Short review on predicting fouling in RO desalination

membranes Review Short Review on Predicting Fouling in RO Desalination Alejandro Ruiz-García 1,*ID , Noemi Melián-Martel 2and Ignacio Nuez 3ID 1Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 35017, Spain 2Department of Process Engineering, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 35017, Spain; [email protected] 3Department of Electronic and Automatic Engineering, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 35017, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: alejandr[email protected]; Tel.: +34-928-451-888 Received: 8 June 2017; Accepted: 20 October 2017; Published: 24 October 2017 Abstract: Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane fouling is one of the main challenges that membrane manufactures, the scientific community and industry professionals have to deal with. The consequences of this inevitable phenomenon have a negative effect on the performance of the desalination system. Predicting fouling in RO systems is key to evaluating the long-term operating conditions and costs. Much research has been done on fouling indices, methods, techniques and prediction models to estimate the influence of fouling on the performance of RO systems. This paper offers a short review evaluating the state of industry knowledge in the development of fouling indices and models in membrane systems for desalination in terms of use and applicability. Despite major efforts in this field, there are gaps in terms of effective methods and models for the estimation of fouling in full-scale RO desalination plants. In existing models applied to full-scale RO desalination plants, neither the spacer geometry of membranes, nor the efficiency and frequency of chemical cleanings are considered. Keywords: reverse osmosis; membrane fouling; fouling indices; predicting models 1. Introduction Despite improvements and advances in our knowledge of water desalination, one of the main challenges of membrane technology, particularly in Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology, has been how to deal with membrane fouling [1–3]. Membrane fouling results from the accumulation of undesirable materials on, in or near the membrane and involves one or more of the following types [ 3 , 4 ]: (a) particulate and colloidal matter deposition on the membrane surface [ 5 ]; (b) organic fouling [ 6 ]; (c) scaling and inorganic fouling [ 7 ]; and (d) biofouling due to adhesion and bacterial growth on the surface of the membrane generating a layer of gel [8]. The consequences of this inevitable phenomenon have a negative effect on the performance of the desalination system (decline in water production over time for constant pressure operations or an increase in required feed) that requires costly pretreatment, higher operating pressures and frequent chemical cleanings, which can damage membranes, degrade permeate quality, and hasten membrane replacement. This additionally increases water cost and energy consumption [ 9 , 10 ]. Therefore, one of the most important challenges is to understand the factors involved in membrane fouling and the subsequent reduction of permeate flux or applied pressure increase that is inevitably associated with membrane processes. A great deal of research has been carried out to this field in the last 30 years, and although desalination technology is being extensively studied, much remains to be done and researched Membranes 2017,7, 62; doi:10.3390/membranes7040062 www.mdpi.com/journal/membranes Membranes 2017,7, 62 2 of 17 in the field of membrane fouling. Research that has been undertaken focuses on six key areas: (1) characterization of foulant agents by autopsy studies of membrane elements; (2) understanding of fouling mechanisms; (3) indices for predicting fouling; (4) modeling for full-scale systems; (5) optimization of pre-treatment and chemical cleaning; and (6) optimizing the membrane material and enhanced module design. The first four areas attempt to address directly how fouling occurs and how to predict it, while the others focus more on the mitigation and prevention of fouling, as for example through the use of antifouling membranes [11–15]. Focusing on attempts to address directly and predict model membrane fouling, several