Recycling Aqueous Cleaning Solutions
Using membrane filtration
to recycle aqueous cleaning solutions...
By N. Rajagopalan
and T. Lindsey
Illinois Waste Management and Research Center, Champaign,
IL
and John Sparks, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
Originally Appeared in the July 1999 Issue of Products Finishing
|
During this century, industrial technology and capacity has grown tremendously.
Demand for goods created an economy that favored resource-intensive
industries. However, natural resource consumption and subsequent discharges
to the air, water and land were enormous and often made without consideration
of environmental consequences.
By mid-century, landfilling and deteriorating air and water quality
became a national priority, leading to the creation of the U.S. EPA.
An early action of EPA was the Clean Water Act of 1972. It authorized
a comprehensive federal water pollution control system to reduce discharges
into the nation's surface waters and restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the water. The ultimate goal
was to make the waterways suitable for fishing, swimming and recreation.
By the late 70s and early 80s, effluent guidelines had been set
for most industry sectors that discharged toxic organics, heavy metals,
cyanide and oil and grease. The metal finishing effluent guidelines
of 1983 (40 CFR part 433) sets limits on discharged pollutants. Industries
covered include electroplating, electroless plating, anodizing, coating
(chromating, phosphating and coloring), chemical etching and milling
and PCB manufacturing.
If a facility engages in any of these processes, then discharges
from other regulated operations in that facility are also subject
to the guidelines. These 40 other unit operations include metal working,
organic coating and paint stripping, among others. Permitting authorities
use these guidelines as a basis for permitting and setting limits
on heavy metals, grease and oil and total toxic organics. Federal
law requires that limits be at least as stringent as the U.S. EPA
guidelines.
Because of these regulations, most industries installed waste
treatment systems.
The typical technology is a pH adjustment and oil skimming followed
by a lime and settle treatment. The treated water is discharged, and
the precipitated waste is compacted in a filter press. The lime and
coagulants used in this process add considerable bulk to the landfilled
waste.
Many manufacturing operations, however, have effluent from metal
working processes and are not subject to EPA guidelines. For example,
a machine shop that discharges effluent from an aqueous degreasing
system and does not engage in one of the six trigger categories is
not covered by the guideline.
|
1. Membrane processes
and separation capabilities.
|
Because of this, a newer rule with broader coverage is under development.
The Metal Products and Machinery Rule covers facilities by sector,
similar to the scheme used for SIC codes, rather than by specific
processes. According to the EPA website, this rule is scheduled for
signature in October 2000. Under this rule, effluent volume will be
considered as well as discharge quality. Using these metrics, the
facility may have mass-based limits that are calculated by the pollutant
concentration multiplied by the volume of the discharge per unit time.
Facilities that institute water-conserving practices that increase
the concentration of a pollutant will not be penalized by regulation
of the mass of pollutant discharge.
The Common Sense Initiative is a sector-based initiative intended
to explore industry-specific environmental strategies. The program
is designed to promote cleaner, cheaper and smarter environmental
performance using a non-adversarial process that tests new ideas and
approaches.
The Metal Finishing sector includes representatives from EPA,
the industry, state government, POTWs, environmental organizations
and organized labor. The Strategic Goals Program arose from this initiative.
This creates two voluntary cleaner, cheaper, smarter national performance
goals for the industry. The first goal is facility-based, and the
other is an industry-based goal. One goal addresses water use. Using
1992 as a base year, the facility-based goal is to achieve a 50% reduction
in water purchased and used by 2002. The industry goal is for 80%
of facilities nationwide to achieve these goals.
The Metal Products and Machinery Rule and trends toward voluntary
initiatives are helping the nation's industries achieve the zero discharge
goal of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Membrane filtration technologies
are increasingly recognized as ways of achieving the goals.
Basic concepts and terminology. Several
terms describe an ultrafiltration/microfiltration system.
- Crossflow.
- Flow of solution parallel or tangential to the membrane surface.
Counteracts concentration polarization.
- Feed.
- Starting solution to be processed.
- Flux.
- Measure of membrane productivity in liters of permeate or filtrate
produced in one hour by one sq meter of membrane area.
- Fouling.
- Interaction between substances in the feed and the membrane
that reduce flux. Usually reversible.
- Permeate (filtrate).
- Solution that permeates or passes through the filter.
- Plugging.
- Accumulation of particulates in the membrane passages that
restrict flow.
- Pores.
- Filter passages for solution.
- Retentate/concentrate.
- Residual solution containing the concentrated contaminants.
- Rejection.
