j o u r n a l of MEMBRANE SCIENCE

ELSEVIER Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

E c o n o m i c assessment of membrane processes for water and waste water treatment

G. Owen

a,b,*

M. Bandi a,b, J.A. Howell

a, S.J.

Churchouse b

a Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7A Y UK b Wessex Water Services Ltd., Grosvenor House, The Square, Lower Bristol Road, Bath BA2 3EZ, UK

Received 31 May 1994; accepted in revised form 6 October 1994

Abstract
Membrane processes are increasingly being considered as an alternative to conventional water and waste water treatment methods in anticipation of future demands for high standards and reduced environmental impact. However, the use of membranes for these applications is currently limited by the high capital and operating costs with which they are associated. This paper looks at the economics of membrane processes for water and waste water applications. The results of extensive pilot plant trials have been used to determine the cost of treatment using a range of ultrafiltration and microfiltration membranes. The most significant factors influencing the overall cost were found to be membrane cost, membrane replacement frequency and power. The importance of selecting the most suitable membrane and optimum operating conditions for each application is demonstrated. A comparison has been made between the costs of membrane systems and conventional treatment processes. Some application areas have been identified where membranes are cost-effective.
Keywords: Economics; Optimisation; Water treatment; Waste water treatment; Membrane

1. Introduction Membrane processes offer a number of advantages over conventional water and waste water treatment processes including higher standards, reduced environmental impact o f effluents, reduced land requirements and the potential for mobile treatment units. Potential application areas range from sludge dewatering, waste water disinfection, suspended solids and pathogen removal from supply waters to reverse osmosis desalination. However, with the exception of desalination, membranes have not been widely used within the water industry. The main reasons for this are: (i) high capital and operating cost; (ii) current regulatory standards * Corresponding author. 0376-7388/95/$09.50 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
SSD10376-7388(94)00261-4

can be achieved by conventional treatment processes; (iii) difficulties in disposing of chemical waste from cleaning; (iv) limited experience of use of membranes in these application areas. Membranes will only find widespread application in the water industry if they can achieve the required regulatory standards, or better, at the same cost or cheaper than present processes. The potential for cost-effective use of membranes in supply water treatment has been widely investigated. Application areas that have been considered include colour removal [ 1 ], removal of trihalomethanes and other disinfection by products [ 2,3 ], suspended solids/ bacterial removal and iron removal [4]. Hardiman et al. [5] have considered the specific case of ultrafiltration ( U F ) spiral membranes as a pretreatment stage for

78

G. Owen et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

reverse osmosis or ion exchange. The degree of treatment required for supply water depends specifically on the nature of the feed water. The cost effectiveness of membranes will, therefore, be determined by the alternative processes available in each case. Membranes are reported to be cost-effective in some situations, e.g. as an alternative to conventional softening plant or as a pretreatment for reverse osmosis, but other studies have shown membranes to be less favourable in comparison to clarification followed by sand filtration. Thebault and co-workers [ 6,7 ] and Chambolle [ 8 ] have reported on the performance and operating costs of UF for drinking water treatment on the basis of experience of operation of over twenty plants currently in operation worldwide [9]. A number of the sites comprise pre-oxidation followed by UF and powdered activated carbon (PAC) adsorption to facilitate removal of total organic carbon (TOC), pesticides, iron, manganese, taste and odour. Thebault et al. [ 6] suggested that investment costs per m 3 plant capacity are independent of plant size for plants larger than 500 m3/d. This would compare unfavourably with the economy of scale seen for the majority of conventional treatment processes. Chambolle [ 8 ] stated that membrane treatment generally costs 2030% more than direct filtration. However, he also noted that for some water applications with low TOC levels UF can be economical for small- and medium-capacity plants (up to 12 000 m3/d) due to savings in labour costs and civil works [8]. Anselme et al. [10] have made a comparative study of the use of different membrane types for water treatment applications including ceramic and polymeric UF, microfiltration (MF) and nanofiltration (NF) membranes. They reported that for treatment of waters with low organic content, cellulosic UF and polypropylene MF membranes have similar operating costs, but ceramic MF membranes have higher investment costs and running costs 2-4 times as high as the polymeric membranes. They also stated that for treatment of surface waters with a high organic content, oxidation followed by UF and PAC adsorption provides a viable alternative to conventional processes for small plants (less than 4800 m3/d). On a large scale (more than 24 000 m3/d) they found that membrane processes remain more expensive than conventional treatment methods. Moulin et ai. [ 11 ] concluded that for ground waters the investment cost of MF for 2400 m3/d capacity is 1.5-2 times that of conventional treatment, but running costs are simi-

