Nanofiltration &amp; Reverse Osmosis Technical Assessment for Pesticides Removal

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3991503/v1

The increasing food demand for a growing population has resulted in the intensification and modernization of agriculture leading to an increasing use of pesticides to protect crops against insects, weeds, fungi, and other pests. However, these chemical compounds can cause adverse effects on the environment due to their low biodegradability and toxicity. This study assesses the use of DuPont FilmTec™ NF270 and FilmTec™ XLE membranes for the removal of six pesticides (atrazine, simazine, isoproturon, metolachlor ESA, 2,4-D, and chlorothalonil) in aqueous streams. The results reported average rejection rates of 29.25–89.36% and > 97% in the nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes respectively, showcasing that membrane technology is effective for the removal of these pollutants from wastewater streams. However, a customised selection of the membrane (nanofiltration/reverse osmosis) should be performed depending on the targeted pollutants in order to balance the pesticide rejection and energy consumption for each market application.

Pesticides

nanofiltration

reverse osmosis

membrane processes

wastewater treatment

The growing global population, which could reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 according to United Nations data [1], poses a challenge for food production and supply chain. This has translated into the intensification of agricultural activities, both in terms of land expansion and the use of resources to maximize food production, including water, fertilizers, and pesticides, among others [2, 3].

Pesticides, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as agents used to protect crops against insects, weeds, and fungi, are considered contaminants of emerging concern (CEC) [4] due to their complexity and low biodegradability. Pesticide application in agricultural soils has a great impact not only on the environment but on human health as well [5]. Once the pesticide is applied on the field, they have the potential to be transferred through adsorption, leaching, volatilization, and runoff [3]. At water level, as a result of their continuous use, thousands of different compounds originating from the use of these chemicals have been found in rivers, groundwater, and coastal areas worldwide, and their degradation gives place to another set of different compounds which can have diverse effects at different levels [6, 7]. Besides, the uptake of these compounds by humans comes both from food and fresh water, producing several adverse effects such as asthma and respiratory affections, cancer, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease, among others [8].

For this study, some of the most common pesticides have been selected. Atrazine and simazine belong to the group of triazines, widely used herbicides worldwide, which are currently under scrutiny due to water contamination, particularly for the immunotoxic effect of atrazine. Similarly, isoproturon is an herbicide known for its toxicity to organisms other than its intended targets [9]. Metolachlor ESA is an herbicide that has been extensively studied and shown to have negative effects on aquatic organisms [10]. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is the most widely used herbicide globally and a key component of various synthetic pesticides. Recent evidence has linked its presence in groundwater to cancer development [11]. Lastly, chlorothalonil is a broad-spectrum fungicide that has been used in agriculture for decades and has been banned in numerous countries in the recent past due to its carcinogenic potential [12].

Traditional wastewater treatment systems are not effective in the removal of pesticides and, given the hazardous nature of these compounds, the need to find new pathways to minimize their presence in the environment becomes imperative [13]. For decades, membrane processes have become a standard in the treatment of a wide range of liquid effluents with the aim of reducing their pollutant load in diverse sectors, including industrial, urban, and agricultural [14]. Size exclusion processes such as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO) have been extensively studied, and their application in real environments has demonstrated outstanding results [15]. These technologies are also suitable for the treatment of streams containing emerging contaminants such as pesticides [16]. Specifically, among the aforementioned processes, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis are the best suited for treating streams with pesticides, as they allow for their rejection due to their more restrictive cut-off [17], resulting in high-quality effluents [18].

In detail, nanofiltration membranes have a molecular weight cut-off ranging from 100 to 1000 Da. These membranes are usually targeted towards softening of water, being partially effective in removing dissolved ions [19]. Previous studies have reported pesticide removal efficiencies ranging from 30.00% to greater than 90.00% for phenylurea, phenoxyacetic acid, triazines, dithiolane pesticides organophosphate or synthetic auxin classes [20–24]. Meanwhile, reverse osmosis membranes have a molecular cut-off smaller than 100 Da [25] and are the standard on desalination processes. In this case, previous studies present pesticide retention rates ranging from 72.00% up to 98.00% in some pesticide families such as triazines, phenoxyacetic acid, organophosphates, conazoles or organochlorides [21, 23, 26–28].

Dupont has commercially a wide range of membranes for water treatment which can be used for pesticides removal. The FilmTec™ NF270 membrane is renowned for its ability to effectively remove contaminants at very low levels while allowing the passage of water and dissolved solutes, making it suitable for nanofiltration applications. On the other hand, the FilmTec™ XLE membrane is characterized by its high productivity and energy efficiency, making it suitable for reverse osmosis applications where reduced energy consumption is desired. Both membranes are highly regarded for their quality and performance, and are extensively utilized in potable water treatment, wastewater treatment, desalination, and various other water treatment applications [29].

Originally developed for applications such as desalination and wastewater treatment, these membranes have garnered widespread acclaim for their ability to effectively remove contaminants at minimal levels while facilitating the passage of water and dissolved solutes [30]. However, the application of these membranes for the removal of pesticides presents a compelling shift in their utilization. By harnessing their selective filtration properties, particularly noteworthy in the NF270 membrane, DuPont membranes offer a promising solution to the pressing issue of pesticide contamination in water sources. This strategic adaptation underscores the adaptability and efficacy of DuPont membranes, showcasing their potential to address emerging environmental challenges beyond conventional water treatment applications.

This study aims to assess the performance of DuPont FilmTec™ NF270 and FilmTec™ XLE membranes for the removal of pesticides, namely atrazine, simazine, isoproturon, metholachlor ESA, 2,4-D, and chlorothalonil from a synthetic aqueous solution. Furthermore, a benchmark with previous works is presented to ease the decision making in membrane process application for this field.

2.1. Reagents & equipment

Synthetic solutions were prepared by using the studied six pesticides standards (see Table 1) provided by Sigma-Aldrich (Spain). The rejection tests of the NF and RO membranes were performed using MgSO₄·7H₂O and NaCl provided by Scharlab (Spain).

Table 1

Characteristics of the pesticides studied in the present work
Pesticide	Formula	CAS number	Molecular weigh (g mol^− 1)	Solubility (mg L^− 1)
Atrazine	C₈H₁₄ClN₅	1912-24-9	215.68	33.00**
Simazine	C₇H₁₂ClN₅	122-34-9	201.66	6.20*
Isoproturon	C₁₂H₁₈N₂O	34123-59-6	206.28	65.00**
Metolachlor ESA	C₁₅H₂₂NNaO₅S	171118-09-5	329.40	530.00*
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid	C₈H₆Cl₂O₃	94-75-7	221.04	667.00**
Chlorothalonil	C₈Cl₄N₂	1897-45-6	265.92	0.81**
* Solubility in water at 20ºC ** Solubility in water at 25ºC

The analysis of pesticides concentration was carried out by duplicate using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography coupled with a photodiode array and mass spectrometry system (ACQUITY UHPLC-PDA-SQ, Waters, Spain).

The pesticide removal experiments were conducted in duplicate using two spiral-wound polyamide NF membranes (FilmTec™ NF270) and two polyamide brackish water RO membranes (FilmTec™ XLE), both provided in 1812 element format by DuPont Water Solutions (USA). The characteristics of both membranes are presented in Table 2. These membranes were implemented in an SW-18 filtration plant (MMSX, Switzerland), operating in a tangential flow in batch mode.

Table 2

Assessed membrane characteristics
Parameter	FilmTec™ NF270	FilmTec™ XLE
Membrane process	Nanofiltration	Reverse osmosis
Manufacturer	DuPont	DuPont
Membrane material	Piperazine based polyamide	m-Phenylene diamine based polyamide
Membrane configuration	Spiral wound (1812)	Spiral wound (1812)
Active membrane area (m²)	0.54	0.54
Permeate flow rate (LMH)	52.00	52.00
Minimum salts rejection (%)	97.00 (MgSO₄)	97.00 (NaCl)
pH range	3.00–10.00	2.00–11.00
Maximum operating temperature (ºC)	45.00	45.00
Maximum operating pressure (Bar)	41.00	41.00

2.2. Filtration tests

As feed water for the experiments, synthetic solutions were prepared by dissolving proper amounts of pesticides in deionised water for obtaining stock solutions containing 0.20 mg L^− 1 atrazine, 0.20 mg L^− 1 simazine, 0.20 mg L^− 1 isoproturon, 0.20 mg L^− 1 metolachlor ESA, 0.20 mg L^− 1 2,4-D, and 0.40 mg L^− 1 chlorothalonil. All solutions were prepared at 50°C with constant stirring for 5 h to ensure maximum solubilisation. Pesticides concentrations were selected according to HPLC quantification limit for each compound (0.01 mg L^− 1 for atrazine, simazine, isoproturon and metolachlor ESA; 0.10 mg L^− 1 for chlorothalonil) considering a maximum rejection rate of 99%.

