Performance studies of phosphorus removal using cross-flow nanofiltration

References

• N. Bektas, H. Akbulut, H. Inan, A. Dimoglo, Removal of phosphate from aqueous solutions by electro-coagulation. J. Hazard. Mater. 106 (2004) 101–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.R.M. Mackey, A. Paytan, Phosphorus Cycle, in: M. Schaechter (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Microbiology, Elsevier Inc, 2009, pp. 322–334.
   Google Scholar
• C. Visvanathan, P.K. Roy, Potential of nanofiltration for phosphate removal from wastewater. Environ. Technol. 18 (1997) 551–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. Van der Bruggen, M. Mänttäri, M. Nyström, Drawbacks of applying nanofiltration and how to avoid them: A review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 63 (2008) 251–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Tanninen, S. Platt, A. Weis, M. Nyström, Long-term acid resistance and selectivity of NF membranes in very acidic conditions. J. Membr. Sci. 240 (2004) 11–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. Tansel, J. Sager, T. Rector, J. Garland, R.F. Strayer, L. Levine, M. Roberts, M. Hummerick, J. Bauer, Significance of hydrated radius and hydration shells on ionic permeability during nanofiltration in dead end and cross flow modes. Sep. Purif. Technol. 51 (2006) 40–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N.O. Becht, D.J. Malik, E.S. Tarleton, Evaluation and comparison of protein ultrafiltration test results: Dead-end stirred cell compared with a cross-flow system. Sep. Purif. Technol. 62 (2008) 228–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Niewersch, C.N. Koh, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, C. Schaum, P. Cornel, Potentials of using nanofiltration to recover phosphorus from sewage sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 57 (2008) 707–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Niewersch, K. Meier, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, Selectivity of polyamide nanofiltration membranes for cations and phosphoric acid. Desalination 250 (2010) 1021–1024.
   Google Scholar
• C.P. Leo, W.K. Chai, A.W. Mohammad, Y. Qi, A.F.A. Hoedley, S.P. Chai, Phosphorus removal using nanofiltration membranes. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (2011) 199–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Blöcher, C. Niewersch, T. Melin, Phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge with a hybrid process of low pressure wet oxidation and nanofiltration. Water Res. 46 (2012) 2009–2019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.W. Mohammad, P.T. Yap, T.Y. Wu, Performance of hydrophobic ultrafiltration membranes in the treatment and protein recovery from palm oil mill effluent (POME). Desalin. Water Treat. 10 (2009) 332–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.Y. Wu, A.W. Mohammad, J.M. Jahim, N. Anuar, Palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment and bioresources recovery using ultrafiltration membrane: Effect of pressure on membrane fouling. Biochem. Eng. J. 35 (2007) 309–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Kobya, E. Demirbas, A. Dedeli, M.T. Sensoy, Treatment of rinse water from zinc phosphate coating by batch and continuous electrocoagulation processes. J. Hazard. Mater. 173 (2010) 326–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.A. Mohammad, M.M.N.M. Johari, L.A.A. Ghani, Preliminary evaluation of a hydrophilic microfiltration membrane in treating high strength wastewater. Desalin. Water Treat. 10 (2009) 272–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O. Akin, F. Temelli, Probing the hydrophobicity of commercial reverse osmosis membranes produced by interfacial polymerization using contact angle, XPS, FTIR, FE-SEM and AFM. Desalination 278 (2011) 387–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Boussu, Y. Zhang, J. Cocquyt, P. Van der Meeren, A. Volodin, C. Van Haesendonck, J.A. Martens, B. Van der Bruggen, Characterization of polymeric nanofiltration membranes for systematic analysis of membrane performance. J. Membr. Sci. 278 (2006) 418–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Paugam, S. Taha, G. Dorange, P. Jaouen, F. Quéméneur, Mechanism of nitrate ions transfer in nanofiltration depending on pressure, pH, concentration and medium composition, J. Membr. Sci. 231 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• J. Sabaté, M. Pujolà, J. Labanda, J. Llorens, Influence of pH and operation variables on biogenic amines nanofiltration. Sep. Purif. Technol. 58 (2008) 424–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• V. Freger, J. Gilron, S. Belfer, TFC polyamide membranes modified by grafting of hydrophilic polymers: An FT-IR/AFM/TEM study. J. Membr. Sci. 209 (2002) 283–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H.C. Van der Horst, J.M.K. Timmer, T. Robbertsen, J. Leenders, Use of nanofiltration for concentration and demineralization in the dairy industry: Model for mass transport. J. Membr. Sci. 104 (1995) 205–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Sorin, A. Favre-Reguillon, S. Pellet-Rostaing, M. Sbai, A. Szymczyk, P. Fievet, M. Lemaire, Rejection of Gd(III) by nanofiltration assisted by complexation on charged organic membrane: Influence of pH, pressure, flux, ionic strength and temperature. J. Membr. Sci. 267 (2005) 41–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Mehiguene, Y. Garba, S. Taha, N. Gondrexon, G. Dorange, Influence of operating conditions on the retention of copper and cadmium in aqueous solutions by nanofiltration: Experimental results and modelling. Sep. Purif. Technol. 15 (1999) 181–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Figoli, A. Cassano, A. Criscuoli, M.S.I. Mozumder, M.T. Uddin, M.A. Islam, E. Drioli, Influence of operating parameters on the arsenic removal by nanofiltration. Water Res. 44 (2010) 97–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.R. Sharma, R. Agrawal, S. Chellam, Temperature effects on sieving characteristics of thin-film composite nanofiltration membranes: Pore size distributions and transport parameters. J. Membr. Sci. 223 (2003) 69–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. Su, Z. Wang, J. Wang, S. Wang, Concentration of clindamycin phosphate aqueous ethanol solution by nanofiltration. J. Membr. Sci. 251 (2005) 189–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.R. Machado, D. Hasson, R. Semiat, Effect of solvent properties on permeate flow through nanofiltration membranes. Part I: Investigation of parameters affecting solvent flux. J. Membr. Sci. 163 (1999) 93–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. Kaya, H. Barlas, S. Arayici, Nanofiltration of cleaning-in-place (CIP) wastewater in a detergent plant: Effects of pH, temperature and transmembrane pressure on flux behavior. Sep. Purif. Technol. 65 (2009) 117–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, Relating nanofiltration membrane performance to membrane charge (electrokinetic) characteristics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (2000) 3710–3716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar