Comprehensive evaluation method for performance of contaminated flat membranes

Abstract

The present invention relates to a comprehensive evaluation method for the performance of contaminated flat membranes, which relates to the field of sewage and waste resource technology. The present invention firstly analyzed the composition of the surface elements of the contaminated membrane by EDX to determine the type of membrane contamination, and then designed different cleaning schemes for organic or inorganic pollution to obtain a sample membrane. When the tensile strength of the contaminated membrane decreased more than 50% than that of the control membrane, it is a waste membrane; when the tensile strength decreased less than 50% and the membrane flux reduced more than 30%, it is a waste membrane; when tensile strength decreased less than 50%, membrane flux reduced less than 30% and the carbon footprint was more than 188 g, it is a waste membrane; otherwise was a old membrane. The comprehensive evaluation method of the present invention can quantitatively, quickly and comprehensively define the difference between the old membrane and the waste membrane, and provides the basis for the selection of the contaminated membrane and the process of the regeneration and reuse.

Claims

1. A method for detecting the performance of a contaminated membrane, comprising: step 1, detecting the percentage of carbon element on a surface of the contaminated membrane, and then comparing with a control membrane; wherein the control membrane is a new membrane of the same type and the same material as that of the contaminated membrane; step 2, if the percentage of carbon element on the surface of the contaminated membrane is higher than that of the control membrane, washing the contaminated membrane by sodium hypochloritethen and then cleaning it by citric acid or oxalic acid to obtain a sample membrane; otherwise, washing the contaminated membrane by citric acid or oxalic acid and then cleaning it by sodium hypochlorite to obtain the sample membrane; step 3, detecting tensile strength of the sample membrane; step 4, detecting membrane flux of the sample membrane; step 5, detecting carbon footprint of the sample membrane.

2. The method of claim 1, said method comprises recycling the sample membrane unless under the following conditions: wherein the sample membrane has a tensile strength decrease of more than 50% compared with the control membrane, or the sample membrane has a tensile strength decrease of less than 50% and a membrane flux reduction of more than 30% compared with the control membrane, or the sample membrane has a tensile strength decrease of less than 50%, a membrane flux reduction of less than 30% and a carbon footprint of more than 188 g.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein mass concentration of sodium hypochlorite in the step 2 is between 0.1˜5.0%, and mass concentration of citric acid or oxalic acid is between 0.1˜5.0%.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting tensile strength comprises using a tensile strength tester; wherein detecting membrane flux comprises using a circular diaphragm placed in an SCM-300 ultrafiltration cup bottom; wherein pressure is pressurized by nitrogen after sealing; wherein liquid volume (A, mL) through the effective membrane area (S, cm.sup.2) under a pressure of 0.1 MPa from the start time (t1, min) to the end time (t2, min) is recorded, and the membrane $J=\frac{A\times 60\times {10}^{-3}}{S\times \left(t_2-t_1\right)};$ flux (J, L/(m.sup.2.Math.h)) is calculated by wherein carbon footprint is the CO.sub.2 emissions (E, g) during the contaminated membrane off-line chemical cleaning process, which is $E=\underset{i-1}{.Math.}.Math.Q_i\times f,$ calculated by and Q.sub.i represents the total energy consumption of the off-line chemical cleaning and f represents the unit of carbon dioxide for energy consumption.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the contaminated membrane is a polyvinylidene fluoride membrane or polyvinyl chloride membrane.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein the contaminated membrane is from a membrane bioreactor in sewage treatment.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting carbon footprint on a surface of the contaminated membrane comprises using an energy dispersive x-ray spectrum.