- Filter's ability to retain contaminants. A 100% rejection indicates
complete retention. In the context of aqueous cleaner recycling,
a 100% rejection of the contaminants is desirable.
UF/MF is a pressure-driven separation process. It uses a semi-permeable
barrier (membrane) to separate feed-stream components according to
particle size. Feed stream components that have a particle size larger
than the pore sizes of the membrane are retained while smaller one
pass through. Ultrafiltration is an extension of conventional filtration,
which is considered appropriate for filtration of particles larger
than 5mm. The term microfiltration usually applies to filters that
separate particles in the size range of 0.05mm to 5mm. Ultrafiltration
separates both particulate matter as well as dissolved substances
in the range of 0.001mm to 0.1mm. The distinction between the two
is blurred in the range of 0.03mm to 0.1mm. Membranes used to regenerate
aqueous cleaners have pore sizes ranging from 0.05mm to 0.45mm. The
terms ultrafiltration and microfiltration are interchangeable in this
article.
A major difference between conventional and membrane filtration
is the mechanism of particle capture. Conventional filters capture
particles in a matrix that cannot be regenerated. Membrane filters
are usually sized to have pores that are too small for particles to
enter, so the bulk of filtration occurs at the filter surface. Membrane
filters can be reused after flushing or cleaning.
Crossflow filtration describes the flow of feed solution in a
direction parallel to the membrane or filter surface. This "sweeps"
the membrane surface and limits filter cake buildup, allowing for
longer operating times. A small portion of solution is forced through
the membrane by the applied pressure and is recovered as permeate.
During ultrafiltration dirty cleaner solution is pumped from the
wash tank into a holding (process) tank. A pump constantly circulates
the solution from the process tank across the membrane surface. A
valve at the exit of the membrane controls pressure. Part of the dirty
cleaner solution is forced through the membrane while dirt and other
contaminants are rejected at the membrane surface and returned to
the process tank. Recovered clean permeate is returned to the wash
tank. A level controller in the process tank allows for additional
solution transfer from the wash tank to the process tank. Eventually,
the wash tank's entire contents are filtered and replaced with clean
permeate. Dirt and other contaminants would have been transferred
from the wash tank to the process tank where they are concentrated.
Usually, after turning over many wash tank volumes, the increase in
contaminant concentration would have reduced the permeate flux to
below design levels. Cleaning the filters restores the permeate flux.
After cleaning, the membrane can be used again. Concentrated contaminants
are either treated or disposed of accordingly.
Aqueous cleaners typically contain alkaline/acidic salts; sequestering/chelating
agents; wetting/emulsifying agents (surfactants); and co-solvents.
Each component has a specific role in the cleaning process.
Alkaline salts neutralize acidic soils/contaminants. An example
would be the neutralization of free fatty acids to form soaps. Some
alkaline salts, such as sodium silicates and phosphates, perform additional
functions. Silicates are used in cleaners because silicic acid has
significant soil dispersing capabilities and prevents soil redeposition.
Other benefits include inhibition of alkaline attack on aluminum and
prevention of rust on steel. Sodium and potassium phosphates have
some detergency, especially in the case of mineral ions. They also
promote efficient cleaning by binding ions that cause hardness in
water.
|
2. Crossflow Filtration.
|
Salts, such as calcium and iron, can form deposits on parts left
in solution. Chelating agents are specially formulated to bind these
ions. The type used depends on its effectiveness at a given pH, temperature
and complex stabilization capability for targeted ions. Sodium gluconate,
for example, is partially effective at binding calcium, but very effective
at binding iron under alkaline conditions.
Surfactant molecules are made up of a hydrophilic (water-loving)
and a hydrophobic (water-repelling) part. Surfactants help remove
oil and stabilize the removed oil, preventing it from redepositing
on the part. There are anionic and nonionic surfactants. Anionic surfactants
include the linear alkylarylsulfonates, phosphate esters and alcohol
sulfates. Common nonionics include alkylphenolethoxylates, linear
and secondary alcoholethoxylites and ethlyeneoxide-propyleneoxide
copolymers. In general, anionics are used as wetting agents, and nonionics
are used for emulsifying oils and controlling foam.
Organic co-solvents may also be part of the formulation. These
lower the surface tension of the cleaner, promoting solubility of
surfactants and stabilizing oil emulsions.
Limiting an Aqueous Cleaner's Useful Life.
Under normal conditions, cleaning solutions pick up contaminants.
Oil and grease in an emulsified form consume surfactants, eventually
compromising detergent and emulsification action. The cleaner should
show signs of aging long before surfactant depletion becomes important.