Firstly, membranes integrity tests were performed by replicating the working conditions reported in elements technical data sheet (see Table 3) and comparing salt rejection results. This stablishes a salts rejection reference value for each membrane capabilities. Afterwards, pesticides removal tests were carried out twice for each membrane (with fresh membrane and after a water wash) to assess their performance reproducibility. For pesticides removal tests, MgSO₄ and NaCl were added to the synthetic solution for NF and RO filtrations, respectively, for performing an additional assessment of salts rejection compared with the stablished reference value. A summary of the performed experiments and operating conditions are shown in Table 3.

The rejection of salts and pesticides (R) by the membranes was calculated using Eq. 1:

\(R\left(\%\right)= \left(1-\frac{{C}_{p}}{{C}_{f}}\right)· 100\)

Eq. 1

Where C_p and C_f are the concentrations of salts and pesticides in the permeate and the feed sample, respectively.

In this study, the pesticide rejection capacity of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes is evaluated to reduce the discharge of these contaminants into natural water bodies and wastewater treatment plants.

3.1. Salts rejection tests

Initial salt tests showed an average salt rejection of 97.71 ± 0.03% and 95.22 ± 0.01% for NF270 and XLE, respectively. Although the experimental salt rejection was slightly lower than what is established by the supplier, the difference could be caused by some analytical deviations, but not to membrane deficiencies that would cause more significant differences.

In addition, as can be seen in Fig. 1, salt rejection during pesticide filtration tests remained quite constant and in range with what was obtained during membrane integrity tests. Therefore, by using this parameter as control, the good performance of the membranes can be assured, corroborating the reliability of the obtained pesticide rejection results.

3.2. Pesticides adsorption onto membranes surface

After the first filtration with pesticides, mass balance assessment showed that solutes contained in permeate and retentate streams were significantly lower than in feed. This can be explained as some pesticides can be adsorbed onto the surface of membranes, as observed by Plakas & Karabelas (2008) and Nikbakht Fini et al. (2019).

Therefore, feed solution was recirculated through the membranes until no pesticides concentration was observed in the feed solution in order to (i) equilibrate the membranes surface in terms of adsorption of pesticides and (ii) quantify the specific adsorption for each pesticide by using Eq. 2.

\(A=\frac{{V}_{f}{C}_{f}-{V}_{p}{C}_{p}-{V}_{r}{C}_{r}}{S}\)

(Eq. 2)

Where A is the adsorption in mg of pesticides per m² of membrane, S is the membrane’s surface area in m², V_f, V_p and V_r are the volume of feed, permeate and retentate in L, respectively, and C_f, C_p and C_r are the pesticides concentration in the feed, permeate and retentate in mg L^− 1, respectively.

The specific adsorption of pesticides onto the surface of the membranes is shown in Fig. 2. As reported in previous studies, the amount of adsorbed compounds on NF and RO membranes is strongly correlated with the relative membrane and pesticide hydrophobicity, but also with thin layer density [21]. Results for chlorothanolil are not shown since, due to its low solubility in water, it remained as solid particles in the solutions during membrane adsorption and rejection tests.

As can be seen, both membranes reported pesticides adsorption, being the adsorption significantly greater when using NF270 than for XLE. This fact can be explained by NF and RO active layers being composed of piperazine-based polyamide and m-phenylene diamine-based polyamide, respectively, resulting in a higher hydrophobicity in the case of NF membrane, which promotes the adsorption of highly hydrophobic and low dipolar moment species.

Although all studied substances have relatively similar octanol-water partition coefficients (log P) around 3 (2.61, 2.18, 2.90, 2.80 and 3.10 for atrazine, simazine, isoproturon, 2,4-D, and metolachlor, respectively), atrazine, simazine, and isoproturon reported significantly higher specific adsorption values. This fact can be explained by a lower dipolar moment compared with 2,4-D (O-H bond from the acidic group) and metolachlor (Cl-C bond). Moreover, according to Goh et al., (2022), substances low spatial complexity could also facilitate the adsorption onto membrane active surface.

3.3. Membrane filtration assessment for pesticides rejection

Analysing the pesticides passage through the membrane (see Fig. 3), both NF270 and XLE membranes demonstrated the capability to partially reject the tested pesticides. Chlorothalonil, as mentioned in the previous section, appeared as suspended solids due to its low solubility in water, thus facilitating its rejection in both NF and RO membranes (> 99.90%). However, this fact difficulted its proper quantification by LC-MS, since samples must be filtered by a 0.45µm filter prior its analysis.

