Desalination 286 (2012) 4955

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Filtration demonstration plant as reverse osmosis pretreatment in an industrial water

treatment plant
Noelia Quevedo a,, Joan Sanz a, Amaya Lobo b, Javier Temprano b, Iaki Tejero b
a

Veolia Water Systems Ibrica, S.L., c/ El Electrodo 52, Rivas-Vaciamadrid, E-28529 Madrid, Spain
Environmental Engineering Group, Departamento de Ciencias y Tcnicas del Agua y del Medio Ambiente, E.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad de Cantabria,
Avenida de los Castros s/n, E-39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 June 2011
Received in revised form 26 October 2011
Accepted 30 October 2011
Available online 2 December 2011
Keywords:
Pretreatment
Reverse osmosis
Filtration
Silt density index (SDI)
Modied fouling index (MFI)

a b s t r a c t
Reverse osmosis (RO) has emerged as an alternative treatment in industrial water production. However, RO
systems need suitable pretreatment to avoid membranes fouling. A demonstration study was conducted to
assess improvements to RO pretreatment in the water treatment plant of a steel factory. Various pretreatment options, resulting from the combination of the existing treatment with different ltration stages,
were tested. The silt density index (SDI) and the modied fouling index (MFI) were used to evaluate the performance of the different congurations. Throughout the experimentation period, it was not possible to assess the SDI of the ltration inlet water due to the high colloidal fouling, while the inlet MFI ranged from 9
to 458. Results showed that the dual-stage in-series ltration, including two pressurized lters, provided
the best results, achieving SDI values lower than 5 and efuent MFI values lower than 1 under optimized operating conditions. Considering the fact that the MFI is a more accurate measurement as it takes into account
the cake ltration mechanism, we conclude this conguration was able to provide enhanced RO pretreatment
with a higher quality than the minimum required, despite the SDI not being lower than 3 with a reliability of
90%.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
1.1. Reverse osmosis pretreatment for surface water
Industrial processing water is used in numerous applications
which may require different qualities of water. Examples include
cooling water, water for rinsing and chemical production, boiler feedwater, puried water, and water for injection, just to mention a few.
Commonly, on a chemical plant or within a factory a central water
production unit provides the basic amount of water at several different qualities. More and more, these water supply units use surface
water such as that from rivers or reservoirs, instead of ground or
well water in the production of industrial process water as well as potable water [1]. The type and amount of contaminants depend on the
feedwater source, and surface water is usually rich in particulates,
suspended colloids and organic matter.
High purity water is primarily utilized in the power industry for
feeding super critical boilers and combined heat and power systems.
In addition, the removal of silica is essential to prevent deposition and
mechanical failure in steam generating systems. High purity water is

Corresponding author. Tel.: + 34 699879568.

E-mail address: noelia.quevedo@veoliawater.com (N. Quevedo).
0011-9164/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.10.037

also used in various industrial applications where cleaning of components is required [2].
Electrodeionization or ion exchange are the most common technologies for obtaining high purity water but deionization is increasingly being carried out by reverse osmosis followed by additional
purication [2]. While an ion exchange system is effective in producing water with low ionic content, the combination of reverse osmosis
with the use of a mixed bed resin offers economic advantages over
using only ion exchange technology [2,3].
However, RO systems are less exible in terms of the inlet water
required quality than the aforementioned ion exchange systems, suitable pretreatment being essential to achieve complete removal of all
the very nely dispersed organic and inorganic particulate matter;
otherwise, the RO membranes become fouled. Membrane fouling negatively affects plant performance, not only in terms of the operational
parameters such as a reduction in permeate ow and an increase in
the pressure drop, but also with respect to cost, with regular chemical
cleaning being required or even replacement of membranes when the
fouling is irreversible [46].
Selecting the best type of RO pretreatment is not straightforward. It
depends on the water source as well as on the pretreatment technique
itself and, sometimes, it requires previous trials in order to ensure the
success of the investment [7]. Usually, sources such as open sea water
intake, lakes, rivers and wastewater are susceptible to rapid changes
in suspended and dissolved solids loadings and, as such, are complex

