CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Membrane Separation TechnologiesMembrane-based Ion Separation TechniquesWastewater Treatment and Reuse

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Removal of Naturally Occurring Strontium by Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis from Groundwater

Open access
Cai, Yang-Hui, Yang, Xiao Jin, Schäfer, Andrea Iris·2020·Membranes
DOI 10.3390/membranes10110321PMC PMC7693364
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Removal of naturally occurring strontium (Sr) from groundwater is vital as excessive exposure may lead to bone growth problems in children. Nanofiltration/reverse osmosis (NF/RO) is commonly used in groundwater treatment due to the high effectiveness and simple maintenance of these pressure driven membrane processes. In this research, a pilot-scale NF/RO system was used to desalinate a natural groundwater sample containing high Sr concentration (10.3 mg/L) and “old” groundwater organic matter (70.9 mg/L) from Esilalei in northern Tanzania to understand the removal of strontium by NF/RO. The impact of applied pressure (10–15 bar) and groundwater pH (3–12) on the membrane performance including permeate flux, strontium and total organic carbon (TOC) flux and removal was investigated. Increasing applied pressure was found to enhance the flux by increasing the driving force and enhance Sr and TOC removal by dilution effect (water flux higher than Sr passage). The alkaline pH caused severe flux decline likely due to membrane fouling and scaling, while it slightly enhanced Sr removal of RO membranes, but weakened the TOC removal. In contrast, acidic and neutral pH of groundwater enhanced TOC removal. These findings suggest that appropriately high applied pressure and acidic pH condition of groundwater are recommended to apply to the NF/RO membrane system in groundwater desalination to achieve better membrane performance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/membranes10110321

