ENERGY, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY

Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 20(2) 302311 (2012)

A Pilot-scale Demonstration of Reverse Osmosis Unit for Treatment of

Coal-bed Methane Co-produced Water and Its Modeling*
QIAN Zhi ()1, LIU Xinchun ()1, YU Zhisheng ()1,**, ZHANG Hongxun ()1
and J Yiwen ()2
1
2

College of Resources and Environment, Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049,
China
Earth College, Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Abstract This study presents the first demonstration project in China for treatment of coal-bed methane (CBM)
co-produced water and recycling. The work aims to provide a research and innovation base for solving the pollution
problem of CBM extraction water. The reverse osmosis (RO) unit is applied to the treatment of CBM co-produced
water. The results indicate that system operation is stable, the removal efficiency of the total dissolved solids (TDS)
is as high as 97.98%, and Fe, Mn, and F are almost completely removed. There is no suspended solids (SS) detected in the treated water. Furthermore, a model for the RO membrane separation process is developed to describe
the quantitative relationship between key physical quantitiesmembrane length, flow velocity, salt concentration,
driving pressure and water recovery rate, and the water recovery restriction equation based on mass balance is developed. This model provides a theoretical support for the RO system design and optimization. The TDS in the
CBM co-produced water are removed to meet the drinking water standards and groundwater quality standards
of China and can be used as drinking water, irrigation water, and livestock watering. In addition, the cost for treatment of CBM co-produced water is assessed, and the RO technology is an efficient and cost-effective treatment
method to remove pollutants.
Keywords coal-bed methane co-produced water, high salt, pretreatment process, mass balance, reverse osmosis

INTRODUCTION

With the development of coal-bed methane (CBM)

extraction, the treatment of water co-produced in the
process is very important. With growing water shortages and rapid development of CBM industry in
China, optimal use of the CBM co-produced water can
not only resolve the water conflicts between mine areas and adjacent agricultural production zones, but
also solve local water shortage problems.
There are abundant CBM resources in China. The
CBM is composed mainly of methane, which is a
high-quality fuel. Based on the calculation, 1 m3 CBM
can substitute 1.13 L 93# gasoline [1]. The development process for CBM is generally divided into three
phases: exploration, test production and mining. Water
is produced from wells in each phase and it generally
takes six months or longer to be drained out. It is
high-salinity water, and the total dissolved solids
(TDS) in CBM co-produced water are generally 1000
mgL1 or more. The primary concern with CBM
co-produced water is the amount of Na+ and its influence on the environment. Long-term irrigation of soil
with the water may result in deterioration of physical
and chemical properties of soil, such as soil infiltration
and permeability and aggregate stability, which render
soils unsuitable for plant growth and even threaten the
safety of local drinking water [24]. Therefore, CBM
co-produced water must be treated before discharge

and cost-effective technologies are needed for the water to be used for beneficial purposes, such as irrigation, livestock or wildlife watering and habitats, and
various industrial uses [57].
Typically, technologies for treatment of highsalinity water include evaporation, ion exchange, electrodialysis and reverse osmosis [7]. The evaporation
method, which is mainly used for seawater desalination, requires massive heat; also, high salinity water
will cause fouling on the heat exchanger surface [7].
The dissolved salts or minerals can be removed by
ion-exchanger, but the pre- and post-treatment are required for high efficiency and the operation of regeneration of resin is complicated [7]. Dallbauman and
Sirivedhin employed electrodialysis for treatment of
high salinity water co-produced in oil-gas fields, obtaining a TDS removal efficiency of 93.4%96.5%
with a voltage 6.5 V and time of 60 min [8]. However,
the membrane module needs frequent cleaning and
fluctuations in water quality have a great impact on
the effectiveness of the electrodialysis method. High
pressure reverse osmosis (RO) processes have been
the technology of choice for high-salinity water desalination in the US and many other countries [9, 10].
The market share of RO desalination was 43% in 2004
and is forecasted to increase up to 61% in 2015 [11].
The advantages of RO include low energy requirements, low operating temperature, small footprint,
modular design, and low water production costs. Reverse osmosis with high desalination efficiency, for

Received 2012-01-06, accepted 2012-02-21.

* Supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (2011ZX05060-005; 2009ZX05039-003), the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (21106176), the President Fund of GUCAS (Y15101JY00) and the National Science Foundation
for Post-doctoral Scientists of China (20110490627).
** To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: yuzs@gucas.ac.cn

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

303

304

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

which water quality fluctuations have no negative effect on the treatment effectiveness, is a feasible technology for high-salinity water treatment [1214].
The CBM co-produced water in Liulin County of
Luliang City, Shanxi Province, China, is high-salinity
water. In this work, a system with sand filtration (pretreatment) + ultrafiltration (pretreatment) + RO is employed for treatment of CBM production water in Liulin.
The effects of treatment process, the system performance and the reuse feasibility are examined according
to the output water quality and treatment cost.
Many mass transfer models have been developed
for the flux of salt and water through RO membranes
[1519]. Song et al. [16, 17] put forward the conception
of thermodynamic equilibrium that restricts the recovery of membrane and provided an alternative way for
optimization of membrane design and operation conditions. In this work, based on mass balance principle,
mass transfer equations for water and salt are derived,
and a model depicting the relationship between salt
retention, TDS concentration and water recovery is
obtained. The water recovery restriction equation is
developed based on mass balance. Furthermore, different operation ways of RO process are discussed and
appropiate operating conditions are determined according to the theoretical model.
2
2.1

PILOT-SCALE EXPERIMENTAL
Process

The feed water was CBM field co-produced water from Liulin County of Luliang City, Shanxi Province. A process with sand filtration + UF + RO was
utilized for treatment of the water with the capacity of
100 m3d1. First, the raw water was aerated to increase
dissolved oxygen in water, and then passed through a
manganese sand filter, sand filter and bag filter to remove Fe, Mn and suspended solids (SS). The water
passed the UF system and then went through a security filter into the RO system. Finally, the output water
from RO entered storage tanks. The process flowsheet
is shown in Fig. 1, and Fig. 2 shows an on-site picture
of the pilot-scale demonstration unit built in this work.

2.2

Treatment units

2.2.1 Pretreatment
(1) Manganese sand filter
Raw water entered the manganese sand filter
through the jet aeration. The manganese sand filter
consists of a filter plate, with the upper plate filled
with 12 mm manganese sand particles, which remove most of the SS, colloids, Fe, Mn and other impurities, and reduces turbidity.
(2) Sand filter
The sand filter is in form of a filter plate. Quartz
sands of 0.51 mm and 12 mm in diameter are loaded
from top to bottom within the sand filter, with a filtering accuracy of under 20 m. The sand filter mainly
removes SS and colloids to further reduce turbidity
and ensure that the turbidity of the output water is less
than 3 NTU.
(3) UF system
An X50 polypropylene hollow fiber ultra-filtration
membrane is used in the UF system, with a molecular
weight cutoff (MWCO) in the range of 80000100000
(membrane pore size of 0.10.25 m), the treated water turbidity less than 0.3 NTU and silting density index (SDI) less than 4. The system has six sets of
membranes arranged in parallel with a single membrane flux of 24 m3h1 and area of 105 m2. The concentrated water from UF is totally recirculated.
2.2.2 RO system
The spiral wound RO membrane is a composite
polyamide membrane (BW30-400) with a desalination
rate higher than 99.5% for a single membrane, which
is 1.016 m long and 0.1016 m in diameter. The height
of membrane channel is 1103 m and membrane resistance is 81010 Pasm1. The RO unit is operated at
the pressure around 1.8 MPa. The RO membrane system consists of three membrane modules, with three
membrane components arranged in series for each
membrane module. Membrane modules are in a 21
arrangement. The first treatment stage is composed of
two membrane modules and the concentrated water
produced by the first stage enters a second stage with
a single membrane module. Concentrated water is generated in the second stage, while pure water generated
in the first and second phases enters a storage tank.
2.3

Analysis of water quality

The analysis of water quality is based on the Drinking Water Standard Test Methods (GB/T5750-2006),
Underground Water Standards (GB/T14848-1993)
and Drinking Water Standards (GB 5749-2006).
3 MODEL FOR RO SYSTEM BALANCE
EQUATIONS FOR CHEMICAL COMPONENTS

Figure 2

On-site photograph of the pilot-scale demonstration

The RO system consists of two stages, the first

stage containing 2 pressure vessels and the second stage
containing 1 pressure vessel. Spiral-wound module is

305

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

Figure 3

Schematic description of filtration channel

the predominant RO element used in the RO process.