fouling prediction tools and techniques have been developed to describe membrane fouling [ 16 – 20 ]. The traditional and most widely-applied fouling indices in RO systems are the Silt Density Index ( SDI ) and the Modified Fouling Index ( MFI ). However, these indices have a limitation in predicting RO fouling rate such as lack of precision with small (<0.45 µm) foulant agents [21–23]. Some recent research has focused on modifying these methods and using membranes more similar to those of RO in order to evaluate fouling potential [ 17 , 22 , 24 , 25 ], while another research focus is the proposal of prediction models based on experience in full-scale RO desalination plants [26–29]. This paper provides a critical review evaluating the state of industry knowledge in the development of fouling indices and models in membrane systems for desalination in terms of use and applicability. 2. Membrane Fouling Indices The Silt Density Index ( SDI ) and Modified Fouling Index ( MFI ) are common parameters or indices to determine the fouling potential (mainly colloidal) of feedwaters in RO systems. Microfiltration (MF) membranes with a pore size of 0.45 µ m, which is larger by several orders of magnitude than the pore size of the RO membranes, are used to calculate these indices. Although these indices were developed to evaluate RO membrane fouling, they can also serve as a reference in the evaluation of fouling in porous membranes like MF and Ultrafiltration (UF). These indices are based on conventional and dead-end filtrations, while commercial applications are performed in cross-flow filtration. This implies that the flow conditions in the module are not taken into account, though this is a crucial parameter in the optimization of the process. However, the experimental determination of these data is very simple and frequently used. 2.1. Silt Density Index SDI is used to predict the colloidal fouling potential of feedwaters in RO systems and the efficiency of pre-treatments. SDI measurement is performed using the standard ASTM D4189 [ 30 ]. The feedwater is filtrated in dead-end mode by an MF membrane with a diameter of 47 mm and a pore size of 0.45 µ m at a constant pressure of 207 kPa (30 psi). The two time intervals measured at the beginning of filtration are the initial ( ti ) and final ( tf ) time to collect 500 mL of permeate, respectively. The third time interval ( t ) can be 5, 10 or 15 min, which is the period between ti and tf . SDI is calculated by the following Equation (1): SDI =1−ti tf t·100 (1) Generally, membrane manufactures suggest a value below three for SDI , but four or five are also acceptable values. Most pre-treatment studies are based on SDI15 < 3. Standard ASTM D4189 [ 30 ] specifies that the membranes must have a mean pore size of 0.45 ± 0.2 µ m, and the values of SDI obtained with membranes of different suppliers, which present differences in their morphology (porosity, for example), may differ. SDI has its limitations, and a lack of reliability has been demonstrated in several studies [ 31 – 33 ]. SDI is a static measurement of resistance assuming lineal permeate flux decline. This allows good results to be obtained when the water has a high quality, as the initial and final fluxes would be similar. However, the use of SDI may not be appropriate when the water has a high fouling potential, since SDI Membranes 2017,7, 62 3 of 17 has no linear relation with the colloidal content. In this case, derivation of this index is very empirical and is not based on any mechanisms of fouling [ 31 , 34 ]. For these reasons, SDI should not be used as input in the mathematical model to predict fouling rates [ 35 ]. To overcome the limitations of SDI , J.C. Schippers and J. Verdouw [ 31 ] proposed a different parameter: the Membrane Fouling Index ( MFI ). 