With aqueous cleaners, the alkalinity of the bath decreases with
use because the alkaline salts are neutralized with acidic soils or
by reaction with carbon dioxide from air. Metal accumulation may overcome
the sequestering agents, preventing them from staying in solution.
Subsequently, they bind to the ionic surfactants leading to a loss
of wetting properties.
The most important factor in determining the useful life of an
aqueous cleaner is its ability to prevent redeposition, particularly
as contamination increases. This is the major limiting factor in extending
cleaning bath life. It is here that membrane filtration plays a critical
role, allowing for the selective removal of contaminants and prolonging
cleaner life.
Regeneration. Successfully implementing
an ultrafiltration system for regenerating aqueous cleaners requires
careful consideration of the cleaner; compatible membrane materials;
correct filter sizing; effective membrane cleaning; and makeup schedules
for depleted active components.
Characteristics such as pH, nature of alkaline components, cloud
point, temperature and the presence of certain compounds such as limonene,
are important considerations when selecting a filter. An understanding
of these characteristics also helps evaluate potential recyclability
and problems that may occur during recycling.
Alkaline cleaners vary in strength, and the pH is often greater
than 9. As pH increases above 12, the cleaning solutions become aggressive
and react with membrane materials, leading to degradation and filter
failure. As an example, the presence of silicates under certain conditions
causes precipitation of silicic acid on the membrane surfaces leading
to drops in permeate flux. Understanding the cleaner constituents
can help avoid conditions not conducive to membrane filtration.
The cloud point refers to the appearance of turbidity with an
increase in temperature. It is caused by increased insolubility and
separation of the nonionic surfactant(s) from the solution. Above
the cloud point, the nonionic surfactants are similar to oils in solution;
therefore, high losses during filtration can be expected. Aqueous
cleaner cloud points vary. Those with cloud points above the ultrafiltration
system's operating temperature are more readily recycled. Otherwise,
cooling the cleaner solution below the cloud-point temperature may
work to avoid surfactant loss. Most membrane materials made of organic
polymers are also limited by their inability to withstand temperatures
exceeding 140F. For ultrafiltration temperatures above 150F, inorganic
membranes are used, although high-temperature polymeric-based membranes
are also available.
Recently, limonene (derived from citrus fruits) and other related
compounds have gained popularity in aqueous cleaning. These chemicals
are not water-soluble; water stabilizes them. The resulting emulsion
is the same size as the oil and grease contaminants, so they are removed
during filtration. Even when present in trace quantities, however,
they can interact with and foul membrane surfaces.
Membrane materials. Membrane materials
for filtering aqueous solutions are broadly classified as organic
polymer based or inorganic/ceramic. The inorganic membranes are usually
made of alumina, zirconia or sintered steel.
These materials differ in their ability to withstand high temperatures
and extreme pH. Organic membranes are generally limited to a pH less
than 12 and operating temperature less than 140F. The temperature
and pH limits of organic membranes are interdependent. Operating at
the limits of both shortens membrane life. Inorganic membranes withstand
the highest temperature (200F) and a pH up to 14.
Both membrane types vary in their ability to interact with the
cleaner components. Water-repelling surfaces can be coated or fouled
by hydrophobic compounds such as oil or grease. This coating can be
reversible (cleaned off) or irreversible. If irreversible, there is
a drop in membrane productivity. Membrane manufacturers can supply
modified versions of the polymers with decreased susceptibility to
fouling such as modified polyvinylidenedifluoride or polysulfones.
Inorganic membranes are also susceptible to fouling; therefore, it
is important to study the operating conditions of the filters as well
as the compounds the filter contacts.
Pore size. The objective in cleaner
regeneration is to separate the contaminants selectively while recycling
the active ingredients. Oil, if present as an emulsion, typically
has particle size distributions in excess of 0.1mm. In contrast, all
the aqueous materials are completely dissolved and have sizes approximately
1/10,000th of 1mm. The surfactant molecules are the only
active ingredients comparable in size to the oil emulsion. Although
surfactant's molecules have low molecular weights, they can form large
aggregates.
|
3. Schematic of
alkaline cleaner recycling system.
|
The nature of the surfactant, its concentration, operating temperature,
electrolyte content and the presence of contaminants such as oil and
grease are important to controlling surfactant aggregate size. The
appropriate choice of the membrane pore size should allow the separation
of the oil emulsion from the surfactant aggregate. The wrong choice
can lead to unacceptable losses of surfactant and significant loss
of cleaner efficiency. This is unique to membrane filtration.
Module configuration. Once an appropriate
membrane material has been identified, the module configuration must
be determined. The packing density of modules refers to the membrane
area packed into a module of given volume. Modules with larger packing
density offer space savings. Less obvious are the savings in pumping
energy that result from the hydrodynamic regime in which these modules
operate. For example, tubular membranes with low packing densities
require high recirculation rates to maintain adequate turbulence.
Hollow fibers or spiral wound membranes offer higher packing densities
and lower recirculation rates. However, these often require prefiltration
of the process fluids to avoid plugging the fluid passages.
Pressure capability is not critical. All modules are suitable
because pressures less than 30 psig are normally used for ultrafiltration
of alkaline cleaners. Fouling resistance, however, is important. Studies
indicate that particulate fouling and free-oil fouling can be significant
for the filtration of alkaline cleaners because the used cleaning
solutions contain a lot of fine material and visible oil slicks. The
particulates block membrane passages externally and internally. There
are two ways of controlling this.
1. Appropriate filtration. A common rule is to prefilter to at
least 1/10th the size of the fluid passageway. For example,
hollow fiber modules using fibers of 250mm would need prefiltration
to 25mm. This prefiltration level should be sufficient for alkaline
cleaner recycling using spiral-wound membranes. Sometimes, prefiltration
to 5mm is needed. Prefiltration is not usually required with tubular
membranes.
2. Low pressure and high shear rates at the membrane surface help
prevent solids accumulation. Energy savings can also be achieved.
Conventionally, high shear rates at the membrane's surface are generated
by maintaining a high flow rate across the membrane surface, such
as 30-45 gpm for one-inch tubular modules. Newer approaches use turbulent
vortices created by a rotating surface near the membrane surface or
produced by curved membrane passages, periodic backpulsing and mechanical
vibration. Periodic backpulsing is available only for hollow fiber
and ceramic tubular monolith modules. The vortex approach is available
for membrane modules that use plate-and-frame configurations.
Free-oil fouling can be mitigated with an external coalescer to
pretreat the feed. The membrane surface can also be altered by grafting
hydrophilic groups to help prevent free-oil fouling. Another option
is coalescence by adding salts.
The level of cleaning differs among modules. Tubular membranes
can be mechanically cleaned and offer some access to the permeate-channel
sides. Hollow-fiber modules can often be backflushed and offer good
access to the permeate channels. Spiral-wound membranes are more susceptible
to fouling and are more difficult to clean. Tubular monolith ceramic
membrane modules can be backflushed and withstand harsh cleaning.
Membrane modules depend on the application, dirt and oil loading.
For high particulate loadings, tubular membranes operating under a
low pressure and high flow rate may be adequate. If the system is
started under relatively low particulate loading conditions, a hollow
fiber or spiral-wound membrane would be adequate with prefiltration.
Backpulsing is recommended for hollow fiber and ceramic tubular modules.
To avoid free-oil fouling, a hydrophilic membrane surface is needed
or an external coalescer is essential.
Membrane cleaning. Membranes inevitably
show a loss in flux because of increased contaminant concentration,
salt precipitation and fouling. Loss of flux from increased contaminant
concentrations is unavoidable, since it results from ultrafiltration.
Normally, the membrane is cleaned when the flux has dropped to a certain
level.
Fouling and salt precipitation also cause rapid flux decrease
(minutes to hours). Careful membrane choice and feed pretreatment
can control fouling and lower cleaning frequency.
Chemical additive management. Ultrafiltration
of aqueous cleaners will lead to a loss of active cleaner components
because of surfactant reaction with large oil emulsions. Plugged membrane
pores can also retain surfactants, leading to loss. Alkalinity loss
from air contact during pumping can occur. Such losses often lead
to reduced efficiency unless chemicals are added to the cleaner.
Alkalinity is monitored and controlled in an industrial setting;
however, surfactants are difficult to measure without sophisticated
analytical equipment. Estimates of surfactant loss with a given membrane
need to be generated prior to implementing the technology. Once this
is determined, an additive package of surfactants can be formulated
and used in the field without additional testing. A thorough evaluation
of both aqueous cleaners and membrane materials will ensure recycling
success. This includes screening the membrane materials for cleaner
compatibility. Pilot scale testing with identified membranes follows
bench-scale testing.
Case studies. A metal shelving manufacturer
used a one-step degreasing/phosphating solution to prepare surfaces
for painting. Dirt and oil buildup reduced cleaning and phosphating
efficiency, compromising product quality. Residual oil and dirt affected
adhesion and phosphate coating uniformity. Oil skimmers were only
partially effective; the bath was replaced every three or four months.