Feed water flows along the channel parallel to the
central line of the module and an unwound flat sheet
membrane with same channel height is employed to
represent characteristics of the corresponding spiral-wound RO module as shown in Fig. 3. The following assumptions are made. Firstly, the mixing in
the transverse direction of the channel is complete, u(x)
is the crossflow velocity and v(x) is the permeate velocity of the membrane. Secondly, the salt retention
rate for all membrane elements in the same stage is
same, 98.8% for the first stage and 97.5% for the second
stage. As shown in Fig. 3, the height of an infinitesimal element is H, the length is dx, and the width is dy.
Applying the mass balance principle to the infinitesimal element of CBM co-produced water on the
surface of the membrane shown in Fig. 3, the relation
between u(x) and v(x) can be expressed as
w u ( x) U H 2O ( x)

Hdxdydt  v( x) U H 2O ( x)dxdydt
wx
wU H 2O ( x)
Hdxdydt
(1)
wt
The mass balance equation for the water flowing in
the membrane can then be obtained
w u ( x) U H 2O
wU H 2 O
H  v( x) U H2O
H
(2)

wx
wt
The process from starting running the membrane
system to reaching steady state can be described by Eq.
(2). For a steady state, the density of water is not a
function of time, so Eq. (2) can be simplified to
du ( x)
H
 v( x) 0
(3)
dx
In addition, the TDS concentration distribution,
c(x), along the membrane channel, which is affected
by both water and salt transfer across the membrane,
is very important for RO. Letting r be the membrane
salt retention rate and applying the mass balance principle on the infinitesimal element for salt concentration,
the balance equation can be obtained. The balance

equation is applied to depict the concentration variation

of components in CBM co-produced water along the
filtration channel, such as HCO3 , CO32 , Cl , Ca 2  ,
Mg 2 and Na  . The attention is mainly focused on
the total salt (TDS) concentration in this study.

w > c( x)u ( x)@

Hdxdydt  c( x)v( x)(1  r )dxdydt
wx
wc
(4)
Hdxdydt
wt
At steady state, Eq. (4) can be rewritten as

du ( x )
dc( x) c( x)v( x)(1  r )
 u ( x)

0 (5)
H
dx
dx
Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (4) and integrating, we
have
c( x) 1
x rv ( x )
(6)
c0 c( x)dc( x) 0 Hu ( x) dx
c( x)

Substituting v( x)  Hdu ( x) / dx into Eq. (6) and integrating, a concise relationship between c(x) and u(x)
is obtained
r

c( x)

u0
u ( x) c0

(7)

If u(x) is known, the TDS concentration at any point

in the membrane channel can be calculated. Also, v(x)
can be obtained accordingly.
The recovery, R, of a RO process is often used to
indicate the performance of the process. R is defined as
u ( x)
R 1
(8)
u0
With Eqs. (7) and (8), the relation between water recovery rate and TDS concentration is expressed as
1

c r
(9)
R 1 0
c
This simple equation based on the mass balance
principle is applicable for various membranes. This

306

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

expression combines c, r and R in a concise form. The

salt retention rate, r, is a characteristic of the membrane.
In other words, once the feed TDS concentration c0 is
fixed, the variation of water recovery rate is independent of other parameters and can be determined
only by the value of c for a certain membrane system.
In order to acquire the velocity of water along the
filtration channel, the permeate velocity model [19],
based on the membrane transport theory, is introduced
1
(10)
v( x)
('p  'S )
Rm
where p is the transmembrane pressure,  is the
osmotic pressure and Rm is membrane resistance.
Owing to the friction between the water flow and the
channel wall and spacers in the membrane channel,
the transmembrane pressure decreases along the membrane channel. 'p along the channel can be calculated
as follows [20]
12K k x
'p ( x) 'p0  2 u ( x)dx
(11)
0
H
where p0 is the initial transmembrane pressure, k is a
friction coefficient, and  is the viscosity of the solution.
Empirical relationships are usually employed to
determine the osmotic pressure based on a collective
measurement of the total amount of salts in the water.
The empirical equation of osmotic pressure usually
takes the following form
'S f 'c( x)
(12)
The osmotic coefficient f converts salt concentration to osmotic pressure. According to the calculation,
the simulated crossflow velocity and permeate velocity in both stages agree well with the operation data
when the value of f is set to 61 PaLmg1.
With Eqs. (3), (10), (11) and (12), the crossflow
velocity distribution along the membrane channel can
be described as
du ( x)
dx

1
HRm

r
12 P k x

u
2 0 u ( x)dx  f 0 c0  'p0
u ( x)
H

(13)
Dividing the membrane channel into n segments
of equal intervals 'x, if the interval is small enough,
Eq. (13) for every interval can be transformed to
Table 1
Well

pH

dui ( x)
dx

1
HRm

r
12P k

ui 0
'

u
x
f
ci 0  'p0
2 i0

ui ( x)
H

(14)
where subscript i indicates segment i. Integration of
Eq. (14) gives u(x). The Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg method
(denoted RKF45) is employed to solve the differential
equation with three initial values, ui0, ci0 and p0.
4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Chemical analysis of CBM co-produced water

The chemical components of CBM co-produced

water are mainly HCO3 , CO32 , Cl , Ca 2  , Mg 2
and Na  , etc., accompanied by a small amount of
K+, F, etc. Hg, Cd, Cr 6 , As and Zn were not detected. Table 1 shows the water quality of the CBM
production water in Liulin. The water from wells No.
1, 2 and 3 is produced in the early stage, while that
from No. 4 and 5 is produced during the intermediate
stage. A single well has water production of 410 m3d1
in the early stage and reaches 20 m3d1 for normal
extraction. These wells are all located in the same
mining area, so the water quality is similar for the same
stages. It can be seen from Table 1 that the CODMn of
CBM co-produced water is low, in the range 0.53.6
mgL1, which means a low level of organic pollution.
However, the water has a higher content of K  , Na 
and Cl in the range of 16134782 mgL1, which is
high salt water.The percentage content of Na   K 
is more than 90%. The water quality data of wells No.
4 and 5 indicate that the concentrations of K  , Na 
and Cl decrease as mining time increases, but the
water still needs further treatment before discharge.
4.2

Process performance

The treatment effect for CBM co-produced water

in each processing unit is shown in Table 2. For the
pretreatment process, the contaminants in raw water
can be removed to some extent by filtration, adsorption and chemical reaction of the manganese sand filter, sand filter and UF process. The CODMn removal
rate is 45.7%, TDS removal is 4.94%, Cl removal is

Water quality of CBM co-produced water

CODMn
/mgL1

TDS
/mgL1

K+
/mgL1

Na+
/mgL1

Ca2+
/mgL1

Mg2+
/mgL1

NO3
1

/mgL

SO24

CO32

HCO3

F
/mgL1

Cl
/mgL1

/mgL

/mgL

/mgL1

1

1

1#

7.78

2.1

5466

7.4

1852.2

20.1

26.7

1.4

2.5

1973.2

143.3

N.D.

1797.5

7.62

2.9

4782

7.7

1698.4

20.4

24.2

1.2

1.3

1984.8

149.5

N.D.

1454.4

3#

7.49

2.6

4650

6.9

1681.2

19.8

31.1

1.4

1.5

1917.8

141.9

N.D.

1454.4

4#

8.40

0.5

1613

5.8

583.5

8.7

4.2

0.2

10.3

326.1

28.4

23.86

1058.2

5#

7.91

3.6

1620

13.4

602.0

12.6

4.6

0.4

8.8

330.0

27.0

N.D.

1121.4

Note: N.D. stands for not detected.

307

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

Table 2

Treatment effects of units in term of water quality index

Pretreatment

Water quality

Raw
water

RO
Manganese sand

Multi-medium

Removal
/%

UF

Output

Removal/%

Output

Removal/%

Output

Removal/%

Output

Removal/%

turbidity/NTU

409

12.4

96.97

1.4

88.71

<0.5

>64.29

<0.5

100

pH

8.64

8.39

8.03

8.33

8.33

6.46

5.01

22.45

5.01

3.51

29.94

1.19

66.10

81.58

5466

4180

3.01

5302

2.02

5196

0.75

105

97.98

98.08

1.58

1.51

4.43

0.90

40.40

0.85

5.56

0.23

72.94

85.44

1910

1200

37.17

1160

3.33

1100

5.17

57.4

94.78

96.99

0.22

N.D.