50

N. Quevedo et al. / Desalination 286 (2012) 4955

to treat [8]. For this reason, it is advisable to obtain long term data on
the water to be treated before choosing the type of pretreatment [4].
For many years, conventional surface water treatment, based on
various treatment stages, such as disinfection, coagulation, occulation, sedimentation, dual-media ltration, mono-media ltration, biologically active ltration, double stage ltration and cartridge
ltration, has been regarded as the suitable pretreatment for RO systems. Nowadays, however, membranes (microltration or ultraltration) are also considered as an option for RO pretreatment [4,7]
because they usually enable higher rates of removal of bacteriological
contaminants and other particles than the well-known conventional
technologies [810]. Despite their advantages, the choice of membranes as RO pretreatment is not always justied; it depends on the
source water. In particular, many of the membrane systems currently
available tend to become fouled, and therefore require frequent
cleaning or redundancy to cope with this [4].
1.2. Fouling potential measurement
For conventional treatments including ltration, turbidity is the
parameter usually used to check the performance of the system. Unfortunately, there is normally little or no correlation between turbidity
and the fouling tendency. Therefore, other measurements, like the silt
density index (SDI), should be used to predict the fouling potential of
RO feedwater [8,11,12].
According to the standard of the American Society for Testing
Material (ASTM) [13], the SDI test consists of passing feedwater
through a 0.45 m microltration membrane in dead end ow at a
constant pressure (207 kPa) and determining the rate of membrane
lter plugging. The SDIT is calculated from the following equation:
h
SDIT

%PF

1 tti
T

x100

vs V plot is less linear, and the rst observed linear region is used
for the MFI calculation [17].
The membrane manufacturers recommend that the MFI value is
less than 1 to control membrane fouling with a maximum allowed
value of 4 [16]. Moreover, most studies measuring MFI are based on
a target value lower than 1 [6,12].
1.3. Objectives
The feedwater of the RO plant of a steel factory in Spain was tested
after various extended pretreatment processes in a demonstration
study lasting 8 weeks. The objective of this study was to reduce the
RO feedwater fouling potential by improving the previous ltration
stage. Different RO pretreatment congurations, resulting from the
combination of the existing physicalchemical treatment with different ltration stages that were available in the demonstration plant
(pressurized dual-media ltration and/or pressurized three-layer ltration) were tested.
This paper analyzes both the SDI and the MFI results with a reliability of 90% and a condence interval (CI) of 95%. For inlet water the SDI
could not be measured due to the high colloidal fouling, while both
indices were calculated for the ltered water. Objectives were established based on the following target values for the pretreatment
congurations:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

a maximum value of 5 for SDI

a maximum value of 4 for MFI
a SDI value lower than 3
a MFI value lower than 1.

Among these target values, i) and ii) represent the minimum quality allowed by membrane manufacturers, while iii) and iv) represent
the optimum conditions for the RO performance.

T
2. Experiments

where ti is the time to collect an initial sample ltered through the

membrane, tT is the time taken to collect a second sample after a
total ltration time (T) of 5, 10, or 15 min and the %PF is the percentage plugging factor. The sample volume collected is normally 500 ml
and the SDI15 (calculated after 15 min of ltration) is the standard SDI.
This SDI test is a static measurement of resistance with the assumption of a linear reduction in ow. This theory allows good results
to be obtained for fairly clean waters where the initial and nal ows
are similar. However, the usefulness of the SDI is limited for highly
fouling water as it does not allow a distinction to be made between
different ltration mechanisms and it is not linear with particle concentration [11,14,15].
In general, membrane manufacturers recommend a feed-water
SDI15 value lower than 3 but they accept values up to 4 or 5 [7,15,16].
Hence, most pretreatment studies are based on a target SDI15 value
lower than 3.
To overcome the limitations of the SDI, the lesser known modied
fouling index, MFI was proposed. The MFI is based on the cake ltration mechanism so it takes into account the ow reduction mechanism that occurs in the case of membranes. As a consequence it is a
better representation of membrane operating conditions and it can
be used to measure high and low fouling feedwater. The MFI can be
determined from the gradient of the linear region of minimum
slope found in a plot of inverse ow (t/V) vs cumulative volume (V)
during a 0.45 m microltration test. Generally, ltered volumes are
measured every 30 s for a total of 15 min and then, they are represented on a t/V vs V plot; the linear region of the plot that corresponds to the cake ltration is considered, while the initial region
that corresponds to the blocking ltration and the nal region that
corresponds to the cake ltration with compression are excluded
[11]. In the case of water with high colloidal concentration the t/V

