4.5 Article

Surfactant fouling of nanofiltration membranes: Measurements and mechanisms

期刊

CHEMPHYSCHEM
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 1836-1845

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cphc.200700236

关键词

adsorption; fouling; membranes; nanofiltration; surfactants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fouling of nanofiltration membranes is studied during filtration of aqueous surfactant solutions under different conditions. To this purpose, four typical nanofiltration membranes (Desal51HL, NF270, NTR7450 and NFPES10) and three typical surfactants (nonionic neodol, anionic SDBS and cationic cetrimide) are selected. Fouling is studied as a function of the surfactant concentration, with and without addition of an electrolyte (NaCl), at different pH and when filtering a mixture of surfactants. Adsorption experiments and hydrophobicity measurements (to study the orientation of the surfactants on the membrane surface) are also performed under the different conditions. The least membrane fouling is found for the anionic surfactant SDBS, while for the cationic surfactant cetrimide very low relative fluxes are observed. Neodol shows an intermediate degree of fouling. Both hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions (in the case of ionic surfactants) between the membrane surface and the surfactant explain the degree of adsorption and hence fouling, as membrane fouling is correlated with the amount of adsorbed surfactant. The difference between cetrimide and SDBS becomes especially visible when changing the pH: increasing the pH leads not only to an opposite orientation of the adsorbed surfactants, but also to an opposite trend in adsorbed amount and membrane fouling. This study permits selection of an optimal nanofiltration membrane to recycle wastewater containing surfactants in the carwash industry. The optimal choice would be a hydrophilic membrane with a low molecular weight cut-off and a small negative surface charge at neutral pH. Cotionic surfactants in the wastewater should also be avoided as much as possible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据