lar. For surface waters they considered that investment costs are 3-5 times that for conventional treatment. A comparative trial of UF membrane treatment systems was carried out by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) for water treatment processes [ 12 ]. The study contains both a technical and economic evaluation of UF for treatment of water from two sources including river water and blended ground/river water. A comparison was made between UF utilising a cellulosic hollow-fibre membrane with a 100000 molecular weight cut-off and a conventional treatment process including flocculation, dual-media filtration and chlorination. The conventional costs were calculated with regard to the need to remove giardia cysts in line with the "surface water treatmenf' rule [ 13]. The study concluded that total costs for UF treatment are similar to those for conventional treatment for a 4000 m3/d plant. Pickering and Wiesner [ 14] have developed a model to investigate the capital and operating costs of membrane filtration. They have examined the costs of treatment for raw waters using MF, UF and NF. At capacities up to 48 000 m3/d they calculated the cost of UF and MF to be competitive or less than that of conventional filtration for removal of suspended solids from both high-turbidity river waters and ground waters. The effectiveness of MF and UF membranes in the clarification and disinfection of primary settled and biologically treated waste water is well documented [ 1518]. However, little mention is made of the cost of treatment. Marsdon [ 19] estimated the costs of membranes for disinfection of treated domestic waste water. These are compared with figures from a report produced by the Department of the Environment [20] for alternative disinfection techniques. He found that disinfection costs of membrane systems are 2-10 times those of chemical-based systems. Morimoto et al. [21 ] have looked at the costs of a tubular UF membrane bioreactor system for domestic waste water treatment compared with conventional activated sludge. They found that the capital and operating costs of the membrane bioreactor were 20% higher than those of the activated sludge if no consideration was given to land costs. However, in locations such as Japan, where the cost of land is significant, Morimoto et al. reported that cost savings are possible as a result of the reduced land area required, thus mak-

G. Owen et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

79

= Feed flowrate (m~/s) Q2 = Recirculation flowrate ImP's) Q~ p, Inlet pressure (N/m 2) P2 Outlet pressure (N/m =) P~ Permeate pressure (Nlm =)
PrefiIter CI 2

Concentrate Bleed

/
I / I Membrane ' '/ ] ' /

Q,

~
Feed Tank

Permeate

Fig. 1. Plant layout assumed for cost calculations. ing the membrane bioreactor competitive with the activated sludge.

2. Cost determination The main components of the cost of membrane treatment are annualised capital cost, membrane replacement, power requirement, labour, maintenance and cleaning chemicals. The total cost of treatment has been determined as the sum of these factors expressed as cost per m 3 of permeate ( p / m 3) 1.

2.1. Capital cost

The capital cost has been considered as the sum of two components: cost of membrane units and cost of "non-membrane" plant. The non-membrane cost includes all mechanical and electrical items, control equipment and associated civil engineering costs. No account has been taken of land costs. In the UK the cost of land, for most potential sites, is very low compared with other capital costs. This will not be the case everywhere, and in some locations the cost of land may have a significant impact on the comparison of membranes with alternative processes. Capital costs for nonmembrane plant are based on quotes from a number of membrane plant suppliers. Costs of non-membrane plant items have been scaled according to the six-tenths power rule: Ca = Cb(Qa/Qb) 0"6 where Ca and Cb are non-membrane capital costs of plants to treat flows of Qa and Qb, respectively. The membrane cost is dependent on the specific membrane cost, Cmem (/m2), flux, J ( l / m 2 h) and the
J Note: 1 0 0 p = 1 , 1 = 1 . 3 2 e c u = $ 1 . 5 0 (March 1994).

flow to treatment, Q (l/h). In the case of waste water treatment the design should take account of diurnal variations in flow. A widely used relationship for flows of domestic waste water is [22]: Maximum daily flow = 2 average daily flow This guideline has been used to determine the maximum membrane area required for waste water treatment applications. This is assumed to include sufficient membrane to allow downtime for cleaning and maintenance. For waste water treatment the membrane cost is given by: Cmern ( ) = 2 X C m c m X Q / J where Q (I/h) is the average flow to treatment. For drinking water treatment a constant production rate can be assumed. Sufficient membranes are required to treat average flow. An allowance of 20% additional membrane capacity has been made to allow downtime for cleaning and maintenance. The membrane cost for water treatment applications is therefore: Cme m ( ) = 1.2 Cmcm Q/J The capital cost can be expressed as an annualised sum. A series of equal annual payments, A, invested at a fractional interest rate, i, at the end of each year over n years may be used to build up a sum of money with present worth (C . . . . + C ) . Annualised capital, a (/year)=[(Cmem+C)i]/[1-(!+i)-"] where Cme m and C are capital costs of membrane and nonmembrane components [23]. A total plant life of 20 years and 7% interest rate has been assumed.

2.2. Membrane replacement

Membrane lifetimes estimated by manufacturers range from 3-5 years for polymeric membranes to up to 10 years for ceramic membranes. Although there is little evidence to substantiate these claims for water industry applications, experience with membranes in other industrial sectors will give a reasonable indication of membrane lifetime. The actual lifetime achieved can have a substantial effect on the operating cost. For the purposes of this study membrane lifetimes of 5 years for polymeric membranes and 10 years for ceramic membranes have been assumed. The membrane replacement cost is calculated as the average of the total cost of replacement membranes required over a 20-year period.