2.1. Demonstration plant description

The factory already had a water treatment plant (WTP) as RO pretreatment for treating dam water. The existing plant consisted of permanganate oxidation, chlorine addition, and coagulation/occulation
followed by a settler and a sand ltration stage. Despite this treatment
line, which allowed very low turbidity values (b1 NTU) to be obtained,
the RO membranes became fouled so the demonstration plant was
installed in order to improve the RO pretreatment.
Water to be ltered in the demonstration plant was taken from
two different points after its treatment in the WTP located on the
site because it was speculated the possibility of a possible water contamination along a peripheral pipe between the WTP and the RO. The
rst point corresponded to a 10 km long peripheral pipe coming from
the WTP (water type 1), while the second one corresponded to efuent directly from the WTP lter (water type 2).
As shown in Fig. 1, the demonstration plant included: water
pumping from the catchment point to the ltration line; two pressurized multimedia lters in series (a pressurized dual-media lter and a
pressurized three-layer lter), four 5-micron cartridge lters and a
reverse osmosis system that consists of eighteen 4 diameter membranes model BW30-4040-FR for 2-stage conguration. Moreover,
the multimedia lters allowed operation with each lter individually
or with the two lters in series to test different pretreatment congurations. Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the pressurized lters. This treatment line also included the possibility of using
chemicals, coagulants or/and occulants, prior to the lters, in order
to improve their operation and thus the efuent quality. Based on
previous experiences and on other authors references [18,19], regarding coagulants, both the inorganic Hydrex 3210 (8.5% Al2O3) and two

N. Quevedo et al. / Desalination 286 (2012) 4955

51

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the demonstration plant.

organic coagulants, poliDADMAC (Hydrex 6761) and polyamines

(C581) were used, while Hydrex 6521 was the only occulant tested.
2.2. Congurations studied

2.3. Sampling and analysis

The following paragraphs describe the different congurations studied in this research. For all congurations, the lter inlet ow rate was
2.7 m 3/h, that corresponds to a ltration velocity of 13.6 m/h. Fig. 2
summarizes the main characteristics of each conguration.
2.2.1. Conguration 1
The rst conguration consisted of the dual-media lter (F1)
working alone. For the coagulation in line prior to the lter both organic coagulants were tested, namely poliDADMAC (Hydrex 6761)
and polyamines (C581).
2.2.2. Conguration 2
The second conguration consisted of the three-layer lter (F2)
working alone. In this case, organic coagulants used for the coagulation in line were the same as in conguration 1.
2.2.3. Conguration 3
The third conguration consisted of the two pressurized multimedia
lters working in series, that is, the dual-media lter followed by the
three-layer lter. For the coagulation in line, prior to the lters, the Al
based coagulant (Hydrex 3210) or the organic coagulant (Hydrex
6761) were used, both of them followed by a occulant (Hydrex
Table 1
Filters main characteristics.

Support layer
Filtration layers

6521) added to F2. In this case, the rst lter (F1) works as the coagulation stage and the second one (F2) as the polishing treatment.

