scroll
HFNF enables efficient PFAS removal schemes to comply with strict drinking water regulations
HFNF enables efficient PFAS removal schemes to comply with strict drinking water regulations
When the question is not only ‘how to comply with the 4 ppt PFAS limit for drinking water in the US’, but also, ‘how to manage and minimize the CO2 footprint and cost while doing so’, one should seriously consider a water treatment scheme that involves HFNF (Hollow fiber nanofiltration membranes).
We have bad news and good news. What we cannot deny: it does costs money to remove PFAS from water. Municipalities and industries need to invest in, and run, the PFAS removal processes. And there is a CO2 footprint penalty involved, not only energy, but also by chemical consumption. But by enforcing the 4 ppt limit policy makers have clearly recognized and decided that the health risks of PFAS in drinking water trump those negative effects.
Then the good news: we have technologies to get to the required 4 ppt limit. Even better news: by making smart combinations of these we can get to optimal water quality while managing costs and CO2 footprint. Here is how:
There is no single silver bullet. To address the complexity of PFAS removal from polluted water streams we need smart combinations of efficient technologies to separate, to capture, and to destroy PFAS. Let’s call these technology combinations PFAS “removal schemes”. And the smartest schemes not only provide clean water, with lower than 4ppt PFAS level, but also ensure the lowest chemical consumption and minimum energy use.
We can manage energy and chemical consumption by opting for technologies who enhance each others performance. For example in a scheme with HFNF as the central membrane separation step, followed by absorbents such as GAC or IEX as the final barrier. This way your water will meet the required 4 ppt PFAS limit without chemical dosing (the HFNF prevents this). And the absorbent stand-time or regeneration cycle benefits greatly from nano-prefiltered water. Moreover, since the HFNF brine is free of any added chemicals, nor elevated concentrations of (monovalent) ions, it is very treatable.
So, and this is essential, let’s cooperate to get to the smartest solutions to get rid of PFAS in our water, together!
We have bad news and good news. What we cannot deny: it does costs money to remove PFAS from water. Municipalities and industries need to invest in, and run, the PFAS removal processes. And there is a CO2 footprint penalty involved, not only energy, but also by chemical consumption. But by enforcing the 4 ppt limit policy makers have clearly recognized and decided that the health risks of PFAS in drinking water trump those negative effects.
Then the good news: we have technologies to get to the required 4 ppt limit. Even better news: by making smart combinations of these we can get to optimal water quality while managing costs and CO2 footprint. Here is how:
There is no single silver bullet. To address the complexity of PFAS removal from polluted water streams we need smart combinations of efficient technologies to separate, to capture, and to destroy PFAS. Let’s call these technology combinations PFAS “removal schemes”. And the smartest schemes not only provide clean water, with lower than 4ppt PFAS level, but also ensure the lowest chemical consumption and minimum energy use.
We can manage energy and chemical consumption by opting for technologies who enhance each others performance. For example in a scheme with HFNF as the central membrane separation step, followed by absorbents such as GAC or IEX as the final barrier. This way your water will meet the required 4 ppt PFAS limit without chemical dosing (the HFNF prevents this). And the absorbent stand-time or regeneration cycle benefits greatly from nano-prefiltered water. Moreover, since the HFNF brine is free of any added chemicals, nor elevated concentrations of (monovalent) ions, it is very treatable.
So, and this is essential, let’s cooperate to get to the smartest solutions to get rid of PFAS in our water, together!
Inspired by Minus approach.
PFAS retentions of direct nanofiltration validated by KWR
Please see PFAS retentions of direct nanofiltration validated by KWR for the detailed results of the KWR research.
Contact