80

G. Owen et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

Table 1 Membrane modules included in pilot-scale investigations Fibre/tube diameter (mm) Rating Trial module Area (m 2) PAN CE PS(A1) PS(A2) PS(B) Ceramic 0.8 0.95 1.0 2.0 1.1 2.9 50 000 MW 0.01/xm 500 000 MW 100 000 MW 500 000 MW 0.8/*m 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.17 0.5 0.06 Length (mm) 210 750 560 530 585 600 7 50 9 6.7 6.1 1 140 85 180 241 159 1200 Largest module area (m 2) Cost (/m 2)

2.3. Power Power costs have been divided into two components, feed pump power + recirculation power, based on the plant layout shown in Fig. 1. Feed pump power (kWh/ d) = Q i P2 24/1000 = Q P2 24/3.6.109 where P2=pressure at outlet from membrane module (N/ m2), Q = a v e r a g e flow-rate to treatment (I/h), Q~=average permeate flow-rate (m3/s) ( = Q / 3.6. 106). Recirculation power (kWh/ d) =Q2 ( P , - P 2 ) 2 4 / 1 0 0 0 For hollow-fibre or tubular modules Qz is related to cross-flow velocity, v ( m / s ) by the equation Qz = v Q/J d/4L where P1 = pressure at inlet to membrane module (N/m2), Q2 = average recirculation rate (m3/s), d = fibre diameter (mm), L = fibre length

(mm). Q/J gives the membrane area in use at average permeate flow-rate. (P1 - P z ) and J are also dependent on u. The relationships between these parameters have been determined by experiment. The cost of electricity has been taken as 5.5 p/kWh and 60% pump efficiency has been assumed. 2.4. Labour Initial estimates of labour requirements have been obtained from membrane system suppliers. The number of manhours per week required to operate the plant have been assumed to be proportional to the size of the plant since a significant part of operator time is likely to be associated with membrane cleaning and mainte-

Flux (I/m:h)
25O

200

150

.......

Membrane: PAN Feed: Biologically treated waste water "(MP:. b . ~ M r . . . . . . . . . . . . . v: 1.3 m/s T~mperature:- 143~ C- . . . . . . . . . .

100

50

I 1

I 2

I 3

I 4

I 5

I 6

I 7

r 8

I 9

I 10

I 11

12

Time (h)
Backflushing No Backflushing

5s/5~nin

_~_

Fig. 2. Comparison of flux versus time behaviour with and without backflushing; secondary effluent treatment: PAN membrane.

G. Owen et al. /Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

81

Pressure drop/Length 5

(bar/m)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / /

~.-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~-J~-'~

--y'~

. . . . . . . . . .

Crossflow

(m/s)

P~N _%E. P%A, PSA2-)PS~B)C~,ro

Fig. 3. Dependence of pressure drop along membrane modules on cross-flow velocity.

nance. Labour costs have been taken as 15 per manhour for plant operators. This is typical of current UK water industry rates. Labour costs calculated on this basis are generally high in comparison to requirements for a conventional treatment plant. These costs would be expected to fall as experience of operating membrane plants increases, since there is much greater potential for automation compared with conventional processes.
2.5. Maintenance

annual sum of 1.5% of the initial non-membrane capital cost has been assumed.
2.6. Chemicals

The maintenance cost of a plant is related to the capital cost of mechanical and electrical items. An
Flux (I/m:h)
IO0

Estimates of cleaning frequency vary from every 330 days for effluent treatment to every 6 months for water treatment applications. It is impossible to determine optimum cleaning frequencies without prolonged trials over several months. Information gathered from existing installations and suppliers gives chemical costs at below I p / m 3 of permeate produced. This cost is low compared with other factors considered. A fixed cost

80

60

. . . . . . . . .

-C-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

20

Ftux after 30 minutes Crossflow = 1 m/s

I I I I

operation 2.5

05
PAN

1 T M P (bar)
PS~A1) PS~.AZ)

1.5
Ceramic

2.

Fig. 4. Dependence of flux on TMP for secondary effluent at 1 m / s cross-flow.

82

G. Ow,en et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

Flux (I/mZh)

10O

80

60

20

I 1

i 2

I 3

I 4

Crossflow (m/s)

Fig. 5. Dependence of flux on cross-flow for secondary effluent at 1 bar TMP.

Table 2 Coefficients a and b for determination of flux from cross-flow for secondary effluent treatment ( J = av b) a PAN CE PS(AI ) PS (A2) PS(B) Ceramic 74,4 76.9 71.6 52.2 64.4 36,8 b 0.43 0.57 0,54 0.36 0.24 0.52

has been assumed for all the membranes for the purposes of this study. No account has been taken of possible additional costs for disposal of chemicals. For both water and waste water treatment sites, the quantity and treatability of any chemicals used will be a major consideration when selecting a treatment process.

3. Pilot-scale investigations Determination of optimum operating conditions is based on extensive pilot plant trials. A pilot plant capa-

Flux I/m2h)
50O

Flux after 30 minutes operation Crossfiow = 0 . 7 5 m / s /~

400

300

200

100

. . . . . . . . . .

~ 0.2

I 0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

TMP (bar)
Fig. 6. Dependence of flux on TMP for ground water at 0.75 m / s cross-flow: PAN membrane.