2.2. Modified Fouling Index MFI (also called MFI0.45 ) is a parameter based on the filtration mechanism of layer deposition or cake formation and takes into account the mechanism of the reduction of flow that takes place in membrane systems. Therefore, it better represents the operating conditions of the membranes than SDI and can be used to measure water with a high and low fouling potential. MFI [ 36 ] is determined using similar equipment and procedures as SDI , except that the volume of permeate water is measured in 30-s intervals over 15 min of filtration. In this period, the data of permeate volume and tare collected. A better understanding of the experimental data that are obtained is achieved by using Equation (2) as proposed by J.C. Schippers and J. Verdouw [ 31 ]. Equation (2) is based on the resistances-in-series model and considers that fouling resistance is due to cake formation on membrane surfaces. Equation (2) shows a lineal relation between t/V (s/L) and V (L). The slope of this equation is the value of MFI (Equation (3)). t V=µ·Rm ∆p·A+µ·α·Cb 2·∆p·A2·V(2) MFI =µ·α·Cb 2·∆p·A2(3) where ∆p (Pa) is the transmembrane pressure, µ (Pa s) is the water viscosity, Rm (m −1 ) is the hydraulic resistance of the membranes, α (m/kg) is the specific resistance of the cake, A (m 2 ) is the membrane surface, V(L) is the volume and Cb(kg/m3) is the concentration of particles in feedwater. MFI is determined in the second region of the curve t/V vs. V (Figure 1). It can be divided into three stages: blocking filtration, cake filtration (lineal) and cake filtration with clogging and/or cake compressure. In case of a high concentration of colloids, the graph t/V vs. V has non-linear behavior throughout the entire period, so MFI is calculated from the first region [37]. Blocking filtration Cake filtration Cake filtration with clogging and/or cake compresion tan t/V [s/L] V [L] Figure 1. Ratio of filtration time and filtrate volume ( t/V ) as a function of filtrate volume ( V ) [ 38 ]. Copyright Elsevier, 2012. Membranes 2017,7, 62 4 of 17 Membrane manufacturers suggest using MFI < 1 s/L 2 and a maximum value of 4 s/L 2 to control membrane fouling. Most studies have been based on a target value less than 1 s/L 2 . In practice, the calculation of MFI is complex, so in most cases, SDI is calculated. Some recent research has focused on modifying these methods in order to study the applicability of multiple MFIs to evaluate the fouling potential of feed water in a full-scale RO plant [22]. The term α·Cb is usually called fouling index I . If α and Cb are known, I can be calculated using Equation (4) [6,39–41]: I=α·Cb(4) Following the theory of cake deposition or formation, when there is no compaction, the value of cake resistance is Rc. It can be rewritten as Equation (5) [31,39]: Rc=I·V A=α·Cb·V A(5) The index Iis related to MFI [31] with the parameters αand Cb(Equation (6)): MFI =µ·I 2·∆p·A2(6) MFI depends on the operating conditions of the filtration, ∆p and A according to Equation (6). A normalization in the same condition as SDI is required. Otherwise, I does not depend on operating conditions, so the parameter α does not vary as a result of the effect of cake compressibility. It can be considered that I is already a normalized value of MFI , which depends on pressure and membrane surface (Equation (6)). However, values of MFI under different conditions of filtration with the same water sample are not the same as for I[42]. Equation (5) is rewritten as follows: I=Rc V/A(7) The fouling index can be interpreted as a fouling parameter referring to the increase in cake resistance ( Rc ) divided by the specific permeate volume ( V/A ) (by cake formation as the only type of fouling mechanism). The value of Rc of the deposited foulants on the membrane surface can be calculated knowing I and Cb (Equation (6)). However, the specific resistance of the cake (or permeability of the cake) is affected by the pressure applied, and that effect can be represented (as a first approximation) by an empirical expression in the form of Equation (8) [43]. α=α0·∆pn(8) where α0 is the cake-specific resistance at reference pressure and ∆p is the pressure gradient working with the reference pressure. n is the compressibility coefficient. The effects of pressure and compressibility on the characteristics of the cake and colloidal dispersion is a complicated topic that is still under investigation. Index I is defined by Equation (4), and its value is calculated by the experimental determination of MFI (Equation (6)). The parameter I is related to the fouling potential of feedwater, which is defined by multiplication of two characteristics: its specific resistance αand concentration Cb. Membranes 2017,7, 62 5 of 17 