Pressurized dual-media
lter (F1)

Pressurized three-layer
lter (F2)

Material
Height
Material
Height
Material

Sand
354 mm
Sand
254 mm
Anthracite

Height

398 mm

Material
Height
Material
Height
Material
Height
Material
Height

Sand
366 mm
Garnet
165 mm
Sand
173 mm
Anthracite
265 mm

During the demonstration study, two different periods were distinguished. First, the three proposed pretreatment congurations
were evaluated for inlet water type 1, each of the congurations running for a week. Then, based on the results achieved, only the best
congurations, found to be 2 and 3, were repeated with inlet water
type 2 for two weeks.
The process performance in the demonstration plant was monitored, on the one hand, by equipment controlled online via a SCADA
system, including pressure sensors, ow meters, a pH meter and
level sensors. On the other hand, the inuent and efuent quality
was monitored by manual measuring of the parameters required to
calculate SDI and MFI. The microltration membrane used for these
measurements was the Millipore HAWP with a pore size of 0.45 m.
We propose to discuss both the SDI and the MFI values in this
paper as there were some cases in which the SDI could not be calculated due to the high colloidal fouling. A total of 36 inlet water MFI
values were calculated and on the lters efuent 39 MFI and 135
SDI values were obtained.

2.4. Test classication criteria

A nomenclature, based on three numbers (X.Y.Z, as shown in
Table 2), similar to the one in Quevedo et al. [20], was used to characterize each test in order to simplify the discussion of the results. The
rst value (X) indicates the inlet water type, from the peripheral
pipe (type 1) or directly from the WTP efuent (type 2). The second
value (Y) refers to the different congurations studied as described
above in Section 2.2. The third value refers to the chemical dosage
used in each test. Note that the meaning of Z varies for each combination of X and Y and thus the same number is not always related to the
same chemical or to the same dose. There are several tests (Z) with
different chemicals and dosages for each conguration. Finally, as a
large number of samples have been analyzed for each test, the result
obtained for each sample is called a measurement.

52

N. Quevedo et al. / Desalination 286 (2012) 4955

Fig. 2. Main characteristics of the congurations tested.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Inlet water in the steel factory demonstration plant
The inlet water in the steel factory demonstration plant is characterized by a low turbidity (b1 NTU) and very high, non-measurable
SDI values. Table 3 summarizes some analytical data of the inlet
water to be treated.
Fig. 3 shows the data compiled from the inlet water MFI in the
demonstration plant. From week 16 to week 21 the MFI measurements correspond to water from the peripheral pipe, while during
week 22 and 23 the MFI measurements correspond to the efuent directly from the WTP. A marked increase in MFI can be observed during
week 21. Moreover, during the 20 and 21st weeks MFI values showed
a wide range which is supposed to be due to the seasonal variations in
rain. The MFI measurements were performed separately, but there
was no signicant difference between the two water types, as Fig. 3
shows.

The analysis was based on statistical parameters. The results of the

tests were represented in probability distribution graphs to visualize
not only the variability of results for each treatment but also the reliability of achieving the required quality in each case [21,22]. Minitab
software [23] was used to process the experimental data and plot the
probability graphs, with normal distributions and condence intervals
of 95%. Only tests achieving MFI values of lower than 4 and SDI values
lower than 5 with at least 90% of reliability were considered valid in
this study.
As a consequence, just six of the different tests shown in Table 4
were considered for the conclusions of the study. Table 5 shows the
classication of these six tests into four groups according to the objectives listed in Section 1.3. The symbols and are used to indicate
the MFI and SDI values that were and were not achieved, respectively,
with each test. Some SDI measurements could not be made due to the
high colloidal fouling; they are represented with a blank.
The following sections provide more detailed information about
the results obtained with each conguration, as well as of the different tests conditions (e.g., inlet water quality, and chemical dosing).

