Home Nitrate removal studies on polyurea membrane using nanofiltration system – membrane characterization and model development
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Nitrate removal studies on polyurea membrane using nanofiltration system – membrane characterization and model development

  • Ravichand Kancherla ORCID logo , Vadeghar Ramesh Kumar , Ginuga Prabhaker Reddy and Sundergopal Sridhar EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: September 21, 2020
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Chemical Product and Process Modeling
From the journal Chemical Product and Process Modeling Volume 17 Issue 1

Abstract

Desalination of nitrates from brackish water is prominent in the coastal areas due to excessive disposal of pesticides by agricultural industries. Nowadays, membrane processes are growing tremendously for the desalination of brackish water. In this context, polyurea (PU) could be a useful membrane material for the treatment of brackish water. The present work deals with the removal of nitrates from synthetic water using PU membranes by nanofiltration (NF) process. Polyurea thin film composite (PU-TFC) membranes were prepared by interfacial polymerization followed by thermal crosslinking and characterized using Fourier transformed infrared spectral (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy– energy dispersion X-ray spectroscopy (SEM–EDS), Atomic force microscopy (AFM), thermogravimetric (TGA), and universal testing machine (UTM) for structural analysis, crystallinity, morphological, compositional, thermal and mechanical properties, respectively. Experimental studies were conducted on an NF pilot plant by varying operating pressure from 2 to 10 bar and feed nitrate concentration from 60 to 200 mg/L for evaluating PU membrane performance. Experimental observations revealed a maximum water flux of 30.6 L/m2 h and nitrate rejection of 97.2% at a pressure of 10 bar for feed containing 140 mg/L of nitrate. A mass transfer model was developed on the basis of solution–diffusion mechanism for a semi-batch NF process by considering cake enhanced concentration polarization model, for laminar flow with feed recycle, using a plate and frame membrane module. A generic semi-batch NF process model was integrated taking into account concentration polarization and fouling layer resistance. The integrated model was successfully compared with existing data in literature and could be used for process scale-up. Due to the merits of hydrophilicity, negative charge, high thermal and mechanical resistance, the PU membrane can be termed as a low cost, commercially viable and ecofriendly barrier for separation of nitrates.

Keywords: cake enhanced concentration polarization; desalination; nanofiltration process; nitrate removal; polyurea membrane; solution–diffusion model
Corresponding author: Sundergopal Sridhar, Membrane Separations Group, Chemical Engineering Division, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT), Hyderabad 500007, India, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank the Director, CSIR-IICT, Hyderabad, India, for the support and this paper possesses IICT Manuscript Communication Number: IICT/Pubs./2020/246. We also acknowledge the National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU) and State Project Facilitation Unit (SPFU), Telangana, India, for the financial support provided through TEQIP-II.

  1. Author contribution: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

Appendix

Various model equations used for estimating membrane transport parameters

Kedem–Katchalsky model [47]

(21) Solvent   flux , J w :   J w = L p ∗ ( Δ P − σ Δ π s ) ,     Δ π s = R T ( C m − C p )

(22) Solute   flux , J s :   J s = ω Δ π s + C s ¯ ( 1 − σ ) J w

where

  • ΔP is hydraulic pressure difference and Δπ s is the osmotic pressure difference.

  • C f , C m , C p are solute concentrations at feed side, membrane, and the permeate side

  • C s ¯ is the logarithmic mean of C m and C p .

Model constants L p , σ, ω are specific hydraulic permeability, reflection coefficient, and local solute permeability.

Spiegler–Kedem model [48]

(23a) Solute   rejection , R : R = σ ( 1 − F ) ( 1 − σ F )

(23b) F = exp ( ( 1 − σ ) J w P ) = exp ( ( 1 − σ ) J w ω   R T )

where P represents solute permeability.

Jitsuhara and Kimura model for charged membranes [41]

Reflection coefficient, σ for a negatively charged membrane [47]

(24) σ = ( Δ p − Δ Π i Δ Π s ) J w = 0 = 1 − X ′ 2 Δ C s [ Z I I − Z I − ( 2 t 1 0 − 1 ) ln 2 t 1 0 − 1 + Z I I 2 t 1 0 − 1 + Z I ]

where Z = 1 + ( 2 C s X ′ ) 2 .

Reflection coefficient, σ based on Jitsuhara and Kimura model is given by:

(25) σ = 1 + ϕ X ′ Δ C s [ Z I I − Z I − ( 2 t 1 − 1 ) ln 2 t 1 − 1 + Z I I 2 t 1 − 1 + Z I ]

where

(26) Z =   1 + B ,   B = ( 2 C s ϕ X ′ ) 2 ,   X ′ = X ϕ w ,

  • X is the charge density of the membrane,

  • ϕ is osmotic coefficient, and ϕX′ is effective charge density, t is the transport number [49],

  • and the superscripts I and II represent the higher and lower pressure sides.