8. A comprehensive evaluation method for the performance of a contaminated membrane, comprising: step 1, analyzing the composition of surface elements of the contaminated membrane to identify whether the contaminated membrane is an organic fouling membrane or an inorganic fouling membrane, and then cleaning it with a corresponding chemical cleaning method to obtain a sample membrane to be measured; step 2, detecting the physical and chemical properties of the sample membrane to obtain an evaluation index value; step 3, detecting the filtration performance of the sample membrane to obtain the evaluation index value; step 4, detecting other properties of the sample membrane to obtain the evaluation index value; step 5, comparing results of the sample membrane obtained in steps 2˜4 with the corresponding values of the control membrane, and obtaining a evaluation results regarding whether the contaminated membrane is an old membrane or a waste membrane; wherein the control membrane is a new membrane of the same type and the same material as that of the contaminated membrane.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the physical and chemical properties comprises tensile strength, the filtration performance comprises membrane flux, and the other properties comprise carbon footprint; wherein the evaluation criteria is as follows: when the tensile strength of the contaminated membrane has a decrease of more than 50% than that of the control membrane, the contaminated membrane is determined to be a waste membrane; wherein when the tensile strength of the contaminated membrane has a decrease of less than 50% and the membrane flux of the contaminated membrane has a reduction of more than 30% than those of the control membrane, the contaminated membrane is determined to be a waste membrane; wherein when tensile strength of the contaminated membrane has a decrease of less than 50%, membrane flux of the contaminant membrane has a reduction of less than 30% than those of the control membrane, and the carbon footprint of the contaminated membrane is more than 188 g, the contaminated membrane is determined to be a waste membrane; otherwise was a old membrane.

10. The method of claim 8, further comprising washing the organic fouling membrane with 0.1˜5.0% citric acid or oxalic acid after washing with 0.1˜5.0% sodium hypochlorite; and washing the inorganic fouling membrane with 0.1˜5.0% sodium hypochlorite after washing with 0.1˜5.0% citric acid or oxalic acid.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0035] FIG. 1. is a diagram showing comprehensive evaluation steps for performance of contaminated flat membranes.

EXAMPLES

Example 1

[0036] The surface elements of a contaminated PVDF flat membrane, used in municipal wastewater treatment, were 19.47% of carbon element, 3.62% of oxygen, 29.0% of oxygen, 11.24% of phosphorus, 1.45% of calcium, 27.28% of iron, 27.48% of aluminum analyzed by EDX. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated PVDF flat membrane was identified as an organic fouling membrane.

[0037] The contaminated membrane was washed with 1.0% oxalic acid for 3 h and then washed with 0.3% sodium hypochlorite for 3 h to obtain a sample membrane. The tensile strength of the obtained sample membrane was 20.5 MPa, the membrane flux was 1930 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h) and the carbon footprint was 47 g. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was judged as an old membrane. The contaminated membrane was recyled and continunally used to the original sewage treatment project. The results showed that the water quality of the system did not change significantly, the monthly membrane flux decay rate was 3% and chemical cleaning cycle was 6-9 months, which can meet the normal operation needs.

Example 2

[0038] The surface elements of a contaminated PVDF flat membrane, used in municipal wastewater treatment, were 65.63% of carbon element, 9.37% of nitrogen, 20.58% of oxygen, 35.74% of fluorine, 1.87% of iron and 0.44% of aluminum analyzed by EDX. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated PVDF flat membrane was identified as an organic fouling membrane.

[0039] The contaminated membrane was washed with 1.0% sodium hypochlorite for 2 h and then washed with 1.0% citric acid for 1 h to obtain a sample membrane. The tensile strength of the obtained sample membrane was 18.5 MPa, the membrane flux was 2100 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h) and the carbon footprint was 24 g. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was judged as an old membrane. The contaminated membrane was recyled and continunally used to the original sewage treatment project. The results showed that the water quality of the system did not change significantly, the monthly membrane flux decay rate was 3% and chemical cleaning cycle was 6-9 months, which can meet the normal operation needs.

Example 3

[0040] A contaminated PVDF flat membrane, used in hospital sewage treatment, was analyzed by EDX. The surface elements of the contaminated membrane were 53.99% of carbon element, 15.73% of nitrogen, 23.76% of fluorine, 3.22% of silicon, 2.14% of magnesium, 0.55% of aluminum and 0.61% of aluminum. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated PVDF flat membrane was identified as an organic fouling membrane.

[0041] The contaminated membrane was washed with 5.0% sodium hypochlorite for 2 h and then washed with 0.1% oxalic acid for 4 h to obtain a sample membrane. The tensile strength of the obtained sample membrane was 21.2 MPa, the membrane flux was 1890 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h) and the carbon footprint was 39 g. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was judged as an old membrane. The contaminated membrane was recyled and continunally used to the original sewage treatment project. The results showed that water quality of the system did not change significantly, the monthly membrane flux decay rate was 3% and chemical cleaning cycle was 6-9 months, which can meet the normal operation needs.