100

N.D.

N.D.

N.D.

100

0.04

N.D.

100

N.D.

N.D.

N.D.

100

2.25

1.40

37.78

1.45

1.71

N.D.

100

100

1

CODMn/mgL

1

TDS/mgL

1

NH3-N/mgL


1

Cl /mgL

1

Fe/mgL

1

Mn/mgL


1

F /mgL

Note: N.D. stands for not detected.

42.4% and NH3-N removal is 46.2%. The turbidity of

output water from the UF is below 0.5 NTU, guaranteeing good water quality into the RO unit. The turbidity removal efficiency of the UF is high, but the
salt removal rate is low, because the UF membrane is
a porous one and the salt ion, which has a diameter
smaller than the MWCO of the UF membranes, can
not be retained. The RO membrane is a selective
membrane that allows water to pass through only. RO
unit can remove various contaminants effectively, especially TDS.
The RO was the core processing unit and the
treatment system could remove most contaminants.
The total removal rates for CODMn, NH3-N, Cl and
TDS were 81.0%, 85.4%, 97.7%, and 99.7%, respectively. The water quality meets the Drinking Water
Standards (GB 5749-2006).
4.3

RO model simulations

4.3.1 Effects of TDS concentration of CBM co-produced

water
Equation (7) gives a relationship between salt
concentration c and flow velocity of feed water u in
the membrane channel. The salt concentration in the
concentrated water c increases with the decline of the
crossflow velocity. The distribution of salt concentration c along the membrane channel can be obtained if
u(x) is known, while the distribution of u along the
filtration channel can be obtained if other parameters
are given. Eq. (14) uses the segment 'x of membrane
channel, the value of ci0 for every interval 'x can be
obtained from Eq. (7).
Converting the crossflow velocity into the water
recovery rate using Eq. (8), Eq. (9) can be used to
simulate the variation of recovery rate with salt concentration of concentrated water. The results are shown
in Fig. 4. The recovery does not always increase
sharply in the process and the value of R tails off and

Figure 4 The variations of water recovery rate R with

different initial salt concentration (u0 0.18 ms1)
initial salt concentration/mgL1: 11000; 22000; 35196;
410000

approaches a plateau when the salt concentration

reaches a certain level. This result dictates that there is
a limit to the recovery of the brine with a certain feed
salt concentration when treated in RO membrane system, and the higher the feed salt concentration, the
lower the recovery rate restriction. The critical point
where the limit of recovery rate is approached, which
is important for RO system design and operating condition optimization, can be found from Eq. (9) as does
in Fig. 4. For example, for CBM co-produced water
with a salt concentration of 5196 mgL1, R begins to
increase extremely slowly when the salt concentration
reaches 26000 mgL1, which means that a value of R
of 79% is the threshold value for feed water with a
concentration of 5196 mgL1; any attempt to enhance
R further will result in a sharp increase in driving
pressure or membrane length and is therefore neither
cost-effective nor feasible. Thus R of 79% and concentrated water of 26000 mgL1 can be regarded as
the theoretical limits under the condition (with operating parameters normally below these values) when the

308

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

RO system and operating conditions are being designed.

4.3.2 Effects of membrane length
According to Eq. (13), the flow velocity u(x)
along the filtration channel can be simulated. The RO
system consists of two stages with the 1st stage containing 2 pressure vessels and 1 vessel for the 2nd
stage as shown in Fig. 5. Each pressure vessel consists
of 3 composite polyamide membrane elements. With
the velocity distribution, the recovery rate can be calculated. It is interesting to note that it is impossible to
enhance water recovery endlessly by increasing the
length of membrane. In order to clearly describe the
relationship between treatment effects and membrane
length, the variations of recovery rate with the channel
length in the two stages are combined in Fig. 6. Due to
the difference in salt concentration, the slope of recovery rate in the 1st stage is higher than that in the
2nd stage. The variations in recovery become marginal when the membrane length exceeds 6 m. The
membrane length used in the pilot-scale RO system
for this study is 6 m, so a recovery rate of 71.2% can
be predicted from the simulation.