The spent bath was RCRA hazardous waste because it failed TCLP procedures
for xylene. Disposal costs, including transportation and incineration,
were approximately $1/gal, not including downtime, raw materials and
energy costs.
Ultrafiltration was used to separate the oily contaminants and
suspended solids. The recovered phosphating/degreasing solution was
reused.
A hydrophilic form of polyvinylidenedifluoride (rated at 100,000
molecular weight cut-off) was chosen as the membrane material because
in trials it was able to withstand acidic conditions. Tubular membranes
were chosen because they withstood high-suspended solids loading and
were easy to clean.
The cleaner's surfactant analysis revealed a substantial loss
of nonylphenol ethoxylate surfactant and the ethoxylate alcohols were
occurring. An additive package of surfactants was formulated and added
to the bath regularly. This extended the bath life from a few months
to more than five years.
Equipment capital costs were $12,000 with an estimated payback
period of seven months.
Three years after the system was installed, the company experienced
paint adhesion problems again. A site visit revealed an oil slick
on top of the phosphating/degreasing bath that had not been observed
after installation of the UF system. It turned out the chemical supplier
had changed the formulation of the cleaner to enable low-temperature
operation. The surfactant package used was only partially effective
in emulsifying the oil, allowing the oil slick to develop. The problems
here were directly related to the cleaner. Incorporating a stronger
emulsifying package helped resolve the problem by keeping the oil
suspended in solution and allowing subsequent removal using UF.
With careful testing during this long-term trial and development
of a well-formulated solution maintenance program, the cleaning/phosphating
solution can function for an extended time. The process is highly
sensitive to the surfactants used; even minor formulation changes
can cause problems with solution maintenance.
Alkaline cleaner recycling. At a railroad
facility, UF was shown successful at extending an alkaline cleaner
bath. The cleaner exhibited no cloud point, so temperature was not
an issue. The cleaner's pH was about 10 and the operating temperature
180F. A polymeric membrane was used because of lower costs, but the
feed temperature had to be cooled to 120F. The membrane was a hydrophilic
PVDF in tubular form.
UF reduced cleaner concentrate consumption 73% and decreased effluent
generation more than 99%. Capital equipment costs were recovered in
two years.
The demonstration had its problems, however. The unit functioned
well for one week before experiencing severe productivity loss. Cleaning
the membrane did not help, since fouling reoccurred within hours.
The fouling caused precipitates on the membrane surface and the permeate
side. The cause was an organic calcium salt, presumably caused by
an interaction between the defoamer and minerals in the water. Substituting
soft water and adding EDTA to the retentate prevented further precipitation.
Following this, the system's permeate flux was a constant 17 gph for
60 days.
The UF system successfully removed contaminants (oil, grease and
TSS) and allowed complete passage of the organic solvent, surfactant
and other active materials. This was a primary reason for a decrease
in cleaner use.
Initially, water quality was the main cause for the system performing
below par, emphasizing the importance of using softened water in UF.
Also, softened water has elongated the time between membrane cleaning
and lowered labor costs.
System specifications/operational considerations.
Generally, a 0.1mm pore size membrane made of hydrophilic PVDF,
polysulfone or polyacrylonitrile would be sufficient if the feed temperature
was kept below 140F and pH less than 13. Otherwise, a ceramic membrane
may be more appropriate. Ceramic membranes made of alumina are not
appropriate for use with phosphoric acid solutions. Choosing a pore
size is a compromise between fouling resistance, productivity and
active component loss.
For high-suspended solids loading, a tubular or fat hollow fiber
membranes are appropriate, as are flat sheet modules. For clean oil
emulsions, the spiral format is usually more cost effective.
Membrane sizing is an important determinant of cost. The unit
should be sized to turnover the cleaner solution in about half the
time as the normal work life of the bath. Too frequent turnovers can
increase capital and chemical maintenance costs.
A monitoring program for proper solution maintenance is necessary.
The supplier is ideally positioned to help with this program and provide
formulation information. Softened water is necessary to avoid membrane
scaling.
UF for recycling aqueous cleaners has tremendous potential if
investigated carefully, engineered properly and implemented conscientiously.
As a technology, it can reduce waste volumes and chemical consumption.
REFERENCES
§ Flick, Ernest W., 1989. Advanced Cleaning Product Formulations.
Noyes Publications, NJ.
§ Lange, Robert K., 1984. Detergents and Cleaners: A Handbook for
Formulators. Hanser Gardner Publications, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.
§ Phelps, B., 1991. "Spiral-Wound Crossflow Membrane Element Design
for Processing High-Fouling Solutions." Food Technology, PF
|