3.2. Results classication

Table 4 lists the main characteristics of the different tests that
were performed.
Table 2
Nomenclature (X, Y, Z).
Number

Value

Meaning

X: Inlet water type

Y: Conguration

1
2
1
2
3

Z: Test

14

From peripheral pipe

From WTP
Pressurized dual-media lter (F1)
Pressurized three-layer lter (F2)
Pressurized dual-media lter (F1) + Pressurized
three-layer lter (F2)
Combination of different chemical dosages

Table 3
Characteristics of water to be treated in the demonstration plant.
Parameter

Water type 1

Water type 2

pH
Conductivity (S/cm)
Total hardness (F)
Calcium hardness (F)
Total Alkalinity (F)
Langelier saturation index (20 C)
Turbidity (NTU)
Iron (mg/l)
Manganese (mg/l)
Aluminium (mg/l)
Orthophosphate (mg/l)
Total phosphate (mg/l)

7.98
361
16.3
11.2
11.0
0.3
0.79
0.22
0.033
0.01
0.01
0.19

7.87
358
15.3
10.5
11.6
0.4
0.93
0.01
0.026
0.01
0.01
0.19

N. Quevedo et al. / Desalination 286 (2012) 4955

1500

53

Table 5
Results classication according to the objectives.

1250

INLET MFI

1000
750
500

Reference

SDI b 5

MFI b 4

SDI b 3

MFI b 1

2.3.1
1.3.1
2.2.1
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.1.1

250
0

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Week
Fig. 3. Demonstration plant inlet MFI data (95% CI for the mean).

3.3. Performance of conguration 1

As mentioned above, the MFI and SDI results for each conguration were evaluated using probability graphs with normal distributions and maintaining condence intervals of 95%.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the best results that were obtained with this
conguration. Fig. 4 represents MFI values for both inlet and ltered
water vs. the percentiles (values that indicate the percent of the distribution that is equal to or below it), while Fig. 5 represents the SDI
values for just ltered water vs. the percentiles. For each data distribution on the graph, on the one hand, there is a central line that represents the expected percentile of the distribution based on maximum
likelihood parameter estimates; and, on the other hand, the upper
and lower lines are formed by connecting the upper and lower bounds
of the condence intervals for the percentiles respectively. In addition,
Table 6 shows the main statistical parameters of the selected data distributions, namely, the mean, the standard deviation (SD), the number
of samples (N), the adjusted AndersonDarling statistic (AD) and the
Pearson correlation coefcient (P), for the different congurations.
In the graph in Fig. 4, the circles represent MFI distribution for
the inlet water (Test 1.1.1_MFIIN) and the squares depict the MFI distribution for the F1 efuent (Test 1.1.1_MFIF1), while in the Fig. 5, the
squares represent the SDI distribution for the F1 efuent (Test
1.1.1_SDIF1).
For inlet water type 1 (Fig. 5), the F1 efuent SDI was lower than 5
with a reliability of 95%, with a Hydrex 6761 dose of 2 mg/l. In this
case, the efuent MFI (Fig. 4) was too high, achieving a value of 80
with a reliability of 90%. Therefore conguration 1 enabled objective
i) established for pretreated water (namely, a maximum SDI value

of 5) to be achieved, but not objectives ii) (maximum MFI value of

4), iii) (SDI value lower than 3) or iv) (MFI value lower than 1).
On the other hand, the results obtained with another coagulant
tested in this study (C581) were worse, the F1 efuent SDI obtained
being higher than 5. Thus, none of the established objectives were
achieved.
In tests carried out without the addition of any coagulant the F1
efuent SDI was higher than 5, and again none of the objectives
were achieved.

3.4. Performance of conguration 2

Figs. 6 and 7 show the best results that were obtained with this
conguration. Symbols are equivalent to those used in Figs. 4 and 5
but for F2 efuent. That is, in Fig. 6, the circles and squares represent
the MFI distribution for the inlet water (Test 1.2.1_MFIIN) and the F2
efuent (Test 1.2.1_MFIF2) respectively, while in Fig. 7, the squares
represent the SDI distribution for the F2 efuent (Test 1.2.1_SDIF2).
For inlet water type 1, the F2 efuent SDI (Fig. 7) was less than 5
with a reliability of 95% and less than 3 with a reliability of 70%; the
F2 efuent MFI (Fig. 6) was less than 4 with a reliability of 95%,
with a Hydrex 6761 dose of 2 mg/l. Thus, conguration 2 allowed objectives i) and ii) to be achieved, but not objectives iii) or iv) for the
pretreated water. Other references report SDI values of 5 and MFI
values in the range 1.54.5 with multilayer ltration [10].
It was observed that as the coagulant (Hydrex 6761) dose was decreased down to 2 mg/l the efuent water quality improved. With
higher coagulant doses, such as 3.6 and 4.6 mg/l that were tested for
raw water type 1, the F2 efuent MFI were less than 4 with a reliability
of 95% and higher than 4 respectively.