Figure 7 Arrangement of membrane components in one

stage operation

Figure 8 The variation of recovery rate with the length of

membrane for one stage operation (u0
0.18 ms1,
c0 5196 mgL1, 'p 1.8 MPa, Rm 81010 Pasm1)

Figure 5 The sketch of arrangement of membrane components with two stages

Figure 6 The variation of recovery rate with the length of

membrane for two stage operation (u0 0.18 ms1, c0 5196
mgL1, 'p 1.8 MPa, Rm 81010 Pasm1)

The pilot-scale RO test system, with L1 3 m in

the first stage, L2 3 m in the second stage, u0 0.18
ms1, c0 5196 mgL1, and 'p 1.8 MPa, gave a
water recovery rate of 70%, which is in good agreement with the predicted value, indicating that the
model developed in this study describes the performance of spiral wound RO membrane system.
A RO system consisting of one stage with 3
pressure vessels, as shown in Fig. 7, is also simulated,
to compare with the two stage operation. With the flow

velocity distribution simulated, the water recovery rate

can be calculated. The variation of recovery with
channel length is shown in Fig. 8, suggesting that the
membrane length should not exceed 4 m for the one
stage membrane arrangement. According to the calculation, the recovery rate for the one stage operation is
71.2% for L 3 m, u0 0.18 ms1, c0 5196 mgL1
and 'p 1.8 MPa, which is the same as that with the
two stage operation. It can be concluded that both one
stage and two stage arrangements are equivalent if
there is no the interstage booster pump between 1st
stage and 2nd stage in the two stage operation.
4.3.3 Effects of driving pressure
The variation of recovery with driving pressure
for the two stage operation is plotted in Fig. 9. The recovery increases with pressure but increase little when
the pressure is higher than 1.8 MPa. A recovery rate of
78% can be observed as the restriction to the treatment
process under the condition, as shown in Fig. 4. Also,
the required working pressure to attain a specified
recovery can be determined. Pilot-scale tests were
performed under different driving pressures and the
results are plotted as symbols in Fig. 9. The theoretical
recoveries agree very well with the experimental data.
Thus the model of RO system developed in this work
is validated and can be used for the design of RO unit.
4.3.4 Effects of membrane resistance
Equation (13) can be used to simulate the variation of water recovery with the membrane resistance.
The resistance will increase because of membrane

309

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

Figure 9 The dependency of water recovery rate on driving pressure in two stage treatment process (u0 0.18 ms1,
c0 5196 mgL1, L 6 m, Rm 81010 Pasm1)
predicted value;experimental value

system output water meets the Drinking Water Standards (GB 5749-2006), so it can be used as domestic
water as well as those for local road cleaning, watering plants, etc., in order to be fully utilized.
Table 3 compares the experimental results with
water quality standards. Most of the indicators for the
treated water meet the national first class standard for
underground water, except for chloride and ammonianitrogen. The concentration of chlorine compounds is
slightly higher than the national first class standard,
and the level of ammonia-nitrogen is slightly higher
than the national third class standard, but still meets
the drinking water standards. Thus CBM co-produced
water can meet domestic drinking water standards
after the water treatment process.
Table 3

fouling, and the water recovery rate will decrease accordingly. However, as shown in Fig. 10, the recovery
is unchanged with the increase of resistance until a
certain value is reached, which indicates that the recovery is independent of resistance during the initial
period of membrane fouling. The reason for this result
is the high driving pressure. Fig. 9 shows that the recovery increases little when the pressure exceeds 1.8
MPa. For the driving pressure of 2.0 MPa, these excessive pressures can compensate for the increase of
membrane resistance caused by membrane fouling, so
the recovery can maintain a certain level until the
membrane fouling is severe. The simulation results
suggest that a high system driving pressure will result
in bad membrane fouling that can not be detected earlier. For avoiding severe membrane fouling, the pressure of 1.8 MPa is appropriate from Fig. 9. Based on
the discussion, the RO process will be high efficient
and durable at 1.8 MPa pressure and 6 m membrane
length, with 70% water recovery under the condition.