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 (A) Schematic of hydration shells around strontium (Sr2+) ion. Inner and outer circles represent the first and second hydration shells; (B) basic speciation of strontium in water over a wide pH range (1–14) using Visual MINTEQ software (version 3.1, KTH, Sweden) (1 mg/L strontium chloride (SrCl2), typical Sr concentration in surface water [10], 25 °C).
Figure 1 (A) Schematic of hydration shells around strontium (Sr2+) ion. Inner and outer circles represent the first and second hydration shells; (B) basic speciation of strontium in water over a wide pH range (1–14) using Visual MINTEQ software (version 3.1, KTH, Sweden) (1 mg/L strontium chloride (SrCl2), typical Sr concentration in surface water [10], 25 °C).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Left: photo of pilot-scale membrane system (GE Osmonics E2-2535TM, photos © Andrea Iris Schäfer) with three 2.5 inch modules in series; middle: schematic of the pilot-scale membrane system; right: set-up of the system at the Ngurdoto Defluoridation Research Station (NDRS) in Tanzania with feed tank.
Figure 2 Left: photo of pilot-scale membrane system (GE Osmonics E2-2535TM, photos © Andrea Iris Schäfer) with three 2.5 inch modules in series; middle: schematic of the pilot-scale membrane system; right: set-up of the system at the Ngurdoto Defluoridation Research Station (NDRS) in Tanzania with feed tank.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Left: photo of the open well for sampling (© Andrea Iris Schäfer); right: geographical location of groundwater sampling site (Burudika Lodge, Lake Manyara, Tanzania, map © OpenStreetMap contributors under the Open Database License).
Figure 3 Left: photo of the open well for sampling (© Andrea Iris Schäfer); right: geographical location of groundwater sampling site (Burudika Lodge, Lake Manyara, Tanzania, map © OpenStreetMap contributors under the Open Database License).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Permeate flux of membranes as a function of applied pressure (10–15 bar) with groundwater sample 5, the pH was about 9, data adapted from [69]; light grey data points are pure water flux of membranes based on the pure water permeability in Table 2.
Figure 4 Permeate flux of membranes as a function of applied pressure (10–15 bar) with groundwater sample 5, the pH was about 9, data adapted from [69]; light grey data points are pure water flux of membranes based on the pure water permeability in Table 2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 (A) Sr permeate concentration, (B) Sr flux and (C) strontium retention as a function of applied pressure (10–15 bar) with groundwater sample 5 (feed Sr concentration 10.3 mg/L). The pH was about 9, data adapted from [69].
Figure 5 (A) Sr permeate concentration, (B) Sr flux and (C) strontium retention as a function of applied pressure (10–15 bar) with groundwater sample 5 (feed Sr concentration 10.3 mg/L). The pH was about 9, data adapted from [69].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 (A) Total organic carbon (TOC) permeate concentration, (B) TOC flux and (C) TOC retention as a function of applied pressure (10–15 bar) with groundwater sample 5 (feed TOC concentration 70.9 mg/L). The pH was about 9, data adapted from [69].
Figure 6 (A) Total organic carbon (TOC) permeate concentration, (B) TOC flux and (C) TOC retention as a function of applied pressure (10–15 bar) with groundwater sample 5 (feed TOC concentration 70.9 mg/L). The pH was about 9, data adapted from [69].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 (A) Liquid chromatography–organic carbon detection (LC-OCD) signal of groundwater sample 1 as a function of time; (B) organic matter fraction in groundwater sample 1 (from Eslalei Lodge, water quality as shown in Table 4).
Figure 7 (A) Liquid chromatography–organic carbon detection (LC-OCD) signal of groundwater sample 1 as a function of time; (B) organic matter fraction in groundwater sample 1 (from Eslalei Lodge, water quality as shown in Table 4).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Strontium speciation in groundwater sample 5 and simple 1 as a function of pH (3–12), which was simulated and obtained by Visual MINTEQ. The light blue area represents the pH range of groundwater samples 1–5; light grey data points are Sr speciation in sample 1 as a function of pH.
Figure 8 Strontium speciation in groundwater sample 5 and simple 1 as a function of pH (3–12), which was simulated and obtained by Visual MINTEQ. The light blue area represents the pH range of groundwater samples 1–5; light grey data points are Sr speciation in sample 1 as a function of pH.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Permeate flux of three membranes as a function of pH (3–12) with groundwater sample 5. The grey area represents the pH range of groundwater 1–5. The applied pressure was 10 bar, data adapted from [69].
Figure 9 Permeate flux of three membranes as a function of pH (3–12) with groundwater sample 5. The grey area represents the pH range of groundwater 1–5. The applied pressure was 10 bar, data adapted from [69].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 (A) Sr permeate concentration, (B) Sr flux and (C) Sr retention of three membranes as a function of the pH (3–12) of groundwater sample 5. The grey area represents the pH range of groundwater samples 1–5. The applied pressure was 10 bar. Data adapted from [69].
Figure 10 (A) Sr permeate concentration, (B) Sr flux and (C) Sr retention of three membranes as a function of the pH (3–12) of groundwater sample 5. The grey area represents the pH range of groundwater samples 1–5. The applied pressure was 10 bar. Data adapted from [69].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 11 (A) TOC permeate concentration, (B) TOC flux and (C) TOC retention as a function of the pH (3−12) of groundwater sample 5. The grey area is TOC removal at the pH range of groundwater samples 1−5. The applied pressure was 10 bar. Data adapted from [69].
Figure 11 (A) TOC permeate concentration, (B) TOC flux and (C) TOC retention as a function of the pH (3−12) of groundwater sample 5. The grey area is TOC removal at the pH range of groundwater samples 1−5. The applied pressure was 10 bar. Data adapted from [69].CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories.
  2. Sillanpää, M. (2015). Natural Organic Matter in Water, Elsevier.
  3. Clearfield, A., and Yates, S. (1995, January 24−26). Inorganic Ion Exchange for Cesium and Strontium. Proceedings of the Efficient Separations and Processing Cross-Cutting Program Annual Technical Exchange Meeting, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  4. Zahakifar, F., Keshtkar, A.R., Shirani, A.S., and Zaheri, A. (2014, January 27). Removal of strontium from aqueous solutions using electrodialysis (ED). Proceedings of the The 8th International Chemical Engineering Congress & Exhibition (IChEC), Kish, Iran.
  5. Garrett, L. (1990, January 15−17). Reverse osmosis application to low-level radioactive waste. Proceedings of the 1990 Annual Membrane Technology/Planning Conference and High-Tech Separations Symposium, Newton, MA, USA.
  6. Bevington, P.R., and Robinson, D.K. (2003). Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw-Hill.
  7. Shen, J. (2014). Application of Membrane Filtration in Removing Radioactive Contaminant Strontium. [Master‘s Thesis, Beijing University of Chemical Technology].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 47

Related

Metadata

Authors
Cai, Y.-H., Yang, X. J., & Schäfer, A. I.
Affiliations
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • Beijing University of Chemical Technology (CN)
Corresponding author
Schäfer, Andrea Iris
ORCID
Venue
Membranes
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-10-30
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
321
ISSN
2077-0375 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/membranes10110321
PMC
PMC7693364
OpenAlex
W3097766034
Cited by
47
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Membranes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • KITopen (cc-by)
Funders
  • Leverhulme Trust
  • China Scholarship Council
  • Université de Genève
  • Beijing University of Chemical Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Membrane Separation Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Filtration and Separation › Membrane-based Ion Separation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
Keywords
strontium removal, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, groundwater treatment, groundwater desalination, total organic carbon removal, membrane fouling, scaling, applied pressure, groundwater pH, permeate flux

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review