Comparison of pressure-driven membrane processes and traditional processes for drinking water production in Europe based on specific impact criteria

Abstract

Due to the policy of many governments of encouraging the use of alternative water sources instead of groundwater, there is a clear need for enhanced water purification systems such as pressure-driven membrane processes. In this article a comparison is made between drinking water production from surface water using pressure-driven membrane processes and using traditional surface water treatment systems. Three alternatives are considered: Traditional treatment using coagulation/flocculation, sand filtration, physicochemical softening, activated carbon adsorption and disinfection (Process A); spiral-wound nanofiltration with ultrafiltration pretreatment followed by marble filtration and disinfection (Process B); and direct capillary nanofiltration with only a limited pretreatment and post-treatment by marble filtration and disinfection (Process C). An evaluation protocol was used (CRIME-DAV), in which the following impact criteria were taken into account: Quality and public health, operational aspects, the environment; the landscape, the economy, and administrative, legal and societal acceptance. The comparison of these aspects shows that none of the considered alternatives is favourable for all aspects. In practice, weight factors used in the protocol may have to be revised, shifting the optimal solution to one of the three processes. The general comparison is to be considered a rough indication and a template for a more detailed practical study. Process A proved to be advantageous for the aspects 'environment' and 'economy' but performance for 'quality and public health' and 'landscape' was poorer than for alternatives B and C. The latter both had a particularly good performance for 'quality and public health' and "operational aspects". Process C was more advantageous than B for economical aspects and the environment.

Drawbacks of applying nanofiltration and how to avoid them: A review

“…Suggested pretreatment methods often make use of other pressure driven membrane separations such as ultrafiltration and microfiltration [71][72][73]; other options include ozonation or UV/H 2 O 2 oxidation, adsorption (PAC) and flocculation [74,75]. An extensive overview of pretreatment methods can be found in the literature [76].…”

Ceramic Microfiltration Membranes in Wastewater Treatment: Filtration Behavior, Fouling and Prevention

“…Membranes have been defined as engineered barriers that remove colloids, molecules or salt [51,52] using a non-fibrous, engineered barrier, through a size exclusion mechanism. Based on pore size, shape and chemical/physical properties, membranes can separate different particles, organisms and chemical species.…”

Resin-Loaded Heterogeneous Polyether Sulfone Ion Exchange Membranes for Saline Groundwater Treatment

“…Consequently, groundwater often exceeds the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for drinking water, and key constituents that impact health, nutrition, and aesthetics of the water are affected [2]. Major constituents of concern for drinking water with significant health effects are nitrates and hardness, and more often than not, groundwater chemistry is determined by geological strata [3]. High salt concentrations are commonly associated with arid/semi-arid climates, low surface water availability, and advanced stages of groundwater abstraction [4][5][6].…”

“…This does not include other uses such as domestic, mining, and industry. Part of the allure of groundwater sources is that they typically require less treatment than most surface waters and can be available even during dry periods or in environments with highly variable source quality [3]. However, the overabstraction of groundwater leads to high salt levels.…”