Quality of output water and comparison with

standards
Drinking Underground
Output
water water standard
water
standard
( class I)

Items
chroma

15
1

<0.5

6.58.5

8.33

taste and odor

N.D.

visible material

N.D.

1

SS/mgL

N.D.

total hardness/mgL1

550

150

N.D.

1.2

TDS/mgL

1000

300

105

Cl/mgL1

250

50

57.4

NO 2 /mgL1

0.001

N.D.

SO24 /mgL1

250

50

0.3

CODMn/mgL1
1


3

1

NO /mgL

10

0.6

NH3-N/mgL1

0.5

0.02

0.2

total bacterial colony/CFUml

100

100

44

Fe/mgL1

0.5

0.1

N.D.

Mn/mgL1

0.3

0.05

N.D.

F/mgL1

1.0

N.D.

0.005

0.005

N.D.

Hg/mgL

0.001

0.00005

N.D.

Cd/mgL1

0.005

0.001

N.D.

As/mgL

0.01

0.005

N.D.

Zn/mgL1

1.0

0.05

N.D.

1

6+

Cr /mgL

1

1

1

anionic synthetic detergent/mgL

0.3

N.D.

total coliform group/CFUL1

3.0

N.D.

Figure 10 The variations of water recovery rate with the

membrane resistance in the two stage process (u0 0.18
ms1, c0 5196 mgL1, 'p 2.0 MPa)

Note: N.D. stands for not detected.

4.4

4.5

Under the operating condition of 1.8 MPa pressure and 6 m membrane length the quality of the RO

<5

6.58.5

turbidity/NTU
pH

1

Feasibility study for treated water reuse

Operating cost estimation

The operating costs of such a treatment system

are shown in Table 4, including electricity bills, chemical

310

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

Table 4

Estimated operating costs

Electricity bills
total installed power

30.00 kW

used power

14.00 kW

electricity price per kilowatt

0.51 CNYkW1h1

daily operating time

8.00 h

daily electricity bills

57.12 CNYd1

Chemical costs (Counted in accordance with the maximum)

fungicides

0.60 CNYd1 (consumption: 0.20 kgd1; unit price: 3 CNYkg1)

reducing agent

1.20 CNYd1 (consumption: 0.30 kgd1; unit price: 4 CNYkg1)

flocculating agents

6.00 CNYd1 (consumption: 0.20 kgd1; unit price: 30 CNYkg1)

inhibitor

12.00 CNYd1 (consumption: 0.30 kgd1; unit price: 40 CNYkg1)

chemical costs

19.80 CNYd1

Labor costs
operator

900.00 CNYm1 (based on one person)

labor costs

30.00 CNYd1

Replacement and depreciation charges

filter core updating costs

6.50 CNYd1

depreciation costs

45.00 CNYd1

maintenance costs

40.00 CNYd1

total

73.50 CNYd1

Daily output water

70.00 m3d1

Total treatment costs

180.42 CNYd1

Total treatment costs

2.58 CNYm3

costs, pharmacy, labor costs and replacement and depreciation charges. The water treatment capacity is 100
m3d1 and the output water is 70 m3d1. The treatment
cost for one ton of output water is assessed to be 2.58
CNY. A promising future for civilian use of CBM
co-produced water can be expected from the Table 4.
5

CONCLUSIONS

CBM fields produce large amount of high salinity water, which can feasibly be treated on a largescale using an RO system. The pilot-scale test results
indicate that the RO system runs smoothly and has a
good treatment effect for CBM co-produced water.
With a model for the RO membrane separation
process developed, the predicted values are in good
agreement with experimental values. This model provides a theoretical support for the RO system design
and operation condition optimization.
Through the pretreatment and RO system, turbidity,
Mn, Fe and F almost were almost completely removed.
CODMn removal efficiency was 81.6%, while 85.4%
for NH3-N, 97.0% for Cl and 97.6% for TDS. After
the treatment, the output water meets the Drinking
Water Standards (GB 5749-2006) in China, so it can
be used for domestic water and thus be fully utilized.