Variable
TEST 1.1.1 MFIIN
TEST 1.1.1_MFIF1

140

120

100

Flocculant
Coagulant
Coagulant
Reference Conguration Coagulant
(X.Y.Z)
Hydrex6761 C581 (mg/l) Hydrex3210 Hydrex6521
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)

MFI

Table 4
Summary of tests.

80

60

1.1.0
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.2.0
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.3.0
1.3.1
1.3.2
2.2.1
2.3.1

1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3

0
2
0
0
2
3.6
4.6
0
0
0
2
2
0

0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
15

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0.05
0
0.05

40

20

0
1

10

20

30 40 50 60 70

80

90

Percentile
Fig. 4. MFI values vs. percentiles for test 1.1.1.

95

99

54

N. Quevedo et al. / Desalination 286 (2012) 4955

6

Variable
TEST 1.2.1 MFIIN
TEST 1.2.1_MFIF2

120

100
4

MFI

FILTERED WATER SDI

140

80

3
60

40

2
1

10

20

30 40 50 60 70

80

90

99

95

Percentile

20

Fig. 5. SDI values vs. percentiles for test 1.1.1.

0
1

For inlet water type 2, as for inlet water type 1, the F2 efuent SDI
was less than 5 and the F2 efuent MFI was less than 4 with a reliability of 95%, with a Hydrex 6761 dose of 2 mg/l.
Again, the results obtained with the other coagulant (C581) were
worse, resulting in an F2 efuent SDI higher than 5 and an F2 efuent
MFI higher than 4. Thus, as in conguration 1, none of the established
target values were reached with this coagulant.
In tests carried out without coagulant, as in the previous tests, the
F2 efuent SDI and MFI were higher than 5 and 4 respectively so once
again none of the objectives were achieved.

10

20

30 40 50 60 70

80

90

95

99

Percentile
Fig. 6. MFI values vs. percentiles for test 1.2.1.

than 5. Due to this poor SDI result, this coagulant was not considered
for other tests.
In tests carried out without the addition of chemicals (coagulants
or occulant), as in the previous tests, the F2 efuent SDI and MFI
were higher than 5 and 4 respectively so none of the objectives were
achieved.

3.5. Performance of conguration 3

4. Conclusions

Table 6
Statistical parameters.
Conguration

Test

Data group

Mean

SD

AD

Test 1.1.1

Test 1.2.1

Test 2.3.1

Inlet water MFI

F1 efuent MFI
F1 efuent SDI
Inlet water MFI
F2 efuent MFI
F2 efuent SDI
Inlet water MFI
F2 efuent MFI
F2 efuent SDI

40.5
29.9
3.8
40.5
1.3
2.4
144.4
0.7
3.0

44.4
39.1
0.5
44.4
0,9
0.8
66.7
0.1
0.7

8
3
11
8
6
40
13
3
19

0.931
0.320
0.363
0.931
0.439
3.237
0.526
0.209
0.986

0.009
0.233
0.373
0.009
0.184
0.005
0.145
0.547
0.01

After testing the different RO pretreatment congurations, the following conclusions can be drawn.
Conguration 1 enabled an SDI lower than 5 to be obtained with a
coagulant dose (Hydrex 6761) of 2 mg/l but the MFI was too high,
with values around 80. Thus, this conguration only fullled objective i).
With Conguration 2, SDI values lower than 5 and MFI values
lower than 4 were obtained, by adding a coagulant dose (Hydrex
6761) of 2 mg/l before the three-layer lter. Hence, it fullled objectives i) and ii).
Finally, conguration 3, operating with a coagulant dose (Hydrex
3210) of 15 mg/l before the dual-media lter combined with a

