content of chloride and TDS, whereas high permeation flux
and rejection were recorded for ULPRO membranes compared to conventional RO membrane.
Study reported by Kim et al. (2011) in pre-treatment of oil
sands process-affected water (OSPW), NF and RO membrane
was used for desalination process. Prior to the process, the
PW has undergone coagulation–flocculation–sedimentation
(CFS) process followed by the pre-treatment process to
compare for the PW without pre-treatment process. The
results showed that by utilizing CFS the flux reduction can be
reduced below 40%. Nevertheless, for COD or TDS did not
show any sign of reduced from the pre-treatment of the feed
and it was proposed that fouling may be occurred due to high
solid content during the CFS process. Chemical cleaning was
suggested to be required for foulant layers removal formed on
the membrane surface either by using acid or base. Similar
studied by Alpatova et al. (2014), irreversible membrane
fouling might be occurred if direct filtration of PW was used
without pre-treatment. Without proper CFV, fouling prone to
occur even increased in permeation flux. New innovation by
Miller et al. (2013) where a combination of a surface modified UF & RO membranes were used in a flowback water
system treatment. In order to obtain hydrophilic and fouling
resistance membranes, surface of the membranes was modified with in situ polymerization of dopamine followed by the
addition PEG-NH 2 . The modification has shown significant
lower transmembrane pressure, higher permeate flux and
efficient cleaning compared to the unmodified UF membrane.
On the other hand, high salt rejection was recorded the
modified RO membrane compared to unmodified RO
membrane.
Excitingly, nowadays, ceramic NF and RO membranes
used for PW treatment have risen which includes the
membrane fabricated from zeolite and alumina apart from
typical polymeric membrane fabricated from polyvinylidene
fluoride, polyethersulfone and polyamide. Lee and Dong
(2004) used RO membranes fabricated from synthetic zeolite
for salinity reduction of the PW treatment. The TDS concentration was reduced more than 11% with high pressure
applied. Similar to study by Liu et al. (2008) where RO
membrane fabricated from MFI silicate zeolite was used for
organic solvent rejection and approximately 96% was
removed. For salt rejection, the membrane was discovered
able to reject up to 99%. In cases of RO membrane from
polymer-based, Fakhru’l-Razi et al. (2009) used RO membrane fabricated from PVDF and PES in post PW treatment
water and discovered that all the membranes displayed high
performance in term of flux and removal efficiencies up to
2% and 70%, respectively. Supplementary by chemical
cleaning, the membranes can still further be operated, and
98% of recovery rate was recorded with no changing on the
treated water quality.
On the other hand, by using commercially available ceramic NF, UF and MF membrane for real and synthetic PW
treatment, Ebrahimi et al. (2009) reported that although almost
99% of oil was removed for all membranes, but not in the case
of TOC where the results considered as modest. Follow up
study by the same author, Ebrahimi et al. (2010) where dissolved air flotation (DAF) process was applied for
pre-treatment of the water has shown better results. Nevertheless, the author has suggested that DAF process was the
reason behind the improvement not by the membranes. Thus,
according to the author, the efficiency of the ceramic membranes still not comparable with polymeric membranes perhaps due to the ceramic membrane containing high MWCO.
In summary, the use of NF and RO membranes in PW
treatment can be very selective due to the characteristic of
the membranes itself. The fouling of the membrane can be
reduced by modifying the surface of the membrane and
polymeric-based membranes showed better performance
compared to ceramic-based membranes. Figure 7 depicts the
schematic diagram of fouling at membrane’s surface. In
future, better understanding of the membranes should be
studied for a better application of the membrane.
2.4 Forward Osmosis (FO)
The mechanism behind forward osmosis (FO) membrane is
driving force was applied by the osmotic pressure where the
transfer of water as feed across the membrane’s wall to draw
solution driven by the different chemical potential gradient
(Chen et al. 2015) as shown in Fig. 8. Normally, in a
semipermeable membrane, high salinity or concentration of
draw solution such as NaCl was used with water (produced
water) at low concentration in order to allow the permeation
process to occur. Few studies have been done by few
researchers to investigate the used of FO in refinery plant for
hydrocarbon separation McGinnis et al. (2013), Hickenbottom et al. (2013) and Li et al. (2014) using cellulose triacetate (CTA) membrane. The idea of FO process is that the
process would yield similar rejection as reverse osmosis
(RO) but at the same time preventing any irreversible fouling
and early membrane failure especially during pre-treatment.
On the other hand, there are previous studies of using FO
in refinery plant. Study by Hickenbottom et al. (2013) used
real hydrocarbon from Hydration Technology Innovations
(Albany, OR (HTI)), while Yun et al. (2014) and Li et al.
(2014) investigated the FO membranes in of using cellulose
triacetate (CTA) membrane using synthetic solutions which
has been modified chemically to tolerate the operating
parameters at the plant. Hence, exploration on the use of FO
membranes in pilot plant of sing real wastewater is still in
search (Coday et al. 2015).