NOMENCLATURE
c
H
k
L
'p
R
Rm
r
t
u
v

K
'S
UH O
2

concentration of TDS in solution, mgL1

height of membrane channel, m
friction coefficient
membrane length, m
transmembrane pressure, Pa
water recovery rate, %
membrane resistance, Pasm1
salt retention rate, %
time, s
crossflow velocity along the membrane channel, ms1
permeate flux along the membrane channel, ms1
viscosity, Pas
osmotic pressure across the membrane, Pa
density of CBM co-produced water

REFERENCES
1

Zhao, W., Guo, Z,G., Niu, W.P., The exploitation and utilization of
coal-bed methane in Jincheng, Energy Technol. Manage., 5, 125127
(2011).
King, L.A., Wheaton, J., Vance, G.F., Ganjegunte, G.K., Water issues associated with coal-bed methane (natural gas) in the Powder
River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, Reclamation Matters, 2,
712 (2004).
Vance, G.F., King, L.A., Ganjegunte, G.K., Coal-bed methane

Chin. J. Chem. Eng., Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2012

10
11

co-produced water: management options, Reflections, June, 3134

(2004).
Ganjegunte, G.K., Vance, G.F., King, L.A., Soil chemical changes
resulting from irrigation with water co-produced with coal-bed
natural gas, J. Envi. Quali., 34 (6), 22172227 (2005).
Vance, G.F., Zhao, H., Ganjegunte, G., Urynowicz, M.A., Gregory,
R.W., Reduction in coal-bed methane (CBM) water sodicity using
zeolites, In: 30 Years of SMCRA and Beyond, American Society of
Mining and Reclamation Proceedings, Lexington, KY, 837844
(2007).
Veil, J., Puder, M.G., Elcock, D., Redweik, R.J.J., A white paper
describing produced water from production of crude oil, natural gas
and coal bed methane, Argonne National Laboratory, 4954 (2004).
Ahmadun, F.R., Pendashteha, A., Review of technologies for oil
and gas produced water treatment, J. Haz. Materi., 170, 530551
(2009).
Dallbauman, L., Sirivedhin, T., Reclaiming produced water for
beneficial use: salt removal by electrodialysis, J. Membr. Sci., 243,
335343 (2004).
Hyung, H., Kim, J.H., A mechanistic study on boron rejection by
sea water reverse osmosis membranes, J. Membr. Sci., 286,
269278 (2006).
Atkinson, S., Japans largest sea-water desalination plant uses Nitto
Denko membranes, Membr. Technol., 2005 (4), 1011 (2005).
Allison, P., Gasson, C., Intelligence, G.W., Desalination markets
20052015: A global assessment and forecast, Oxford, UK, Media
Analytics (2004).

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19
20

311

Tao, F.T., Curtice, S., Hobbs, R.D., Sides, J.L., Wieser, J.D., Dyke,
C.A., Tuohey, D., Pilger, P.F., Reverse osmosis process successfully
converts oil field brine into freshwater, Oil Gas J., 91, 8891
(1993).
Murray-Gulde, C., Heatley, J.E., Karanfil, T., Rodgers Jr., J.H.,
Myers, J.E., Performance of a hybrid reverse osmosis-constructed
wetland treatment system for brackish oil field produced water,
Water Res., 37 (3), 705713 (2003).
Bradley, R., Pilot testing high efficiency reverse osmosis on gas
well produced water, In: Proceedings of the International Water
Conference (61st Annual Meeting), Pittsburg, PA (2000).
Oh, H.J., Hwang, T.M., Lee, S., A simplified simulation model of
RO systems for seawater desalination, Desalination, 238, 128139
(2009).
Tay, K.G., Song, L., A more effective method for fouling characterization in a full-scale reverse osmosis process, Desalination, 177,
95107 (2005).
Song, L., Hu, J.Y., Ong, S.L., Ng, W.J., Elimelech, M., Wilf, M.,
Performance limitation of the full-scale reverse osmosis process, J.
Membr. Sci., 214, 239244 (2003).
A1-Bastaki, N.M., Abbas, A., Predicting the performance of RO
membranes, Desalination, 132, 181187 (2000).
AI-Bastaki, N.M., Abbas, A., Modeling an industrial reverse osmosis unit, Desalination, 126, 3339 (1999).
Bouchard, C.R., Carreau, P.J., Matsuura, T., Sourirajan, S., Modeling of ultrafiltration: predictions of concentration polarization effects, J. Membr. Sci., 97, 215229 (1994).