The other transport parameter – solute permeability P is determined from:

(27) P = R T ϕ X ′ ϕ w k 2 F 2 Δ X ∫ C s I C s I I { ( 1 + B ) − 1 ) C s } d C s ∫ C s I C s I I { ( 1 + B ) − 1 ) ( 1 + B ) + 1 ) ⋅   1 λ 1 0 + 1 λ 2 0 } d C s

where, ϕ w is the water content of the membrane, k 2 is tortuosity factor, ϕ w /k 2ΔX is the parameter used instead of numerous individual parameters ϕ, X′, k 2, ΔX [50].

Combined film theory Spiegler–Kedem (CFSK) model:

Observed solute rejection, R obs

(28) ln ( 1 − R obs R obs ) = ln ( 1 − R R ) + J w k

where k the coefficient of mass transfer.

Observed solute rejection, R obs [51] is given by:

(29) R obs = 1 1 − σ ( 1 − exp ( − 1 − σ P ) J w ) exp ( J w k ) + 1

After simplication R obs [33] can represented as:

(30) R obs 1 − R obs = a 1 [ 1 − exp ( − J w a 2 ) ] [ exp ( J w k ) ]

(31a) a 1 =   σ 1 − σ

(31b) a 2 = 1 − σ P

with maximum rejection observed at:

(32) J w , min = k [ ln ( 1 + Pe ) Pe ]

where Pe is Peclet number given by:

(33) Pe = ( 1 − σ ) k P

J w,min is the point where the rejection will be maximum and is equal to the mass transfer coefficient k.

References

1. Jha, BM. Ground water quality in shallow aquifers of India. The central ground water board, Ministry of water resources. Govt. of India; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

2. Epsztein, R, Nir, O, Lahav, O, Green, M. Selective nitrate removal from ground water using hybrid nanofiltration–reverse osmosis filtration scheme. Chem Eng J 2015;279:372–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.010.Search in Google Scholar

3. Santafé-Moros, A, Gozálvez-Zafrilla, JM, Lora-García, J. Performance of commercial nanofiltration membranes in the removal of nitrate ions. Desalination 2005;185:281–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.02.080.Search in Google Scholar

4. Haugen, KS, Semmens, MJ, Novak, PJ. A novel in situ technology for the treatment of nitrate contaminated groundwater. Water Res 2002;36:3497–506.10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00043-XSearch in Google Scholar

5. McAdam, EJ, Judd, SJ. A review of membrane bioreactor potential for nitrate removal from drinking water. Desalination 2006;196:135–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.03.008.Search in Google Scholar

6. Santafé-Moros, A, Gozálvez-Zafrilla, JM, Lora-Garcia, J. Nitrate removal from ternary ionic solutions by a tight nanofiltration membrane. Desalination 2007;204:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.04.024.Search in Google Scholar

7. Richards, LA, Vuachère, M, Schäfer, AI. Impact of pH on the removal of fluoride, nitrate, and boron by nanofiltration/reverse osmosis. Desalination 2010;261:331–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.06.025.Search in Google Scholar

8. Hoinkis, J, Valero-Freitag, S, Caporgno, MP, Pätzold, C. Removal of nitrate and fluoride by nanofiltration–a comparative study. Desalinat Water Treat 2011;30:278–88. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2011.2103.Search in Google Scholar

9. Plakas, KV, Karabelas, AJ. Removal of pesticides from water by NF and RO membranes – a review. Desalination 2012;287:255–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.003.Search in Google Scholar

10. Hurtado, CF, Cancino-Madariaga, B, Torrejón, C, Villegas, PP. Separation of nitrite and nitrate from water in aquaculture by nanofiltration membrane. Desalinat Water Treat 2016;57:26050–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2016.1160440.Search in Google Scholar

11. Yousefi, N, Fatehizedeh, A, Ghadiri, K, Mirzaei, N, Ashrafi, SD, Mahvi, AH. Application of nanofilter in the removal of phosphate, fluoride, and nitrite from groundwater. Desalinat Water Treat 2016;57:11782–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1044914.Search in Google Scholar

12. Guate, M, Ortiz, A, Ortiz, I. New polymer catalytic membranes for nitrite reduction: experimental assessment. J Membr Sci Res 2019;5:157–64. https://doi.org/10.22079/JMSR.2018.93546.1213.Search in Google Scholar

13. Kemperman, AJ, Rolevink, HH, Bargeman, D, Van den Boomgaard, T, Strathmann, H. Stabilization of supported liquid membranes by interfacial polymerization top layers. J Membr Sci 1998;138:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(97)00202-0.Search in Google Scholar