G. Owen et al. /Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

Flux
180

83

(I/m:h)

160

140

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ii:i::::
0.5

120

100

::ii:ii: ;i;,il Z,I I ii

Crossflow

= 1 m/s
solids = ~110 - 1 3 0 m g / I
2 2.5

80

r
1

, Suspended
1.5

TMP

(bar)

P~N ~E
Fig. 7. Dependence of flux on TMP with sand filter backwash water at 1 m/s.

ble of treating up to 5 m3/day in batch or continuousfeed mode has been used. A wide range of hollow-fibre and tubular modules with membrane areas between 0.06 and 3.7 m 2 have been tested on feeds including biologically treated waste water (secondary effluent), backwash water from a sand filter and ground water. The membrane modules considered in the cost comparison are described in Table 1. For the purposes of this investigation the determination of optimum operating conditions was based on tests carried out over a period of 30 min with no backflushing of the membrane. This short test period enabled a large number of modules to be tested under a wide range of operating conditions in order that sufficient data could be collected to establish a method for
Table 3 Distribution of costs expressed as percentage of total cost: PAN membranes, secondary effluent treatment, 1 bar TMP

comparing the costs of membrane processes and to investigate the impact of various factors on the cost of treatment. Longer trials would be recommended before selecting operating conditions for a full-scale plant. Some tests have been carried out over longer periods. Fig. 2 shows some results from tests with the polyacrylonitrile (PAN) membrane. Fluxes can be compared between operating without any backflushing and backflushing with permeate for 5 s every 5 min. The flux after 30 min without backflushing was 83 l / m 2 h compared with 70 1/m 2 h after 12 h with backflushing. In this case the membrane cost will be underestimated by about 20% as a result of using fluxes after only 30 min.

3.1. Pressure drop

The pressure drop, Ap, along a module is dependent on fibre diameter, module length, cross-flow velocity and coefficient of friction, ziP was determined experimentally for each individual module at a range of cross-flow velocities. The dependence of Ap on crossflow was found to be the same for water and secondary effluent. Fig. 3 shows a plot of ZIP/L against o for each module. A linear relationship between ZIP/L and v was observed under the range of conditions investigated. An equation was established to relate AP/L to z for each membrane and, hence, allow the recirculation power to be estimated for any set of operating conditions.

Cross-flow

0.5 m/s
48 l 3 31 8 5 1 3 100

1.0 m/s
47 1 8 26 9 5 1 3 100

1.5 m/s
43 1 18 20 9 5 1 3 100

2.0 m/s
39 1 27 17 8 4 1 3 100

Annualised capital Feed power Recirculation power Membrane replacement Labour Maintenance Cleaning chemicals Miscellaneous Total

84

G. Owen et aL /Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

3.2. Waste w a t e r treatment

Each membrane was tested with secondary effluent from Kingston Seymour Waste Water Treatment Works, which treats domestic waste water from the surrounding area. The quality of the effluent was highly variable over the period of the trials, falling within the following ranges: Suspended solids 50-150 mg/1 Biochemical oxygen demand 20-100 mg/! (BOD) 105-108/1 Faecal coliforms 104-106 PFU/1 Coliphage virus The particle size distribution of the effluent varies significantly from day to day. The effluent was filtered through a 200-/.~m screen before reaching the membrane pilot plant. The particles in the feed range from coliphage viruses at 0.025/zm up to soil particles at 200/zm. The quality of the permeate produced was similar for all the membranes tested and under all operating conditions. Suspended solids, faecal coliform and coliphage virus levels below the limit of detection were achieved. The BOD of the permeate was in the range 5-40 mg/l and was dependent on the BOD of the feed. Dependence of flux on transmembrane pressure (TMP) was investigated by operating at 1 m / s crossflow and a range of pressures, beginning at 0.5 bar and increasing in 0.5-bar steps to the maximum operating pressure of the module. Fluxes after 30 min of operation for some of the modules are shown in Fig. 4. No dependence of flux on TMP was observed for pressures greater than 0.5 bar due to the highly fouling nature of the feed. The optimum operating pressure will, therefore, be less than 0.5 bar. For the purposes of the pilot plant trials a TMP of 1 bar was used to investigate cross-flow dependence since this pressure could readily be maintained at a range of cross-flow velocities. Dependence of flux on cross-flow was determined by operating for 30 min at the highest velocity possible and decreasing in 1 m / s steps. The highest velocity achievable was limited by the maximum internal pressure withstandable by the fibres. Fig. 5 shows the effect of cross-flow on flux. The dependence of flux on cross-flow can be approximately represented by the power law relation J = av b [24]. The constants a and b will depend on the nature

of the feed and on the membrane, a and b have been estimated for each membrane from the experimental results and used to estimate the flux, and hence the membrane area required, for any value of v, for use in the cost calculation. The values of a and b for the membranes considered in this study are shown in Table 2.
3.3. W a t e r treatment

Trials were carried out on water from two sources which are very different in quality and nature of impurities. Ground water is essentially clean water which generally requires only chlorination before going into supply. A number of ground water sources are considered to be at risk from contamination with cryptosporidium [25]. Membrane treatment is being considered as a safe guard against cryptosporidium. The ground water used in the trials had less than 8 mg/i suspended solids, turbidity in the range 1.4-2.9 NTU and pH 7.2. Complete removal of suspended solids and turbidity was achieved under all operating conditions. No bacteria or cryptosporidium were detectable in the feed; however, since their sizes range between 0.5 and 5/zm the ability to remove 100% of organisms, should contamination occur, has been assumed. Backwash water is the reject water from backwashing of sand filters. This will contain all the impurities removed from the water by the sand filters including high concentrations of coagulant. The occasional presence of giardia and cryptosporidium is also likely in backwash waters. Backwash water is normally treated by concentrating the solids to form a sludge and returning the liquors to the treatment process. A process capable of removing cryptosporidium from water is required to prevent build up of cryptosporidium in the water treatment plant. The quality of the backwash water used in the trials varied widely, with suspended solids in the range 40--400 mg/1. The water quality depends on such factors as the weather and the time of day at which the sample is taken. To enable a comparison of treatment costs between different membranes results used in the cost calculations were from trials on water with analyses in the following range: Suspended solids 110-I 30 mg/1 Turbidity 17 and 25 NTU Acid-soluble aluminium 17-18 mg A1/I