2.3. Indices Derived from SDI A. Alhadini et al. [ 44 ] proposed a normalized SDI ( SDI+ ). This index takes into consideration the temperature ( T ), ∆p , Rm and different fouling mechanisms by using a line chart assuming cake filtration and 100% particle retention. In the same work, they proposed the volume-based SDI ( SDIv ). This fouling index compares the initial flow rate with the flow rate after the filtration of the standard volume. SDIv has a linear relationship with the particle concentration if complete blocking is the dominant fouling mechanism in the test. They concluded that SDIv is a better index to estimate the fouling potential of feedwater in RO than SDI. 2.4. Indices Derived from MFI J.C. Schippers and J. Verdouw [ 31 ] showed that MFI depends on the membrane molecular weight cut-off. Few authors have developed procedures to calculate MFI using membranes with smaller pore size. Table 1shows a summary of procedures for calculating MFI , as well as the indices, parameters and methods used to measure the fouling potential. The advantages and disadvantages of each procedure have been commented on in works referenced in Table 1and others [38,45]. S.F.E. Boerlage et al. [ 35 ] showed that the MF membrane (0.45 µ m) used for MFI was not suitable for fouling of small size colloids. This fouling can happen in RO membranes if the pre-treatment does not separate these particles. The same authors [ 35 ] developed MFI −UF at constant pressure ( MFI −UFconst. pressure ). This procedure uses a UF membrane instead of an MF membrane to separate more particles, but it can take more than 20 h. The aforementioned fouling indices have been measured at constant pressure, whereas most membrane systems works at constant flux. S.F.E. Boerlage et al. [ 46 ] further developed the MFI −UFconst. pressure in order to adapt it to constant flux conditions. This resulted in a noticeable difference in the duration of the test compared to MFI −UF at constant pressure; MFI −UF at constant flux (MFI −UFcont. flux) could be obtained in 2 h. Recently, S. Khirani et al. [ 42 ] proposed NF −MFI using a Nanofiltration (NF) membrane to measure MFI . As is shown in Table 1, the NF −MFI is measured at constant pressure. Khirani et al. [ 42 ] showed that fouling potential could be measured by the NF −MFI , even for small organic particles. Although this method is a step towards obtaining more realistic fouling indices, the mode of operation was still at constant pressure and dead-end flow. Modified methods for measuring MFI have the disadvantage that they require a long measuring time with more complex systems than SDI or MFI itself. The filtration mode is dead-end flow, so it is not close to real conditions in terms of hydrodynamic flux in RO process. Cross-flow hydrodynamic conditions influence the selective deposition of smaller particles or colloids, which are the most likely to be deposited on membranes, as illustrated in Figure 2. Dead-end Cross-flow MembraneMembrane 7pFQLFDVGHFDUDFWHUL]DFLyQ\HYDOXDFLyQGHOHQVXFLDPLHQWR Figure 2. Filtration modes: dead-end and cross-flow. Membranes 2017,7, 62 6 of 17 Due to the balance between the convection flow and the backscattering of particles, the larger particles with higher backscattering speeds tend to move away from the surface of the membrane, whereas the smaller particles are preferably deposited as soiling agents. These cross-flow hydrodynamic conditions lead to a different composition and structure of the cake when compared to the final blind filtration [47]. Figure 2shows the cross-flow filtration. All foulants in the feedwater are deposited or passed through the membrane, as in the case of the measurements of SDI , MFI and MFI −UF , while in cross-flow filtration, foulants are fractionated by selective deposition. These hydrodynamic effects could lead to inaccuracies in the extension of SDI and MFI that is performed in dead-end flow. To take into consideration, the effect of small particles or colloids in MFI , S.S. Adham and A.G. Fane [ 48 ] proposed the use of a selective MF membrane to be operated in cross-flow mode . They called this index the Cross-Flow SamplerMFI ( CFS −MFI ). After MF membrane filtration (colloid matter passes though this membrane) , MFI/SDI is measured as shown in Table 