Hydrocarbon Separation and Removal Using Membranes
81
and rejection were recorded for ULPRO membranes compared to conventional RO membrane.
Study reported by Kim et al. (2011) in pre-treatment of oil
sands process-affected water (OSPW), NF and RO membrane
was used for desalination process. Prior to the process, the
PW has undergone coagulation–flocculation–sedimentation
(CFS) process followed by the pre-treatment process to
compare for the PW without pre-treatment process. The
results showed that by utilizing CFS the flux reduction can be
reduced below 40%. Nevertheless, for COD or TDS did not
show any sign of reduced from the pre-treatment of the feed
and it was proposed that fouling may be occurred due to high
solid content during the CFS process. Chemical cleaning was
suggested to be required for foulant layers removal formed on
the membrane surface either by using acid or base. Similar
studied by Alpatova et al. (2014), irreversible membrane
fouling might be occurred if direct filtration of PW was used
without pre-treatment. Without proper CFV, fouling prone to
occur even increased in permeation flux. New innovation by
Miller et al. (2013) where a combination of a surface modified UF & RO membranes were used in a flowback water
system treatment. In order to obtain hydrophilic and fouling
resistance membranes, surface of the membranes was modified with in situ polymerization of dopamine followed by the
addition PEG-NH 2 . The modification has shown significant
lower transmembrane pressure, higher permeate flux and
efficient cleaning compared to the unmodified UF membrane.
On the other hand, high salt rejection was recorded the
modified RO membrane compared to unmodified RO
membrane.
Excitingly, nowadays, ceramic NF and RO membranes
used for PW treatment have risen which includes the
membrane fabricated from zeolite and alumina apart from
typical polymeric membrane fabricated from polyvinylidene
fluoride, polyethersulfone and polyamide. Lee and Dong
(2004) used RO membranes fabricated from synthetic zeolite
for salinity reduction of the PW treatment. The TDS concentration was reduced more than 11% with high pressure
applied. Similar to study by Liu et al. (2008) where RO
membrane fabricated from MFI silicate zeolite was used for
organic solvent rejection and approximately 96% was
removed. For salt rejection, the membrane was discovered
able to reject up to 99%. In cases of RO membrane from
polymer-based, Fakhru’l-Razi et al. (2009) used RO membrane fabricated from PVDF and PES in post PW treatment
water and discovered that all the membranes displayed high
performance in term of flux and removal efficiencies up to
2% and 70%, respectively. Supplementary by chemical
cleaning, the membranes can still further be operated, and
98% of recovery rate was recorded with no changing on the
treated water quality.
On the other hand, by using commercially available ceramic NF, UF and MF membrane for real and synthetic PW
treatment, Ebrahimi et al. (2009) reported that although almost
99% of oil was removed for all membranes, but not in the case
of TOC where the results considered as modest. Follow up
study by the same author, Ebrahimi et al. (2010) where dissolved air flotation (DAF) process was applied for
pre-treatment of the water has shown better results. Nevertheless, the author has suggested that DAF process was the
reason behind the improvement not by the membranes. Thus,
according to the author, the efficiency of the ceramic membranes still not comparable with polymeric membranes perhaps due to the ceramic membrane containing high MWCO.
In summary, the use of NF and RO membranes in PW
treatment can be very selective due to the characteristic of
the membranes itself. The fouling of the membrane can be
reduced by modifying the surface of the membrane and
polymeric-based membranes showed better performance
compared to ceramic-based membranes. Figure 7 depicts the
schematic diagram of fouling at membrane’s surface. In
future, better understanding of the membranes should be
studied for a better application of the membrane.
2.4 Forward Osmosis (FO)
The mechanism behind forward osmosis (FO) membrane is
driving force was applied by the osmotic pressure where the
transfer of water as feed across the membrane’s wall to draw
solution driven by the different chemical potential gradient
(Chen et al. 2015) as shown in Fig. 8. Normally, in a
semipermeable membrane, high salinity or concentration of
draw solution such as NaCl was used with water (produced
water) at low concentration in order to allow the permeation
process to occur. Few studies have been done by few
researchers to investigate the used of FO in refinery plant for
hydrocarbon separation McGinnis et al. (2013), Hickenbottom et al. (2013) and Li et al. (2014) using cellulose triacetate (CTA) membrane. The idea of FO process is that the
process would yield similar rejection as reverse osmosis
(RO) but at the same time preventing any irreversible fouling
and early membrane failure especially during pre-treatment.
On the other hand, there are previous studies of using FO
in refinery plant. Study by Hickenbottom et al. (2013) used
real hydrocarbon from Hydration Technology Innovations
(Albany, OR (HTI)), while Yun et al. (2014) and Li et al.
(2014) investigated the FO membranes in of using cellulose
triacetate (CTA) membrane using synthetic solutions which
has been modified chemically to tolerate the operating
parameters at the plant. Hence, exploration on the use of FO
membranes in pilot plant of sing real wastewater is still in
search (Coday et al. 2015).
Hydrocarbon Separation and Removal Using Membranes
81