Page 5 - Dairy Dimension - Mar-Apr 2025

| Volume 1 | Issue 3 | Mar-Apr 2025 SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS | Volume 1 | Issue 3 | Mar-Apr 2025

Non-Biofouling

Membranes Using Positive

and Negative Charges for Dairy

Wastewater Streams

Dairy wastewater management presents a significant
challenge due to its complex composition, high organic
load, and potential for biofouling in conventional
treatment systems. The presence of fats, proteins,
lactose, and other suspended solids contributes to rapid
membrane fouling, which reduces efficiency and
increases operational costs. Biofouled membranes
require frequent cleaning, increased chemical usage,
and have shorter lifespans, all of which raise overall
treatment expenses.
2. General Plant Wastewater contaminant loads and pH conditions while
To address these challenges, non-biofouling membranes
with positive and negative charge configurations have · This category includes a mixture of several waste maintaining high efficiency.
emerged as an effective solution. These membranes streams such as Clean-in-Place (CIP) solutions, CIP 3. Membrane Fouling and Cleaning Requirements
mitigate fouling by leveraging electrostatic interactions flush water, product losses from silos, and NF Conventional membranes require frequent cleaning
that prevent the adhesion of organic and biological permeate. due to irreversible fouling caused by organic matter,
contaminants. This innovative approach enhances · The variability in composition makes it difficult to microorganisms, and inorganic scaling. Repeated
Prof. Lalit Vashista membrane longevity, reduces maintenance costs, and implement a uniform treatment approach. cleaning reduces membrane lifespan and increases
Diva Envitec improves water recovery—making it a sustainable and · Depending on the processing stage, this downtime and operational expenses.
economically viable solution for dairy wastewater wastewater can exhibit fluctuating pH levels, high 4. High Chemical and Operational Costs
treatment. chemical oxygen demand (COD), and varying Traditional membrane systems rely on chemical
Dairy Wastewater Streams concentrations of fats, proteins, and lactose. dosing to control fouling, resulting in higher use of
Dairy wastewater is generated from various stages of Challenges in Dairy Wastewater Treatment detergents, acids, and alkalis. Energy-intensive
processing and cleaning operations within dairy plants. 1. Protein Denaturation and Biofouling processes like high-pressure filtration also contribute
The primary sources include: Proteins in dairy wastewater tend to denature when to rising operational costs.
1. Ultrafiltration (UF) Permeate and Nanofiltration exposed to heat or chemicals. Upon denaturation, Solution: Non-Biofouling Membranes with Positive
(NF) Permeate they form hydrophobic aggregates that strongly and Negative Charges
These streams contain lower concentrations of adhere to membrane surfaces, causing biofouling. Non-biofouling membranes are engineered to resist
organics but still pose a risk of membrane fouling if This increases filtration resistance, lowers permeate organic and biological fouling through surface charge
not properly managed. UF permeate typically flux, and requires frequent cleaning, thus raising modifications. These membranes use alternating
consists of small molecules such as lactose and operational costs. positive and negative charges to prevent contaminant
minerals, while NF permeate includes slightly larger 2. Variability in Wastewater Composition adhesion via electrostatic repulsion. This mechanism
organic compounds and dissolved solids. Effective The composition of dairy wastewater varies based on significantly reduces fouling buildup and enhances
treatment of these streams is essential to maintain product type, processing methods, and cleaning membrane performance.
high water recovery rates and prevent secondary protocols. This variability necessitates a flexible PROMEM-B membranes, for instance, are designed for
contamination. treatment system capable of adapting to different high-strength wastewater applications with minimal risk

04 05