1. Although this method is a better approach, the cross-flow MF is separated from the measurement device in dead-end flow, so CFS −MFI is determined in discontinued mode. M.A. Jaaved et al. [ 49 ] calculated CFS −MFI in continuous operation mode with MFI (in dead-end flow) directly connected to CFS. Recently, L.N. Sim et al. [ 50 ] applied CFS to MFI −UFcont. to simulate selective colloidal deposition in real RO systems. The proposed index is known as CFS −MFIUF and uses a UF membrane for MFI . The particles that pass across CFS and that are deposited on the UF membrane will foul the RO membranes. In a later work, L.N. Sim et al. [ 51 ] combined CFS −MFIUF with a Cake-Enhanced Osmotic Pressure (CEOP) [ 52 ] model to predict the cross-flow RO fouling profile under constant flux filtration. They concluded that incorporating the CEOP effect was a very promising method in predicting colloidal fouling in RO. J. Choi et al. [ 53 ] proposed procedures for measuring MFI with different types of membranes (Table 1). The test was called the Combination Fouling Index-MFI (CFI −MFI). It takes into account various foulant agents separated by different membranes. However, the proposed approach is not simple since several types of membranes are required. Although the different measurement systems of MFI improve the prediction of fouling in RO membranes, they are complex and require long times to be determined. An evaluation of membrane fouling potential by Multiple Membrane Array System (MMAS) was proposed by Y. Yu et al. [ 54 ]. MF, UF and NF membranes were connected in series to calculate three MFI values, particleMFI , colloidMFI and organicMFI . MMAS allows the simultaneous separation of target foulants from the feed water and the evaluation of fouling potential of the feed water focusing on the target foulants. The authors suggested that the MMAS could give valuable information about the best candidates for pretreatment and the fouling influence on full-scale RO desalination plants. M. W. Naceur [ 55 ] determined the Dimensionless Fouling Index ( DFI ). It can be interpreted as the ratio of the membrane resistance to that of the cake due to the concentration of feedwater. The authors mentioned that this index requires performing experiments under different operating conditions to be properly validated. Membranes 2017,7, 62 7 of 17 Table 1. Summary of various methods, indices and parameters used in fouling evaluation (adapted from [ 38 , 45 , 56 ]). SDI , Silt Density Index; MF, Microfiltration; MFI , Modified Fouling Index; UF, Ultrafiltration; CFS , Cross-Flow Sampler; RO, Reverse Osmosis; MMAS, Multiple Membrane Array System; DFI , Dimensionless Fouling Index; CEOP, Cake-Enhanced Osmotic Pressure. Methods, Indices and Parameters Characteristics Equation Comments SDI (1995, [30]) - Membrane: MF 0.45 µm (flat sheet) - Foulant: particulate matter - Operation mode: dead-end and constant pressure - Fouling mechanisms: none - Test: time vs. volume SDI =1−ti tf t·100 Disadvantages: SDI is a standardized method (ASTM D4189), but empirical, and it is not based on fouling mechanisms. It is not related to foulant concentration in feedwater. It does not take into account the temperature or variation in membrane resistance. MFI (J.C. Schippers and J. Verdouw, 1980 [31]) - Membrane: MF of 0.45 µm (flat sheet) - Foulant: particulate matter - Operating mode: dead-end and constant pressure - Fouling mechanisms: cake filtration - Test: t/Vvs. V(i.e., each 30 s) MFI =µ·I 2·∆p·A2 Characteristics: MFI0.45 is an improved version of SDI and is related to cake filtration theory. The fouling index I is obtained from the slope of the lineal region of the graph t/Vvs. V(filtrated volume). Disadvantages: It is not very accurate as foulant agents with a diameter less than 0.45 µm pass across the membrane. SDI+(A. Alhadini et al., 2011 [44]) - Membrane: MF 0.45 µm (flat sheet) - Foulant: particulate matter - Operation mode: dead-end and constant pressure - Fouling mechanisms: none - Test: time vs. volume — Characteristics: SDI+ is a normalization of SDI taking into consideration the variation of temperature, pressure and membrane resistance. Different fouling mechanisms could be assumed based on line charts and parameters’ calculation. Disadvantages: It is not very