14. Petersen, RJ, Cobian, KE. Reverse osmosis recycle of electroplating chemicals at pH extremes. Plat Surf Finish 1976;63:51.Search in Google Scholar

15. Petersen, RJ. Composite reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. J Membr Sci 1993;83:81–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-7388(93)80014-O.Search in Google Scholar

16. Ng, HY, Elimelech, M. Influence of colloidal fouling on the rejection of trace organic contaminants by reverse osmosis. J Membr Sci 2004;244:215–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.06.054.Search in Google Scholar

17. Heath, R. Isocyanate-based polymers: polyurethanes, polyureas, polyisocyanurates, and their copolymers. In: Brydson’s plastics materials 2017. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2017. 799–835 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-35824-8.00028-1.Search in Google Scholar

18. Li, T, Xie, Z, Xu, J, Weng, Y, Guo, BH. Design of a self-healing cross-linked polyurea with dynamic cross-links based on disulfide bonds and hydrogen bonding. Eur Polym J 2018;107:249–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2018.08.005.Search in Google Scholar

19. Kim, HJ, Choi, UJ, Kim, H, Lee, K, Park, KB, Kim, HM, et al. Translocation of DNA and protein through a sequentially polymerized polyurea nanopore. Nanoscale 2019;11:444–53. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8NR06229C.Search in Google Scholar

20. Lonsdale, HK, Merten, U, Riley, RL. Transport properties of cellulose acetate osmotic membranes. J Appl Polym Sci 1965;9:1341–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1965.070090413.Search in Google Scholar

21. Soltanieh, M, Gill, WN. Review of reverse osmosis membranes and transport models. Chem Eng Commun 1981;12:279–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986448108910843.Search in Google Scholar

22. Slater, CS, Zielinski, JM, Wendel, RG, Uchrin, CG. Modeling of small scale reverse osmosis systems. Desalination 1985;52:267–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-9164(85)80037-0.Search in Google Scholar

23. Wijmans, JG, Baker, RW. The solution–diffusion model: a review. J Membr Sci 1995;107:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-7388(95)00102-I.Search in Google Scholar

24. Sobana, S, Panda, RC. Review on modeling and control of desalination system using reverse osmosis. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2011;10:139–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-011-9233-z.Search in Google Scholar

25. Sherwood, TK, Brian, PL, Fisher, RE. Desalination by reverse osmosis. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 1967;6:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1021/i160021a001.Search in Google Scholar

26. Jamal, K, Khan, MA, Kamil, M. Mathematical modeling of reverse osmosis systems. Desalination 2004;160:29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(04)90015-X.Search in Google Scholar

27. Van Oers, CW, Vorstman, MA, Muijselaar, WG, Kerkhof, PJ. Unsteady-state flux behaviour in relation to the presence of a gel layer. J Membr Sci 1992;73:231–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-7388(92)80132-4.Search in Google Scholar

28. Hoek, EM, Elimelech, M. Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: a new fouling mechanism for salt-rejecting membranes. Environ Sci Technol 2003;37:5581–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0262636.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Goosen, MF, Sablani, SS, Al-Hinai, H, Al-Obeidani, S, Al-Belushi, R, Jackson, A. Fouling of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration membranes: a critical review. Separ Sci Technol 2005;39:2261–97. https://doi.org/10.1081/SS-120039343.Search in Google Scholar

30. Tu, SC, Ravindran, V, Pirbazari, M. A pore diffusion transport model for forecasting the performance of membrane processes. J Membr Sci 2005;265:29–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.04.051.Search in Google Scholar

31. Tang, CY, Chong, TH, Fane, AG. Colloidal interactions and fouling of NF and RO membranes: a review. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2011;164:126–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2010.10.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

32. Al-Obaidi, MA, Kara-Zaitri, C, Mujtaba, IM. Scope and limitations of the irreversible thermodynamics and the solution diffusion models for the separation of binary and multi-component systems in the reverse osmosis process. Comput Chem Eng 2017;100:48–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

33. Murthy, ZV, Gupta, SK. Sodium cyanide separation and parameter estimation for reverse osmosis thin-film composite polyamide membrane. J Membr Sci 1999;154:89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00280-4.Search in Google Scholar

34. Gupta, VK, Hwang, ST, Krantz, WB, Greenberg, AR. Characterization of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane performance for aqueous salt solutions using irreversible thermodynamics. Desalination 2007;208:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.05.023.Search in Google Scholar

35. Nazia, S, Mishra, K, Jegatheesan, V, Bhargava, SK, Sundergopal, S. An integrated process of methanol coagulation and side stream membrane bioreactor for treatment of rice gruel wastewater. Research Square 2020. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-39334/v3.Search in Google Scholar

36. Arunkumar, T, Ramachandran, S. Surface coating and characterization of polyurea for liquid storage. Int J Ambient Energy 2017;38:781–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2016.1222966.Search in Google Scholar