G. Owen et al. /Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

Table 4 Distribution of costs expressed as percentage of total cost: ceramic membrane; secondary effluent treatment, l bar TMP Cross-flow 1.0 m/s 62 0.2 2 30 2 1 0.2 3 100 2.0 m/s 60 0.3 6 27 2 1 0.3 3 100 3.0 m/s 56 0.3 11 25 3 1 0.3 3 100 4.0 m/s 52 0.3 18 22 3 1 0.3 3 100

85

Annualised capital Feed power Recirculation power Membrane replacement Labour Maintenance Cleaning chemicals Miscellaneous Total

Total coliforms

10z- 104/1

The particle size distribution of the backwash water also varies considerably. All the water was pre-filtered through a 200-/zm screen before membrane treatment. The particles ranged from flocs of 200/zm in size down to colloidal particles of 5 nm or less. All of the membranes tested produced permeate with suspended solids, turbidity and coliforms below the limit of detection and acid-soluble aluminium in the range 0.3-0.9 mg/1, under all operating conditions. Selected membranes were tested with both waters in the same way as for waste water to determine dependence of flux on TMP and cross-flow. No dependence of flux on cross-flow was observed for cross-flow velocities greater than 0.5 m/s with either feed stream, due to the very low fouling nature of the feed. The optimum cross-flow velotity for water treatment is,
Table 5 Distribution of costs expressed as percentage of total cost: PAN membrane; ground water treatment, 0.5 m / s TMP 0.5 bar 44 2 7 19 16 5 4 3 100 1.0 bar 45 4 5 13 t9 6 5 3 100 1.5 b~ 46 7 3 9 21 6 5 3 100 2.0 b~ 46 9 3 7 21 6 5 3 100

therefore, between 0 and 0.5 m/s. The cross-flow velocities used for the trials are limited by the size of the pump on the pilot plant, hence velocities of greater than 0.5 m/s were used to determine TMP dependence. Fig. 6 shows the dependence of flux on TMP for ground water at 0.75 m/s for the PAN membrane. Over 30-min periods there is a linear relationship between flux and TMP. The equation J = 3 6 8 T M P (TMP expressed in bar) can be used to predict this flux at any TMP. Fig. 7 shows the dependence of flux on TMP for backwash water with suspended solids in the range 110-130 mg/1 at 1 m/s for two of the membranes. For TMPs in the range 0-2 bar the results can be represented approximately by a power law relation. A power law relationship has been used to estimate fluxes at TMPs other than those measured. It is expected that this will give an overestimate of the flux at pressures above about 2 bar since compaction of the fouling material with increased pressure would be expected to limit the flux increase achievable. This will result in an underestimate of operating costs at the higher pressures.

4. Cost optimisation
The cost of membranes, membrane replacement and power can be calculated on the basis of the relationships established from the pilot plant trials for flux, Ap, TMP and cross-flow. These can be used in combination with other factors listed above to obtain a total cost under a range of operating conditions and hence to select optimum conditions. The membrane costs are based on quotes received for a bulk order (minimum 600 m 2 of membrane) of the largest modules available for each membrane type. The costs and module areas assumed are given in Table 1. Tables 3, 4 and 5 show examples of the variation of distribution of costs between application areas and under different operating conditions. In every case the largest single-cost component is the annualised capital cost. For waste water treatment the other key factors are recirculation power and membrane replacement. Selection of optimum conditions will always involve a trade-off between these components. It is noticeable for the ceramic membrane that even at 4 m/s cross-flow the membrane replace-

Annualised capital Feed power Recirculation power Membrane replacement Labour Maintenance Cleaning chemicals Miscellaneous Total

86

G. Owen et al. /Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

Total Cost (p/m 3)

14Or

lOO t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"il
0I 0
~ I

.o,..ii
~ I , I ~ 1 ,

" iiiiiii.iiill
I , I ,

Crossflow (m/s)
P~N __.~ PSi)At) PS~A2) PSI~B) Cer~mi

Fig. 8. Total cost of treatment of secondaryeffluent versus cross-flowvelocity:average flow-rate to treatment= 2000 m3/d.
Total Cost (p/m 3) 55
50 45 40 35 30 25 20
, I ~ I ~ I , I , I , I ,

4 400~)m3fd 600~m3/d

Crossflow (m/s) Average f l o w

F i g . 9. T o t a l c o s t o f t r e a t m e n t o f s e c o n d a r y

100(~3/d 2 0 0 ~ / d

effluent versus cross-flow velocity with PS (A 1 ) membrane:

dependence

o n p l a n t size.