accurate as foulant agents with a diameter less than 0.45 µ m pass across the membrane. SDIv(A. Alhadini et al., 2011 [44]) - Membrane: MF 0.45 µm (flat sheet) - Foulant: particulate matter - Operation mode: dead-end and constant pressure - Fouling mechanisms: none - Test: time vs. volume SDIv=100·AM0 Vf0 1−t1 t2 Characteristics: SDIvshowed a more linear relationship with foulant concentration in feedwater than standard SDI . Besides, it is independent of testing parameters, such as temperature and pressure, and less sensitive to membrane resistance. Disadvantages: It is not very accurate as foulant agents with a diameter less than 0.45 µ m pass across the membrane. Membranes 2017,7, 62 8 of 17 Table 1. Cont. Methods, Indices and Parameters Characteristics Equation Comments MFI −UFconst. pressure (S.F.E. Booerlage et al., 1997 [57]) - Membrane: UF (hollow fiber, 13 kDa) - Foulant: particulate matter - Operating mode: dead-end and constant pressure. - Fouling mechanisms: cake filtration - Test: t/V vs. V or ∆t/∆V vs. V (i.e., each 10 s) MFI −UF =µ·I 2·∆p·A2 MFI −UF =µ·α0·Cb·∆pω 2·∆p·A2 Characteristics: UF membrane is used instead of MF, so colloidal fouling can be detected. α0 is a constant, ω the compressibility factor of the cake and Cb the concentration of particles in the feedwater. Disadvantages: MFI −UFconst. pressure is not able to show fouling behavior in constant flow precesses. Twenty hours are required to obtain a measurement, and the method to obtain the deposition factor is tedious. Although the UF membrane used in the tests is capable of retaining particles and colloidal matter, it is not efficient enough to retain organic matter. MFI −UFconst. flux (S.F.E. Boerlage et al., 2004 [46]) - Membrane: UF (flat sheet, 10–200 kDa) - Foulant: colloids - Operating mode: dead-end and constant flux. - Fouling mechanisms: cake filtration - Test: ∆pvs. tor ∆t/∆Vvs. V MFI −UFconst. flux =µ20o·cI 2·∆p0·A2 0 MFI −UF =µ·α0·Cb·∆pω 2·∆p·A2 Characteristics: The operating mode is constant flow as happens in the majority of actual RO processes. The fouling index I is obtained from the slope of the graph NDP (Net Driven Pressure) vs. filtration time. ∆p0is the standard pressure (2 bar). Disadvantages: The test is performed under conditions of accelerated flow that do not allow representation of the behavior of fouling to flows of 20–30 L/m 2 h. As with MFI −UFconst. pressure , the deposition of particles is considered through a deposition factor, and although through the UF, it is possible to retain particulate matter and colloids, it is not enough to retain the organic matter present in the feed. Despite the improvements of MFI −UFconst. flux , the measurement cannot be simulated in cross-flow. NF −MFI (S. Khirani et al., 2006 [42]) - Membrane: NF - Foulant: organic matter - Operating mode: dead-end and constant pressure. - Fouling mechanisms: cake filtration - Test: t/(V/A)vs. V/A MFI −NF =µ·I 2·∆p·A2 Characteristics: The test tries to take into consideration the organic matter in the feedwater. Disadvantages: The test is carried out under constant pressure, and the deposition factor of particles in cross-flow is not considered. The total retention of organic matter is not achieved in this procedure. Membranes 2017,7, 62 9 of 17 Table 1. Cont. Methods, Indices and Parameters Characteristics Equation Comments CFS −MFI (S.S. Adham and A.G. Fane, 2008 [48]) - Membrane: MF - Foulant: particulate matter - Operating mode: cross-flow and dead-end (separated)/constant pressure. - Fouling mechanisms: cake filtration - Test: t/Vvs. V CFS −MFI =µ·α·Cb 2·∆p·A2=µ·I 2·∆p·A2 Characteristics: This index incorporates the hydrodynamic behavior of the cross-flow in the measurement of the fouling index. CFS allow small particle to pass across the MF membrane to be deposited on the MF membrane located in MFI in dead-end flow. Disadvantages: Discontinued operating mode. CFS −MFI (M.A. Javeed et al., 2009 [49]) - Membrane: MF - Foulant: particulate matter - Operating mode: cross-flow and dead-end/ constant pressure - Fouling mechanisms: cake filtration - Test: t/Vvs. V CFS −MFI =η20◦C·α·Cb 2·∆p·A2=η20◦C·I 2·∆p·A2 Characteristics: CFS −MFI is measured in continuous mode. Disadvantages: It uses the same MF membrane as in MFI, and the operating mode is at