37. Bartels, CR. A surface science investigation of composite membranes. J Membr Sci 1989;45:225–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(00)80516-5.Search in Google Scholar

38. Xu, Y, Lebrun, RE. Investigation of the solute separation by charged nanofiltration membrane: effect of pH, ionic strength, and solute type. J Membr Sci 1999;158:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(99)00005-8.Search in Google Scholar

39. Jitsuhara, I, Kimura, S. Rejection of inorganic salts by charged ultrafiltration membranes made of sulfonated polysulfone. J Chem Eng Jpn 1983;16:394–9. https://doi.org/10.1252/jcej.16.394.Search in Google Scholar

40. Tsuru, T, Nakao, SI, Kimura, S. Effective charge density and pore structure of charged ultrafiltration membranes. J Chem Eng Jpn 1990;23:604–10. https://doi.org/10.1252/jcej.23.604.Search in Google Scholar

41. Xu, Y, Lebrun, RE. Comparison of nanofiltration properties of two membranes using electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutes. Desalination 1999;122:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(99)00031-4.Search in Google Scholar

42. Paugam, L, Taha, S, Dorange, G, Jaouen, P, Quéméneur, F. Mechanism of nitrate ions transfer in nanofiltration depending on pressure, pH, concentration and medium composition. J Membr Sci 2004;231:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2003.11.003.Search in Google Scholar

43. Lyster, E, Cohen, Y. Numerical study of concentration polarization in a rectangular reverse osmosis membrane channel: permeate flux variation and hydrodynamic end effects. J Membr Sci 2007;303:140–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2007.07.003.Search in Google Scholar

44. Zhao, L, Ho, WW. Novel reverse osmosis membranes incorporated with a hydrophilic additive for seawater desalination. J Membr Sci 2014;455:44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.12.066.Search in Google Scholar

45. Kedem, O, Katchalsky, A. A physical interpretation of the phenomenological coefficients of membrane permeability. J Gen Physiol 1961;45:143–79. https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.45.1.143.Search in Google Scholar

46. Spiegler, KS, Kedem, O. Thermodynamics of hyperfiltration (reverse osmosis): criteria for efficient membranes. Desalination 1966;1:311–26.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)80018-1.Search in Google Scholar

47. Smits, LJ, Duyvis, EM. Transport numbers of concentrated sodium chloride solutions at 25. J Phys Chem 1966;70:2747–53. https://doi.org/10.1021/j100881a007.Search in Google Scholar

48. Tsuru, T, Nakao, SI, Kimura, S. Calculation of ion rejection by extended Nernst–Planck equation with charged reverse osmosis membranes for single and mixed electrolyte solutions. J Chem Eng Jpn 1991;24:511–7. https://doi.org/10.1252/jcej.24.511.Search in Google Scholar

49. Kelewou, H, Lhassani, A, Merzouki, M, Drogui, P, Sellamuthu, B. Salts retention by nanofiltration membranes: physicochemical and hydrodynamic approaches and modeling. Desalination 2011;277:106–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.04.010.Search in Google Scholar

50. Qin, JJ, Oo, MH, Lee, H, Coniglio, B. Effect of feed pH on permeate pH and ion rejection under acidic conditions in NF process. J Membr Sci 2004;232:153–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2003.12.010.Search in Google Scholar

51. Zhang, Y, Van der Bruggen, B, Chen, GX, Braeken, L, Vandecasteele, C. Removal of pesticides by nanofiltration: effect of the water matrix. Separ Purif Technol 2004;38:163–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2003.11.003.Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2020-0041).

Received: 2020-05-07
Accepted: 2020-09-10
Published Online: 2020-09-21

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Optimal tuning of PID controller in time delay system: a review on various optimization techniques
  4. Pareto domain: an invaluable source of process information
  5. The optimization of biodiesel production from transesterification of sesame oil via applying ultrasound-assisted techniques: comparison of RSM and ANN–PSO hybrid model
  6. Process simulation for the production of methanol via CO2 reforming of methane route
  7. Nitrate removal studies on polyurea membrane using nanofiltration system – membrane characterization and model development
https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2020-0041
Keywords for this article
cake enhanced concentration polarization; desalination; nanofiltration process; nitrate removal; polyurea membrane; solution–diffusion model

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Optimal tuning of PID controller in time delay system: a review on various optimization techniques
  4. Pareto domain: an invaluable source of process information
  5. The optimization of biodiesel production from transesterification of sesame oil via applying ultrasound-assisted techniques: comparison of RSM and ANN–PSO hybrid model
  6. Process simulation for the production of methanol via CO2 reforming of methane route
  7. Nitrate removal studies on polyurea membrane using nanofiltration system – membrane characterization and model development
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 30.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cppm-2020-0041/pdf?lang=en
Scroll to top button