Comparison of imported ultrafiltration membranes
Thread Content
I would like experts to provide a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of various technologies used in imported ultrafiltration membranes, such as those from GE, Norelco, Coates, and Asahi Kasei. Thank you very much
I haven’t used the membranes mentioned above. May I introduce the membranes we use instead? We use Dow SFP2880; the filtration type is external pressure, and the membrane material is high-strength PVDF hollow fibers. The inlet water conditions are as follows: turbidity ≤100 NTU, pH: 2–11. The filtration flux ranges from 40 to 120 L/m2·h. The maximum tolerable concentration of NaOCl is 2000 mg/l, while the maximum residual chlorine concentration in the cleaning agents is 5000 mg/l. The water temperature should be between 5–40°C, the maximum inlet pressure is 6 Bar, and the average pressure difference across the membrane (maximum) is ≤2.1 Bar. Quality of produced water: Turbidity ≤0.5 NTU, SDI15 ≤ 3, CODMn removal rate 0–30%. Average water inflow per unit: 64 m3/h ； Average water production: 57.5 m3/h ； The normal operating water inflow rate for a single unit is 70 m3/h ； Normal water production rate: 63 m3/h ； The recovery rate is ≥ 90%. Backwashing methods: air scrubbing, backwashing, forward washing.
On ultrafiltration membranes, the gap between domestic and imported membranes is now very small.
This post was last edited by Yuexia Duozhuo-918 on July 31, 2019, at 10:29. In terms of performance, our domestically produced ultrafiltration membranes now are no worse than imported ones. Compared to imports, domestic products also offer better after-sales service and shorter delivery times. Needless to say, the price is much more competitive. We’re confident in our products
When replacing it again, you might consider choosing those produced by our company; we meet all the specifications you mentioned in your reply. 18522614758