FILTERED WATER SDI

We have again plotted the best results, in this case in Figs. 8 and 9.
As in the other gures, in Fig. 8 circles and squares depict the MFI distribution for the inlet water (Test 2.3.1_MFIIN) and the F2 efuent
(Test 2.3.1_MFIF2) respectively, and in Fig. 9, squares represent the
F2 efuent SDI distribution (Test 2.3.1_SDIF2).
For inlet water type 2, the F2 efuent SDI (Fig. 9) was less than 5
with a reliability of 95% and less than 3 with a reliability of 50%; in
this case, the F2 efuent MFI (Fig. 8) was less than 1 with a reliability
of 95%, with a coagulant dose (Hydrex 3210) of 15 mg/l before the F1
and a occulant dose (Hydrex 6521) of 0.05 mg/l before F2. Thus,
conguration 3 allowed objectives i), ii) and iv) to be achieved, but
not objective iii) for the pretreated water. Similar MFI results have
been obtained with two lters in series in other studies [6].
For inlet water type 1, the F2 efuent SDI was also less than 5 but
the F2 efuent MFI was less than 4 with a reliability of 95%, with a coagulant dose (Hydrex 3210) of 15 mg/l before the F1 and a occulant
dose (Hydrex 6521) of 0.05 ppm before F2.
On the other hand, the results obtained with another coagulant
(Hydrex 6761) before F1 and with a occulant dose (Hydrex 6521)
of 0.05 ppm before F2 were worse, the SDI for F2 efuent being higher

0
1

10

20

30 40 50 60 70

80

90

Percentile
Fig. 7. SDI values vs. percentiles for test 1.2.1.

95

99

N. Quevedo et al. / Desalination 286 (2012) 4955

250

into account the cake ltration mechanism. Thus, it represents a

more accurate assessment than SDI [24], the value on which objective
iii) is based. Therefore, we conclude that conguration 3, a dualmedia lter followed by a three-layer lter, is clearly able to provide
a higher quality than the minimum required, achieving enhanced
RO pretreatment.

Variable
TEST 2.3.1_MFIIN
TEST 2.3.1_MFIF2

200

150

MFI

References

100

50

0
1

10

20

30 40 50 60 70

80

90

95

99

Percentile
Fig. 8. MFI values vs. percentiles for test 2.3.1.

FILTERED WATER SDI

55

10

20

30 40 50 60 70

80

90

95

99

Percentile
Fig. 9. SDI values vs. percentiles for test 2.3.1.

occulant dose (Hydrex 6521) of 0.05 mg/l before the three-layer lter, provided the best results. It achieved SDI values lower than 5 and
MFI values lower than 1 fullling objectives i), ii) and iv).
Therefore, congurations 2 and 3 achieved, under optimum operating conditions, the minimum quality allowed by membrane manufacturers for feeding the RO membranes. Accordingly, these congurations
can be considered an acceptable RO pretreatment.
None of the congurations achieved both objectives iii) and iv),
established by the membrane manufacturers for optimum RO performance. However, conguration 3 enabled the target value in objective iv) to be reached. This target is based on the MFI which takes