ment cost is still a larger proportion of the total than power. For water treatment applications the power cost is less significant. Membrane replacement is still a major cost at low TMPs, although it is less important than for waste water treatment due to the requirement to treat only average flow to treatment. The labour costs form a significant part of the total cost for water treatment and improvements in automation and plant reliability could be equally important in reducing costs as the selection of optimum operating conditions. Fig. 8 shows the total cost of treatment ( p / m 3) for secondary effluent treatment against cross-flow veloc-

ity at 1 bar TMP. The data are for a plant to treat 2000 m3/d average flow. All the membranes have an optimum cross-flow velocity. For polymerics this is in the range 1-1.5 m / s and for the ceramic membrane it is between 4 and 5 m/s. Clearly the optimum cross-flow velocity will depend on the membrane cost, since the potential to reduce membrane costs by increasing flux is greatest for the most expensive membranes. The minimum costs obtained from these calculations range from 20-40 p / m 3 for the polymerics to 81 p / m 3 for the ceramic. These compare with costs of between 20 and 30 p / m 3 for full-scale plant currently in operation on similar feed streams [26]. The cost of the

G. Owen et al. /Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91 Total Cost (p/m z)
12

87

10

_\ ..................
\

Lifetime of membranes = 5 years C_ro_ssf/ow_ - _O._5_m_/s . . . . . . . . Manufacturer's Pressure

0 0

[ 1

I 2

I 3

l 4

TMP (bar)

Fig. 10. Total cost of treatment of ground water versus TMP: PAN membraneat 0.5 m/s.
Total C o s t (p/m 3)
14

Feed s u s p e n d e d solids = 1 1 0 - 1 3 0 m g / I Lifetime of membranes = 5 years Crossflow = l m/s

ii___
8 -m

iiiiii iiiiiii
~

I 1

I 2

I 3

I 4

I 5

, 6

T M P (bar)

Fig. 11. Total cost of treatment of sand filter backwashwater versus TMP: 1 m/s cross-flowvelocity. membrane has the greatest effect on overall cost, with the cellulose ester (CE) membrane being the cheapest and the ceramic and polysulphone (manufacturer A, 2mm fibre) [ P S ( A 2 ) ] being the two most expensive across the range of cross-flows. Clearly even at high cross-flow velocities and taking account of the increased membrane life ceramic membranes will not be able to compete with the less expensive membranes for waste water applications. The difference in total cost between PS(A1 ) ( 1-mm fibre) and PS (A2) indicates that the smaller fibres have a cost advantage. The larger fibres are generally more expensive for the same membrane area. In addition the power savings due to the reduced pressure drop along the fibres for the larger diameters are more than outweighed by the increased flow required to achieve the same cross-flow. Fig. 9 shows the total cost curves for the P S ( A 1 ) membrane for a range of plant sizes. Most of the components, apart from the non-membrane capital and maintenance costs, will vary linearly with plant size. The annualised capital cost will be lower for larger plants but all other costs will remain the same. The optimum cross-flow velocity is the same for all plant sizes. Figs. 10 and 11 give the total cost of operation for the PAN and CE membranes with ground water and backwash water at a range of TMPs. The cross-flow

88

G. Owen et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

Table 6 Total costs of disinfection of secondaryeffluent (99.9% faecal coliformreduction) [29] Disinfection process Cost of disinfection (p/m 3) 1500m3/d Chlorine UV Ozone Membrane filtration 2.2 1.7 6.0 22.6 6000m3/d 1.1 1.1 3.7 15.8 15 000m3/d 0.8 1.0 2.6 12.5 30 000m3/d 0.5 0.9 2.2 11.2

velocities are 0.5 m / s for ground water and 1 m / s for backwash water. The costs are based on a plant to treat a constant flow of 4000 m3/d. The optimum operating pressure is about 2-2.5 bar. As noted above, the assumption of the power law relation between flux and TMP for backwash water will probably give an underestimate of total cost for TMPs above about 2 bar. If the fluxes at higher pressures were lower than predicted or even declined, a much clearer optimum TMP would be seen in Fig. 11. Average values of flux and TMP have been used in this study. However, there is a variation in TMP, and hence flux, along the length of a module which is more pronounced with longer modules. Only one point on the module will be at the true optimum TMP. A different operating pressure may be required for longer modules, which may be higher or lower than that selected for small modules depending on the gradients of the cost-pressure curve around the minimum. For all the examples shown in Figs. 10 and 11 the optimum TMP for large-scale modules is likely to be higher than those given. In fact, the maximum operating pressure for polymeric membranes is generally limited by the strength of the module housing to 2 or 2.5 bar, and this is likely to be the limiting factor in selecting a suitable operating pressure for water treatment applications. The total costs are much lower than for waste water treatment. This is largely due to the lower membrane area required to treat the same average flow.

