D. Benjelloun and M. Pontie, Selective demineralization of water by nanofiltration: Application to the defluorination of brackish water, Water Research, 2001, 35(13), 3260–3264.
[23] J.E. Kilduff, S. Mattaraj and G. Belfort, Flux decline during nanofiltration of naturally-occurring dissolved organic matter: Effects of osmotic pressure, membrane permeability, and cake formation, Journal of Membrane Science, 2004, 239(1), 39–53.
[24] C. Jarusutthirak, S. Mattaraj and R. Jiraratananon, Factors affecting nanofiltration performances in natural organic matter rejection and flux decline, Separation and Purification Technology, 2007, 58, 68–75.
DOI: 10.14416/j.ind.tech.2026.08.002
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