[1] M. Clever, F. Jordt, R. Knauf, N. Rbiger, M. Rdebusch, R. Hilker-Scheibel, Desalination 131 (2000) 325336.
[2] A. Bennett, Advances in high purity water ltration technologies, Filtr. Sep.
(September 2004) 2830.
[3] S.D. Coker, S.S. Beardsley, S.S. Whipple, An economic comparison of demineralization with reverse osmosis and ion exchange technology, Proceedings of PowerGen America, The Dow Chemical Company, December 79 1994.
[4] S. Gare, RO systems: the importance of pretreatment, Filtr. Sep. (January/February
2002) 2227.
[5] N.P. Isaias, Experience in reverse osmosis pretreatment, Desalination 139 (2001)
5764.
[6] M.M. Nederlof, J.C. Kruithof, J.A.M.H. Hofman, M. Koning, J.P. Van der Hoek, P.A.C.
Bonn, Integrated multi objective membrane systems application of reverse osmosis at the Amsterdam Water Supply, Desalination 119 (1998) 263273.
[7] K. Gaid, Y. Treal, Le dessalement des eaux par osmose inverse: lexprience de
Volia Water, Desalination 203 (2007) 114.
[8] B. Durham, A. Walton, Membrane pretreatment of reverse osmosis: long term experience on difcult waters, Desalination 122 (1999) 157170.
[9] C.J. Gabelich, T.I. Yun, B.M. Coffey, I.H.M. Suffet, Pilot scale testing of reverse osmosis using conventional treatment and microltration, Desalination 154
(2003) 207223.
[10] R. Rosberg, Ultraltration (new technology), a viable cost-saving pretreatment
for reverse osmosis and nanoltration, a new approach to reduce costs, Desalination 110 (1997) 107114.
[11] J.C. Schippers, J. Verdouw, The modied fouling index, a method of determining
the fouling characteristics of water, Desalination 32 (1980) 137148.
[12] S.F.E. Boerlage, M.D. Kennedy, M.P. Aniye, E.M. Abogrean, D.E.Y. El-Hodali, Z.S.
Tarawneh, J.C. Schippers, Modied Fouling Index ultraltration to compare pretreatment processes of reverse osmosis feedwater, Desalination 131 (2000)
201214.
[13] ASTM, D 418995, Standard Test Method for Silt Density Index (SDI) of Water,
1995 West Conshohocken, PA.
[14] A. Casaas, J. Sanz, E. Taberna, L. Guerrero, J.M. Ortega, Prediccin del ensuciamiento coloidal en sistemas de smosis inversa y nanoltracin. Aplicacin del
ndide de atascamiento modicado (MFI), Tecnologa del Agua 257 (2005) 5460.
[15] S.F.E. Boerlage, Understanding the SDI and modied fouling indices (MFI0,45 and
MFIUF), Proceedings of IDA World congress MP07-143, Maspalomas, Spain, 2007.
[16] Dow Water & Process Solutions, FILMTECTM Reverse Osmosis Membr. Tech. Man,
2009.
[17] E. Brauns, E.V. Hoof, B. Molenberghs, C. Dotremont, W. Doyen, R. Leysen, A new
method of measuring and presenting the membrane fouling potential, Desalination 150 (2002) 3143.
[18] J.C. Schippers, A. Kostense, J. Verdouw, Colloid removal by in line coagulation,
Proceedings of the International Symposium Water Filtration, Antwerp, May
2123 1982.
[19] L. Coccagna, S. Vigneswaran (Eds.), Direct Filtration, Water Wastewater and
Sludge Filtration, CRC Press, Inc., Florida, 1989.
[20] N. Quevedo, J. Sanz, C. Ocen, A. Lobo, J. Temprano, I. Tejero, Reverse osmosis pretreatment alternatives: demonstration plant in the seawater desalination plant in
Carboneras, Spain, Desalination 265 (2011) 229236.
[21] R. Mujeriego, La abilidad de los procesos de regeneracin del agua, II Jornadas
Tcnicas de Gestin de Estaciones Depuradoras de Aguas Residuales, Barcelona,
Spain, 2005.
[22] R. Mujeriego, K. Peters, Process reliability and signicance of reclaimed water
quality parameters, Water Sci. Technol. 57 (5) (2008) 667674.
[23] Minitab Inc., MINITAB Statistical Software, Release 14 for Windows, 2003 State
College, PA.
[24] A. Casaas, Mtodos de prediccin del potencial de ensuciamiento en sistemas de
membrana: Medida comparativa del MFI en un caso real con dos lneas de pretratamiento diferentes, Research Report, LPGC University PhD Program, 2003.