5. Comparison with alternative processes

One potential application area for membranes is the disinfection of waste water for discharge into bathing areas. The European Community Bathing Water Directive [27] sets a limit for bacterial levels in bathing

water. The most common disinfection methods used to treat sewage effluents discharging into bathing waters are chlorination and ultraviolet irradiation, although ozonation and peracetic acid dosing have also been considered as alternative disinfection methods [28]. The effectiveness of these techniques is limited by the quality of the feed. Primary settlement and biological treatment stages are required prior to disinfection to meet the bathing water requirements even though BOD removal is often not a requirement in itself. Table 6 shows the costs of disinfection of secondary effluent for a range of plant sizes [ 29]. The costs for membrane filtration are based on operating costs quoted by suppliers for a full-scale treatment plant on similar applications [26]. 99.9% removal of faecal coliforms is the assumed target. Capital costs are for addition of a disinfection stage to an existing plant. The cost of disinfection of secondary effluent by membrane filtration is much higher than any of the alternative disinfection methods. However, one of the advantages of membranes is that they are effective on any quality of feed. Permeate produced by treating primary or secondary effluent will have the same suspended solids and bacterial content despite the change in feed. The use of primary settlement followed by membrane filtration can, therefore, be considered as an alternative process for achievement of bathing water standards. Table 7 shows the total cost for combinations of treatment processes to achieve disinfection of domestic waste water. The costs are for a new plant to treat 1500 m3/d average flow on a green-field site. It can be seen that the combination of primary settlement and membrane disinfection has a similar total cost to full secondary biological treatment combined with conventional disinfection methods. In summary, whilst membranes look very expensive compared with other treatment processes for

G. Owen et al. /Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91 Table 7 Total costs of primary, biological and disinfection stages for domestic waste water treatment ( 1500 m3/d average flow-rate) Biological treatment process Cost of treatment, including disinfection ( p / m 3) Chlorine Percolating filter Activated sludge Biological aerated filter None ( primary only) 55 57 70 NA UV 55 56 69 NA Ozone 62 66 76 NA

89

Membrane filtration 79 81 94 66

Table 8 Total costs of UF and conventional treatment processes for river water and ground water treatment [ 12] a Treatment process Cost of treatment ( p / m 3) 400 m3/d UF (river water) Ozonation + conventional treatment (river water) UF (ground water) Ozonation + conventional treatment (ground water) aCosts converted to Sterling assuming 1 = $1.50. 52 51 49 51 4000 m3/d 28 32 23 32 19 000 m3/d 18 12 14 11

waste water treatment there are application areas where they may be cost competitive. Using the cost calculation information from the A W W A [ 12], the costs of treatment for a new drinking water treatment plant based on UF have been compared to conventional treatment. Table 8 shows the comparative total cost per m 3 treated assuming 5 year membrane life, 8 5 / m 2 membrane cost and 7% interest rate. For plant capacities up to 4000 m3/d the total costs for UF are similar to or less than those for ozone and conventional treatment. At 19 000 m3/d UF costs are about 25-50% higher than costs of ozonation and conventional treatment. This is in agreement with other studies which show that UF costs are competitive with conventional treatment processes for plants up to a limiting capacity [ 8,10,14 ]. The limiting plant capacity is dependent on the nature of the feed water and the base assumptions used in the cost calculations. A recent publication shows cost competitiveness up to 48 000 m3/d [ 14]. It is clear that UF has the potential to be cost-competitive with other treatment systems, especially at smaller plant capacities.

6. Conclusions
(i) A model has been developed for the determination of optimum operating conditions for membrane treatment processes. (ii) The operating costs have been calculated for different feed streams under a range of conditions, based on 30 rain operation of a pilot plant system, with no backflushing. It has been shown that operating costs can be minimised by careful selection of membrane type and operating conditions, however, longer-term trials are required for accurate determination of costs and operating conditions for a full-scale system. (iii) The key cost factors are: membrane cost, membrane replacement frequency and power requirement. (iv) Membranes are currently not widely used in the water industry because of perceived poor economics compared with conventional processes, but costs with membrane systems can be less than or equivalent to those for conventional systems for some applications. Widespread use of membranes will depend on the avail-

90

G. Owen et a l . / Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

ability of significantly cheaper membranes or the tightening of regulatory standards.

8. Definitions
Primary effluent: waste water following treatment by primary settlement only; secondary effluent: waste water following treatment by primary settlement and a biological treatment process; backwash water: reject water produced by backwashing of sand filters during drinking water production.

7. Symbols and abbreviations

a,b A AWWA BOD

constants annualised capital (/year) American Water Works Association biochemical oxygen demand (mg / 1) specific membrane cost (/m 2) Cmem non-membrane capital cost () C membrane cost () Cmem cellulose esters CE fibre diameter (mm) d interest rate i flux (1/m 2 h) J fibre length (mm) L microfiltration MF molecular weight MW plant life (years) n not applicable NA nanofiltration NF pressure at inlet to membrane module Pl (N/m 2) pressure at outlet from membrane module P2 (N/m 2) permeate pressure (N/m 2) P3 powdered activated carbon PAC polyacrylonitrile PAN PFU/1 number of plaque-forming units per litre (measure of virus contamination) polysulphone (manufacturer A, 1-mm fibre) PS(A1) PS(A2) polysulphone (manufacturer A, 2-mm fibre) PS(B) polysulphone (manufacturer B) Ap pressure drop along module (bar) Q average flow-rate to treatment (I/h) average permeate flow-rate ( m 3/ s) Q1 average recirculation flow-rate (m 3/ s) Q2 transmembrane pressure (N/m 2) TMP total organic carbon TOC ultrafiltration UF cross-flow velocity (m/s) U

Acknowledgements
T h i s w o r k w a s carried out at W e s s e x W a t e r T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d the U n i v e r s i t y o f B a t h , w i t h j o i n t f u n d i n g b y W e s s e x W a t e r S e r v i c e s a n d the S . E . R . C / D . T . I u n d e r the T e a c h i n g C o m p a n y P r o g r a m m e .