By using NF270, the average passage rates obtained for atrazine, simazine, isoproturon, and 2,4-D were found to be 68.72 ± 0.05%, 70.76 ± 0.05%, 67.10 ± 0.04%, and 56.47 ± 0.04%, respectively. The relatively low rejection rates could be explained by the similarity of the pesticide’s molecular weight with the membrane's nominal molecular weight cut-off (200 Da), resulting in a partial rejection of these substances while a portion of these pesticides can be still found in the permeate stream. In the case of metolachlor ESA, it reported an average passage of 10.64 ± 0.01%, significantly lower than the rest of substances, due to its high molecular weight (329.40 g mol^− 1), which facilitates its rejection by the nanofiltration membrane.

The XLE reverse osmosis membrane demonstrated a higher capability to retain the tested pesticides, achieving up to 97.63% rejection in the case of 2,4-D. The average passage rates for all studied pesticides were found to be lower than 2.50%, resulting in a much lower pesticides concentration in permeate, potentially suitable for being further treated for pesticides degradation prior discharge.

3.4. Comparative study

A comparison of the results obtained in the present study against previous works in terms of pesticides rejection using NF and RO membranes was done (Table 4). The efficiency of each treatment is presented as overall pesticide removal rate (%) for every work cited.

Table 4

Previous works on pesticides removal using NF and RO
Membrane process	Reference	Pesticides	Removal rate (%)
NF	This work	Atrazine, simazine, isoproturon, Metholachlor ESA, 2,4-D and chlorothalonil	29.25–89.36
	[24]	Atrazine & dimethoate	80.00–95.00
	[21]	Diuron & isoproturon	78.90–89.50
	[23]	(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy acetic acid (MCPA), 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy propionic acid, (MCPP), (2,6-dichlorobenzamide, (BAM)	30.00–82.00
	[20]	2,4-D	97.00
	[22]	Atrazine & isoprothiolane	54.00–82.00
RO	This work	Atrazine, simazine, isoproturon, Metholachlor ESA, 2,4-D and chlorothalonil	97.64–99.99
	[21]	Cycluron	> 95.00
	[27]	158 pesticides	72.00–98.00
	[23]	(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy acetic acid (MCPA), 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy propionic acid, (MCPP), (2,6-dichlorobenzamide, (BAM)	> 92.00
	[26]	Tributyl phosphate, irgarol, flutriafol & dicofol	> 95.00
	[28]	2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA)	95.30

The NF membrane evaluated in the present study achieved a removal rate in the rage of 29.25–89.36% for the studied pesticides, due to their wide range of molecular weight. This result is in the range of the ones reported in previous studies, which are between 30.00 and 97.00%. The similar molecular weight of most of the studied pesticides with the tested membrane’s molecular weight cut-off allow the permeation of these compounds, which can be found in the permeate stream in small quantities. As can be observed in the previous table, NF reported partial rejection rates in almost all published studies; therefore, the technology is effective for pesticides which can be found as particles suspension or those with a medium molecular weight (> 300 Da).

The RO membrane evaluated in the present study presented average removal rates between 97.64–99.99% for the different pesticides. This is slightly higher than some results reported in previous studies (72.00–98.00%). However, Fujioka et al., (2020) tested the RO rejection of a wide range of pesticides, including other ones with smaller molecular weight and chemical affinity (hydrophobicity), such as cycluron, carbendazim or aldicarb, which were also rejected. Almost all studies reported pesticides rejection > 90%, resulting in the presence of small quantities of pesticides in permeate, most of them below detection limit, which would potentially allow its direct discharge or with a smooth polishing treatment.

In the present study, the rejection efficiency of a NF membrane (NF270) and a RO membrane (XLE) for the treatment of wastewater effluents containing pesticides has been investigated. The studied pesticides included atrazine, simazine, isoproturon, metolachlor ESA, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and chlorothalonil, widely used pesticides for crops and with toxic or carcinogenic effects on humans and the environment.

Both membranes reported pesticides adsorption onto the polyamide active layer, which depends on substance’s hydrophobicity and dipolar moments. This should be considered for a proper assessment of pesticides rejection when a fresh membrane is used. However, there are only a few studies that assessed this phenomenon in depth, so it is important to perform more studies for stablishing a clear correlation between the membrane’s active layer material, substance’s physicochemical properties and their adsorption onto membranes.