constant pressure. CFS −MFIUF (L.N. Sim et al., 2011 [58]) - Membrane: MF and UF - Foulant: colloids - Operating mode: cross-flow and dead-end, constant flow - Fouling mechanisms: cake filtration - Test: ∆pvs. t CFS −MFIUF =µ·I0 2·∆p·A2 Characteristics: This index takes into account the hydrodynamic effect of cross-flow and the deposition factor. I0 is the modified resistivity of the cake. CFS −MFIUF can be a more precise method to determine the effect of fouling agents on the RO process. The method is easy due to its short time of filtration. CFI (J. Choi et al., 2009 [53]) - Membrane: MF and NF - Foulant - Operating mode: constant pressure - Fouling mechanisms: - Test: t/Vvs. V CFI =µ·α·Cb 2·∆p·A2=µ·I 2·∆p·A2 CFI =w1·M1+w2·M2+w3·M3+w4 Characteristics: It is a combination of various indices, denoted as MFI −HL (using a Hydrophilic MF membrane), MFI −HP (using a MF Hydrophobic membrane) and MFI −UF (using a hydrophilic UF membrane). This test tries to take into consideration all types of foulant agents using different membranes. M1 is the value of MFI −HL ; M2 is the value of MFI −HP ; and M3 is the value of MFI −UF . The weighting factors w1 , w2 , w3 and w4 depend on the characteristics of the membrane. Disadvantages: The method is difficult since it requires different types of membranes, and the procedure to obtain CFI is very tedious. In addition, the fouling index is still measured under constant pressure conditions. Membranes 2017,7, 62 16 of 17 25. Ju, Y.; Hong, S. Nano-colloidal fouling mechanisms in seawater reverse osmosis process evaluated by cake resistance simulator-modified fouling index nanofiltration. Desalination 2014,343, 88–96. 26. Wilf, M.; Klinko, K. Performance of commercial seawater membranes. Desalination 1994,96, 465–478. 27. Zhu, M.; El-Halwagi, M.M.; Al-Ahmad, M. Optimal design and scheduling of flexible reverse osmosis networks. J. Membr. Sci. 1997,129, 161–174. 28. Abbas, A.; Al-Bastaki, N. Performance decline in brackish water Film Tec spiral wound RO membranes. Desalination 2001,136, 281–286. 29. Ruiz-García, A.; Nuez, I. Long-term performance decline in a brackish water reverse osmosis desalination plant. Predictive model for the water permeability coefficient. Desalination 2016,397, 101–107. 30. ASTM. The Annual Book of ASTM Standard, Designation: D 4189-95. Standard Test Method for Silt Density Index (SDI) of Water; American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010. 31. Schippers, J.; Verdouw, J. The modified fouling index, a method of determining the fouling characteristics of water. Desalination 1980,32, 137–148. 32. Boerlage, S.F.; Kennedy, M.; Aniye, M.P.; Schippers, J.C. Applications of the MFI-UF to measure and predict particulate fouling in RO systems. J. Membr. Sci. 2003,220, 97–116. 33. Yiantsios, S.G.; Karabelas, A.J. An assessment of the Silt Density Index based on RO membrane colloidal fouling experiments with iron oxide particles. Desalination 2003,151, 229–238. 34. Boerlage, S. Understanding the SDI and Modified Fouling Indices (MFI0. 45 and MFI-UF). In Proceedings of the IDA World Congress On Desalination and Water Reuse 2007-Desalination: Quenching a Thirst, Maspalomas, Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain, 21–26 October 2007. 35. Boerlage, S.F.; Kennedy, M.D.; Dickson, M.R.; El-Hodali, D.E.; Schippers, J.C. The modified fouling index using ultrafiltration membranes (MFI-UF): Characterisation, filtration mechanisms and proposed reference membrane. J. Membr. Sci. 2002,197, 1–21. 36. ASTM. D 8002-15, Standard Test Method for Modified Fouling Index (MFI-0.45) of Water. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards; American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015. 37. Sanz Ataz, J.; Guerrero Gallego, L.; Taberna Camprubí, E.; Peña García, N.; Carulla Contreras, C.; Blavia Bergós, J. Prevención del ensuciamiento coloidal en sistemas de ósmosis inversa y nanofiltración. Aplicación del ánalisis de superficies con haces de electrones. Tecnol. Agua 2003,239, 58–63. 38. Koo, C.H.; Mohammad, A.W.; Suja, F.; Talib, M.Z.M. Review of the effect of selected physicochemical factors on membrane fouling propensity based on fouling indices. Desalination 2012,287, 167–177. 