Example 4

[0042] A polyvinyl chloride (PVC) contaminated flat membrane, used in landfill leachate treatment, was analyzed by EDX. The surface elements of the contaminated membrane were 58.63% of carbon element, 10.01% of nitrogen, 22.58% of oxygen, 1.21% of magnesium, 2.18% of calcium, 1.95% of iron, 3.44% of aluminum. And the surface elements of the control membrane were 37.92% of carbon element and 62.08% of chlorine. The comparison showed that the contaminating membrane was organic pollution.

[0043] The contaminated membrane was washed with 0.1% sodium hypochlorite for 2 h and then washed with 5.0% citric acid for 2 h to obtain a sample membrane . The tensile strength of the obtained sample membrane was 19.8 MPa, the membrane flux was 1900 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h) and the carbon footprint was 31.4 g. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was judged as an old membrane. The contaminated membrane was recyled and continunally used to the original sewage treatment project. The results showed that water quality of the system did not change significantly, the monthly membrane flux decay rate was 3% and chemical cleaning cycle was 6-9 months, which can meet the normal operation needs.

Example 5

[0044] A contaminated PVDF flat membrane, used in municipal wastewater treatment, was analyzed by EDX. The surface elements of the membrane were 16.45% of carbon element, 2.62% of nitrogen, 33.98% of oxygen, 6.95% of phosphoric acid, 0.69% of calcium, 38.98% of iron and 0.33% of aluminum. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was inorganic pollution.

[0045] The contaminated membrane was washed with 0.1% oxalic acid for 8 h and then washed with 0.1% sodium hypochlorite for 4 h to obtain a sample membrane. The tensile strength of the obtained sample membrane was 18.8 MPa, the membrane flux was 1390 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h) and the carbon footprint was 70.7 g. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was judged as a waste membrane. The waste membrane was continunally used to the original sewage treatment project, and the results showed that the water quality of the system did not change significantly. However, after one month of operation, the membrane flux was 1210 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h), and the hydraulic retention time of the sewage was forced to extend for nearly 4 h, making the plant sewage treatment capacity reduced by 40%, resulting in abnormal operation.

Example 6

[0046] A contaminated PVDF flat membrane, used in municipal wastewater treatment, was analyzed by EDX. The surface elements of the membrane were 21.65% of carbon element, 4.98% of nitrogen, 34.23% of oxygen, 5.76% of phosphorus, 1.18% of iron, 3.12% of iron and 0.98% of aluminum. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was inorganic pollution.

[0047] The contaminated membrane was washed with 5.0% citric acid for 3 h and then washed with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite for 3 h to obtain a sample membrane. The tensile strength of the obtained sample membrane was 9.8 MPa (decreased by about 51%), the membrane flux was 2100 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h) and the carbon footprint was 47.1 g. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was judged as an waste membrane. The waste membrane was continunally used to the original sewage treatment project, and the results showed that the system effluent COD concentration increased by more than 10%. And after running for a month, partial rupture appeared and the membrane lost filtering function. A new membrane was needed to replaced the contaminated membrane, causing serious losses.

Example 7

[0048] A contaminated PVDF flat membrane, used in hospital sewage treatment, was analyzed by EDX. The surface elements of the membrane were 12.21% of carbon element, 11.71% of nitrogen, 24.86% of fluorine, 1.25% of silicon, 3.16% of magnesium, 0.75% of calcium, 45.15% of iron and 0.91% of aluminum. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was inorganic pollution.

[0049] The contaminated membrane was washed with 2.5% oxalic acid for 24 h and washed with 5% sodium hypochlorite for 1 h to obtain a sample membrane. The tensile strength of the obtained sample membrane sample was 17.2 MPa, the membrane flux was 1920 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h) and the carbon footprint was 188.4 g. Compared with the control membrane, the contaminated membrane was judged as an waste membrane. The waste membrane was continually used to the original sewage treatment project, and the results showed that the water quality of the system did not change significantly. However, the monthly membrane flux decay rate was 38% and after running for a month, the membrane flux was 1190 L/(m.sup.2.Math.h). The chemical cleaning was needed, which not only increased the cost of cleaning, but also affected normal operation of the sewage treatment plant due to frequent cleaning.

[0050] While the present invention has been described in some detail for purposes of clarity and understanding, one skilled in the art will appreciate that various changes in form and detail can be made without departing from the true scope of the invention.