This study assessed the performance of three microfiltration (MF) membrane modules: M1 (spiral, polyvinylidene fluoride), M2 (capillary, polypropylene), and M3 (capillary, α-Alumina) in treating backwash water from utility-scale surface water (SW) and infiltration water (IW) plants, each with a capacity of approximately 100,000 m3/day. Considering 168 h (one-week) filtration cycles, the membranes were evaluated for permeate flux, turbidity removal, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) removal, and reduction in total number of microorganisms (TNM). In contrast to most previous studies that have primarily examined surface water sources under laboratory conditions, this research contributes to the literature by evaluating membrane performance using actual backwash water from both SW and IW treatment plants. The comparative assessment of three structurally and materially distinct membrane modules under identical flow-through conditions yields new insights into the trade-offs among hydraulic performance, contaminant removal, and treatment cost. Logarithmic models fitted to permeate flux data yielded determination coefficients (R2) ranging from 0.60 to 0.99, supporting the prediction of early-stage performance. No consistent trend in flux decline was observed, mainly due to fluctuations in the water bacterial load. With a median TNM removal efficiency of 97%, M1 outperformed M2 and M3 (84% and 70%, respectively) in terms of microorganism removal. The effectiveness of DOC removal generally depended on the type of backwash water; the highest efficiency was observed for M2 in the case of backwash from IW treatment and for M1 in the case of backwash from SW treatment. M2 provided the highest permeate flux rates, regardless of water type or operational limitations. The ceramic membrane (M3) exhibited the greatest variability in hydraulic performance and removal efficiency, depending on the type of backwash water. A simplified cost analysis over two filtration cycles found that treatment costs were generally higher for SW backwash, with differences reaching up to 90% between membrane-water type combinations. Although treatment costs are higher than those for raw water treatment, the increasing water scarcity makes it a potential additional source of safe water.
Wolska et al. (Mon,) studied this question.