In the case of chlorothalonil, a full rejection was observed by using both NF and RO, since the compound was present in suspension due to its low solubility in water. Therefore, for those products that are delivered as suspension, ultrafiltration or microfiltration membranes could be assessed for its removal from wastewater effluents with lower energy consumption.

Moreover, NF270 reported a wide range of rejection rates depending on the targeted pesticide, reporting efficient rejection for larger molecules (> 300 Da), while XLE filtration tests resulted in the rejection of > 95% for all the studied pesticides. Therefore, XLE can be used as efficient treatment for the rejection of pesticides in wastewaters.

In this study, the feed solution contained higher pesticides concentration than the commonly present in agricultural leachates for proper quantification purposes, but further tests should be carried out considering lower concentration of these compounds for a better assessment of the membranes performance at relevant environment.

Finally, the assessment of these membranes performance during a longer working period, integrating the implementation of a Clean-in-place (CIP) process should also be performed prior to the uptake of this technology at industrial scale. In this context, additional tests are required to optimize the utilization of these membranes on a real-scale basis by validating the technology using real waters.

Acknowledgment

This study was funded by DuPont Water Solutions and its Global Water Technology Center in Tarragona, Spain.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author.

Competing interests. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author contribution statements

Rubén Rodríguez-Alegre: in charge of conducting the analytical work, analyzing and interpreting the data, writing the first draft of the document: writing, reviewing, and editing – the original draft. Laura Pérez Megías: perform experiments; analytical work, to analyzing and interpreting the data, writing the first draft of the document: writing, reviewing, and editing – the original draft. Sonia Sanchis: editing & reviewing. Carlos Andecochea Saiz: funding acquisition, investigation, performing experiments, editing & reviewing. Xialei You: funding acquisition, investigation, performing experiments, editing & reviewing.