References
[ 1] L. Tan and R.G. Sudak, Removing colour from a groundwater source, J. AWWA, January (1992) 79-87. [2] T.J. Blau, J.S. Taylor, K.E. Morris and L.A. Mulford, DBP control by nanofiltration: cost and performance, J. AWWA, December (1992) 104-116. [3] J.S. Taylor, L.A. Mulford, S.J. Duranceau and W.M. Barrett, Cost and performance of a membrane pilot plant, J. AWWA, November (1989) 52-60. [4] B. Castelas, Example of Kerasep T M membranes applications in the treatment of water for human consumption, Conference Proceedings Euromembrane 92, Pads, 1992, pp. 73-78. [5] R. Hardiman, O. Chu, J. Greene, D. Libby, C. Weber and R. Cross, Evaluation of spiral-wound ultrafiltration cartridges for large-scale water applications, Bioken Separations Inc. Report, AWWA, 1991, pp. 1-8. [6] P. Thebault, M. Chevalier, C. Anselme, P. Mazounie, Ultrafiltration in drinking water treatment: long term estimation of operating cost and water quality, Conference Proceedings Euromembrane 92, Pads, 1992, pp. 127-132. [7] P. Thebault, M.R. Chevalier, C. Anselme and P. Aptel, Analysis of operating costs for ultrafiltration in drinking water treatment, Poster Presentation, ICOM, Heidelberg, 1993. [8] T. Chambolle, Membrane applications for the water industry, Conference Proceedings Euromembrane 92, Pads, 1992, pp. 29-38. [9] Commercial Literature, Lyonnaise des Eaux-Dumez. [ 10] C. Anselme, V. Mandra, I. Baudin and J. Mallevialle, Optimum use of membrane processes in drinking-water treatment, Conference Proceedings of the International Water Supply Association, Budapest, 1993, pp. SS2.1-SS2.11. [ 11] C. Moulin, M.M. Bourbigot, A. Tazi-Pain and F. Bourdon, Design and performance of membrane filtration installations: capacity and product quality for drinking water applications, Environ. Technol., 12 (1991) 841-858.

G. Owen et al. / Journal of Membrane Science 102 (1995) 77-91

91

[12] J.G. Jacangelo, N.L. Patania, J.-M. Laine, W. Booe and J. Malleviaile, Low pressure membrane filtration for particle removal, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association, USA, 1992. [ 13 ] Filtration and disinfection: turbidity, giardia lamblia, viruses, legionella and heterotrophic bacteria; final rule, Fed. Reg., 54: 124:2 7486, June 1989. [ 14 ] K.D. Pickering and M.R. Wiesner, Cost model for low-pressure membrane filtration, J. Environ. Eng., 119 (5) (1993) 772797. [15] M. Kolega, G.S. Grohmann, R.F. Chiew and A.W. Day, Disinfection and clarification of treated sewage by advanced microfiltration, Water Sci. Technol., 23 (1991) 1609-1618. [16] B. Langlais, Ph. Denis, S. Triballeau, M. Faivre and M.M. Bourbigot, Microfiltration used as a means of disinfection downstream: a bacterial treatment stage on fixed-bed bacteria, Water Sci. Technol., 27 (1993) 19-27. [ 17 ] V. Mandra, F. Lefevre, C. Anselme and J.M. Audic, Utilisation de l'ultrafiltration pour la disinfection d'eau residuaire urbaine, Colloque "La Ville et l'Ean" Hydrotop 92, Marseilles, 8-10 April 1992, pp. 47~50. [ 18] V.P. Olivieri and G.A. Willingham III, Terminal disinfection of wastewater with continuous microfiltration to protect recreational waters, Conference Proceedings Oxford Conferences, Bathing Waters - - Recreation and Management, 1990, pp. 1-8. [19] R. Marsdon, ICI Watercare, The Heath, Runcorn, Cheshire, report on sewage disinfection.

[20] House of Commons Environment Committee 4th Report, Pollution of Beaches, Vol. I, Chairman: H. Rossi, HMSO, London, 1990 [21 ] M. Morimoto, A. Arai and S. Ohtsuka, Cost studies in aerobic membrane wastewater treatment systems, Conference Proceedings IAWPRC Asian Conference on Water Pollution Control, Bangkok, 1988, pp. 377-382. [ 22 ] G.M. Fair, J.C. Geyer and D.A. Okun, Water and Waste Water Engineering, Vol. 1, Water Supply and Waste Water Removal, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1966. [23] R.H. Perry and D. Green, Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, 6th, ed., 1984. [24] J. Murkes and C.G. Carlsson, Crossflow Filtration, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1988, pp. 18-21. [25] Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies, Report of the Group of Experts, Chairman: Sir J. Badenoch, Department of the Environment, Department of Health, HMSO, London, 1990. [26] Personal communication, B. Biltoft and B. Birkenhead, Memcor Ltd. [ 27 ] Council directive concerning quality of bathing water, Off. J. Eur. Communities, October (1979) 79/923/EEC. [28] Water companies see the UV light on sewage disinfection, ENDS Report 212, September 1992. [29] G.J. Realey, Cost estimates for Sewage, Final Effluent and Stormwater Disinfection, Water Research Centre, Report No. UM1097, May 1990.