Upload
imavatar
View
244
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
1/19
Use of Ceramic Membranes forProduced Water Treatment
Katie Benko, Bureau of Reclamation and Colorado School of Mines
Jrg Drewes, Colorado School of Mines
Pei Xu, Colorado School of Mines
Tzahi Cath, Colorado School of Mines
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
2/19
Outline
Why use ceramic membranes for producedwater treatment
Benefits and limitations of ceramicmembranes
Comparison of ceramic and polymericmembranes
Ceramic membrane manufacturers and
products
Use of ceramic membranes for producedwater
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
3/19
Treatment of Produced Water
Livestock & CropIrrigation
Surface DischargeDomestic Home Use
Degree of treatment depends on raw waterquality and desired end use
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
4/19
Pretreatment Technologies Current approaches:
Dissolved air flotation
Media filtration
Polymeric membranes
Novel approaches: Ceramic microfiltration and ultrafiltration
Membrane distillation(HydroflowTM)
Hydroflow Degremont
CeraMem
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
5/19
Treatment Design Criteria
Geographical issues
Minimal Maintenance Easy to operate
Robust and reliable
Changing water quantity andquality
Flexible
Modular
Cost
Minimal pretreatment
Low chemical and energy
demand
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
6/19
Benefits High mechanical strength
High chemical compatibility
High flux (up to 300 gfd)
Long operational life Thermal stability
Potentially lower life-cycle cost
Potential limitations High capital cost
Benefits and Limitations of CeramicMembranes
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
7/19
Membrane Filtration Market
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2001 2005 2010Polymeric Ceramic Other
Data from Pall Corporation
The ceramic membranemarket share isexpected to grow infuture years!
Advances in materials,configuration, andoperational experiencewill make ceramicmembranes more widelyused.
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
8/19
Membrane Transport Properties
Pure Water
Permeance(L/m2/hr/Pa)
MembraneResistance (1/m)
Ceramic UF 1.3 0.1 2.2 x 105 0.2 x 105
Polymeric UF 0.87 0.08 2.3 x 106 0.2 x 106
Ceramic membranes have significantly higher permeance
and lower membrane resistance than polymeric
membranes
Ceramic membranes have a lower membrane resistance,
therefore require a lower pressure to produced the same
volume of water
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
9/19
Cost Comparison
Material Cost($/ft2)
Material Cost
($/vol produced)
Ceramic UF 180 60
Polymeric UF 40 20
Fewer ceramic membranes are required to treat the same
volume of water Ceramic membranes have higher capital cost but longer
lifespan
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
10/19
Membrane and
Support(100x 300x)
Support
(1000 3000x)
MembraneSurface (5000x)
Ceramic UF
Membrane
Polymeric UF
MembraneSpintekwww.spintek.com
SEM: Ceramic and Polymeric
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
11/19
Ceramic Membrane Manufacturers*ProductLine(s)
FiltrationRange
SupportMaterials
MembraneMaterials
ChannelConfiguration
PallMembralox
Schumasiv
5nm to
0.2 mAl2O3
Al2O3 (MF)
ZrO2 andTiO2 (UF)
Hexagonal
and round
Corning CerCor5nm to
0.2 m
Mullite
(3Al2
O3
2
SiO2)
ZrO2 (MF)
TiO2 (UF)
Square and
round
TAMICeram
Inside
0.02 m
to 1.4mATZ
ZrO2 (MF)
TiO2 (UF)Flower shaped
Atech Atech 0.01 mto 1.2 m Al2O3
Al2O3 (MF)
ZrO2 andTiO2 (UF)
Single ormultiple round
Orelis Kerasep5 kDa to
0.8 mAl2O3
ZrO2 andTiO2
Single or
multiple round
*Not a complete list
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
12/19
Contaminant Removal Capability What they will remove
Suspended solids
Oil and grease
Organic carbon (to some
degree) Metal oxides
What they will NOT
remove Dissolved ions Dissolved organics
Feed Reject Filtrate
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
13/19
Ceramic Membrane System Operation
Dead-end versus cross-flow filtration
Elizabeth L. Brainerd, Nature 412, 387-388(26 July 2001)
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
14/19
Important Operating Parameters
Flux: volumetric flow rate of product water per area of
membrane Trans-membrane pressure: average of feed and reject
pressure minus filtrate pressure
Cross-flow velocity: Velocity of water moving throughmembrane channel
Backwash or backpulse: flow of water from the filtratesize to the feed size, rather than the feed side to thefiltrate
In-line coagulation: dose of coagulant in the feed streamwith no flocculation or settling; formation of pin-sized
floccs that are more easily rejected by the membraneand increase the rejection of dissolved organics
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
15/19
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (hr)
TemperatureCorrectedFlux
(gfd)
CBM Produced Water Raton Basin
Membrane Specs: Feed Water: Operating Conditions:85 channels
cylindrical channels
0.01 um pore size
TDS = 2300 mg/L
TOC = 0.27 mg/L
TSS = 0.7 mg/L
Total Fe > 0.3 mg/L
SDI = 18
TMP = 60 psi
Crossflow = 0.46 ft/s
Full recycle
Backwash every 15 min
No coagulant
Feed water changed
Filtrate SDI = 1.8
12.5% flux decline over 5 hours
System reached steady state
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
16/19
Full-Scale Ceramic MembraneTreatment of Produced Water
Ceramic membranes used to removeorganic contaminants approximately 1 to 3um in size and as pretreatment to RO
System configuration: cross-flow velocity = 10 fps backpulse every 90s
chemical cleaning every 24 hrs
Filtrate SDI < 1, suitable as pretreatmentfor RO
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
17/19
Summary Ceramic membranes are a viable technology for
produced water treatment. There are a number of different ceramic membrane
manufacturers with a wide variety of products tochoose from.
Ceramic membranes can remove silt, particulates, oiland grease, metal oxides, and some dissolved organicmatter.
Operational conditions of ceramic membranes still
need to be optimized for different water types. Ceramic membranes have worked effectively at the
laboratory scale and full scale for treatment ofproduced water.
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
18/19
Acknowledgements Bureau of Reclamation
Science andTechnology Program
NWRI ResearchFellowship
Corning Incorporated
George Kellogg
Andy Pierce
Bureau of Reclamation Erik Jorgensen
Dan Gonzales
Tom Bunnelle
AQWATEC
Ryan Decker Katharine Dahm
Eric Dickenson
Dean Heil
JT Teerlink
Research Partnership toSecure Energy forAmerica
Dave Stewart, Stewart
Environmental
7/28/2019 Benko - IPEC 2008 - Final
19/19
Contacts
Katie Benko, Bureau of [email protected](303) 931-8396
Jrg Drewes, Colorado School of [email protected](303) 273-3401