Clune T. Conceptualising policy for sustainable agriculture development. Australian Journal of Public Administration 2021;80:493–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12436.
Hickey LT, N. Hafeez A, Robinson H, Jackson SA, Leal-Bertioli SCM, Tester M, et al. Breeding crops to feed 10 billion. Nat Biotechnol 2019;37:744–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0152-9.
Tudi M, Daniel Ruan H, Wang L, Lyu J, Sadler R, Connell D, et al. Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment. IJERPH 2021;18:1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031112.
Syafrudin M, Kristanti RA, Yuniarto A, Hadibarata T, Rhee J, Al-onazi WA, et al. Pesticides in Drinking Water—A Review. IJERPH 2021;18:468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020468.
Rani L, Thapa K, Kanojia N, Sharma N, Singh S, Grewal AS, et al. An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021;283:124657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657.
Abubakar Y, Tijjani H, Egbuna C, Adetunji CO, Kala S, Kryeziu TL, et al. Pesticides, History, and Classification. Natural Remedies for Pest, Disease and Weed Control, Elsevier; 2020, p. 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819304-4.00003-8.
Čelić M, Jaén-Gil A, Briceño-Guevara S, Rodríguez-Mozaz S, Gros M, Petrović M. Extended suspect screening to identify contaminants of emerging concern in riverine and coastal ecosystems and assessment of environmental risks. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2021;404:124102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124102.
Rajmohan KS, Chandrasekaran R, Varjani S. A Review on Occurrence of Pesticides in Environment and Current Technologies for Their Remediation and Management. Indian J Microbiol 2020;60:125–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-019-00841-x.
Myers JH, Rose G, Odell E, Zhang P, Bui A, Pettigrove V. Household herbicide use as a source of simazine contamination in urban surface waters. Environmental Pollution 2022;299:118868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118868.
Rozmánková E, Pípal M, Bláhová L, Njattuvetty Chandran N, Morin B, Gonzalez P, et al. Environmentally relevant mixture of S-metolachlor and its two metabolites affects thyroid metabolism in zebrafish embryos. Aquatic Toxicology 2020;221:105444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2020.105444.
Zaghloul EE, Amin A, Diab MA, Elsonbati A, Ibrahim M. Removing 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) From Polluted Water using Zinc Ferrite Nanoparticles. Egypt J Chem 2019;0:0–0. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejchem.2019.15633.1948.
Kiefer K, Bader T, Minas N, Salhi E, Janssen EM-L, von Gunten U, et al. Chlorothalonil transformation products in drinking water resources: Widespread and challenging to abate. Water Research 2020;183:116066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116066.
Kasonga TK, Coetzee MAA, Kamika I, Ngole-Jeme VM, Benteke Momba MN. Endocrine-disruptive chemicals as contaminants of emerging concern in wastewater and surface water: A review. Journal of Environmental Management 2021;277:111485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111485.
Saleh IA, Zouari N, Al-Ghouti MA. Removal of pesticides from water and wastewater: Chemical, physical and biological treatment approaches. Environmental Technology & Innovation 2020;19:101026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.101026.
Mukherjee A, Mehta R, Saha S, Bhattacharya A, Biswas PK, Kole RK. Removal of multiple pesticide residues from water by low-pressure thin-film composite membrane. Appl Water Sci 2020;10:244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-020-01315-y.
Yadav S, Chauhan AK, Kumar S, Kataria N. Advanced membrane technology for the removal of pesticides from water and wastewater. Pesticides Remediation Technologies from Water and Wastewater, Elsevier; 2022, p. 143–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90893-1.00007-6.
Castaño Osorio S, Biesheuvel PM, Spruijt E, Dykstra JE, van der Wal A. Modeling micropollutant removal by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes: considerations and challenges. Water Research 2022;225:119130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.119130.
Patel HK, Kalaria RK, Jokhakar PH, Patel CR, Patel BY. Removal of emerging contaminants in water treatment by an application of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. Development in Wastewater Treatment Research and Processes, Elsevier; 2022, p. 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85583-9.00005-3.
Guo H, Li X, Yang W, Yao Z, Mei Y, Peng LE, et al. Nanofiltration for drinking water treatment: a review. Front Chem Sci Eng 2022;16:681–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-021-2103-5.
Boumaraf R, Khettaf S, Benmahdi F, Masmoudi R, Ferhati A. Removal of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid from aqueous solutions by nanofiltration and activated carbon. Biomass Conv Bioref 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03631-6.
Goh PS, Ahmad NA, Wong TW, Yogarathinam LT, Ismail AF. Membrane technology for pesticide removal from aquatic environment: Status quo and way forward. Chemosphere 2022;307:136018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136018.
Liu D, Cabrera J, Zhong L, Wang W, Duan D, Wang X, et al. Using loose nanofiltration membrane for lake water treatment: A pilot study. Front Environ Sci Eng 2021;15:69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1362-6.
Nikbakht Fini M, Madsen HT, Muff J. The effect of water matrix, feed concentration and recovery on the rejection of pesticides using NF/RO membranes in water treatment. Separation and Purification Technology 2019;215:521–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2019.01.047.
Tan LS, Ahmad AL, Shukor SRA, Yeap SP. Impact of Solute Properties and Water Matrix on Nanofiltration of Pesticides. Chem Eng Technol 2019;42:1780–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800475.
Liu C, Zhao X, Faria AF, Deliz Quiñones KY, Zhang C, He Q, et al. Evaluating the efficiency of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane processes for the removal of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances from water: A critical review. Separation and Purification Technology 2022;302:122161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122161.
Ates N, Uzal N, Yetis U, Dilek FB. Removal of pesticides from secondary treated urban wastewater by reverse osmosis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2022;30:8732–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20077-5.
Fujioka T, Kodamatani H, Yujue W, Yu KD, Wanjaya ER, Yuan H, et al. Assessing the passage of small pesticides through reverse osmosis membranes. Journal of Membrane Science 2020;595:117577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117577.
Zhang J, Weston G, Yang X, Gray S, Duke M. Removal of herbicide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) from saline industrial wastewater by reverse osmosis and nanofiltration. Desalination 2020;496:114691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114691.
Simonič M. Reverse Osmosis Treatment of Wastewater for Reuse as Process Water—A Case Study. Membranes 2021;11:976. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes11120976.
Massons G, Gilabert-Oriol G, Niewersch C. Nanofiltration innovation: performance of new DuPont^TM FilmTec^TM NF270-440 element in municipal wastewater operation. DWT 2023;309:149–53. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2023.29886.
Plakas KV, Karabelas AJ. Membrane retention of herbicides from single and multi-solute media: The effect of ionic environment. Journal of Membrane Science 2008;320:325–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.04.016.

No competing interests reported.

Nanofiltration & Reverse Osmosis Technical Assessment for Pesticides Removal

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials & Method

2.1. Reagents & equipment

2.2. Filtration tests

3. Results & Discussion

3.1. Salts rejection tests

3.2. Pesticides adsorption onto membranes surface

3.3. Membrane filtration assessment for pesticides rejection

3.4. Comparative study

4. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1