39. Sioutopoulos, D.C.; Karabelas, A.J. Correlation of organic fouling resistances in RO and UF membrane filtration under constant flux and constant pressure. J. Membr. Sci. 2012,407, 34–46. 40. Sioutopoulos, D.C.; Karabelas, A.J. Evolution of organic gel fouling resistance in constant pressure and constant flux dead-end ultrafiltration: Differences and similarities. J. Membr. Sci. 2016,511, 265–277. 41. Sioutopoulos, D.; Karabelas, A.; Yiantsios, S. Organic fouling of RO membranes: Investigating the correlation of RO and UF fouling resistances for predictive purposes. Desalination 2010,261, 272–283. 42. Khirani, S.; Aim, R.B.; Manero, M.H. Improving the measurement of the Modified Fouling Index using nanofiltration membranes (NF-MFI). Desalination 2006,191, 1–7. 43. Sioutopoulos, D.; Yiantsios, S.; Karabelas, A. Relation between fouling characteristics of RO and UF membranes in experiments with colloidal organic and inorganic species. J. Membr. Sci. 2010,350, 62–82. 44. Alhadidi, A.; Kemperman, A.; Schippers, J.; Blankert, B.; Wessling, M.; van der Meer, W. SDI normalization and alternatives. Desalination 2011,279, 390–403. 45. Koo, C.H.; Mohammad, A.W.; Suja, F.; Talib, M.Z.M. Use and Development of Fouling Index in Predicting Membrane Fouling. Sep. Purif. Rev. 2013,42, 296–339. 46. Boerlage, S.F.; Kennedy, M.; Tarawneh, Z.; Faber, R.D.; Schippers, J.C. Development of the MFI-UF in constant flux filtration. Desalination 2004,161, 103–113. 47. Chellam, S.; Wiesner, M.R. Evaluation of crossflow filtration models based on shear-induced diffusion and particle adhesion: Complications induced by feed suspension polydispersivity. J. Membr. Sci. 1998 , 138, 83–97. 48. Adham, S.; Fane, A. Crossflow Sampler Fouling Index; National Water Research Institute: Fountain Valley, CA, USA, 2008. Membranes 2017,7, 62 17 of 17 49. Javeed, M.; Chinu, K.; Shon, H.; Vigneswaran, S. Effect of pre-treatment on fouling propensity of feed as depicted by the modified fouling index (MFI) and cross-flow sampler-modified fouling index (CFS-MFI). Desalination 2009,238, 98–108. 50. Sim, L.N.; Ye, Y.; Chen, V.; Fane, A.G. Crossflow Sampler Modified Fouling Index Ultrafiltration (CFS-MFIUF)-An alternative Fouling Index. J. Membr. Sci. 2010,360, 174–184. 51. Sim, L.N.; Ye, Y.; Chen, V.; Fane, A.G. Investigations of the coupled effect of cake-enhanced osmotic pressure and colloidal fouling in RO using crossflow sampler-modified fouling index ultrafiltration. Desalination 2011,273, 184–196. 52. Hoek, E.M.V.; Elimelech, M. Cake-Enhanced Concentration Polarization: A New Fouling Mechanism for Salt-Rejecting Membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003,37, 5581–5588, PMID:14717167. 53. Choi, J.S.; Hwang, T.M.; Lee, S.; Hong, S. A systematic approach to determine the fouling index for a RO/NF membrane process. Desalination 2009,238, 117–127. 54. Yu, Y.; Lee, S.; Hong, K.; Hong, S. Evaluation of membrane fouling potential by multiple membrane array system (MMAS): Measurements and applications. J. Membr. Sci. 2010,362, 279–288. 55. Naceur, M. The Modified Fouling Index Revisited: Proposal of A Novel Dimensionless Fouling Index for Membranes. Int. J. Eng. 2014,3. 56. Hong, K.; Lee, S.; Choi, S.; Yu, Y.; Hong, S.; Moon, J.; Sohn, J.; Yang, J. Assessment of various membrane fouling indexes under seawater conditions. Desalination 2009,247, 247–259. 57. Boerlag, S.F.; Kennedy, M.D.; Bonne, P.A.; Galjaard, G.; Schippers, J.C. Prediction of flux decline in membrane systems due to particulate fouling. Desalination 1997,113, 231–233. 58. Sim, L.N.; Ye, Y.; Chen, V.; Fane, A.G. Comparison of MFI-UF constant pressure, MFI-UF constant flux and Crossflow Sampler-Modified Fouling Index Ultrafiltration (CFS-MFIUF). Water Res. 2011,45, 1639–1650. 59. Song, L.; Chen, K.L.; Ong, S.L.; Ng, W.J. A new normalization method for determination of colloidal fouling potential in membrane processes. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2004,271, 426–433. 60. Vrouwenvelder, J.; van Paassen, J.; Wessels, L.; van Dam, A.; Bakker, S. The Membrane Fouling Simulator: A practical tool for fouling prediction and control. J. Membr. Sci. 2006,281, 316–324. 61. Vrouwenvelder, J.; Bakker, S.; Wessels, L.; van Paassen, J. The Membrane Fouling Simulator as a new tool for biofouling control of spiral-wound membranes. Desalination 2007,204, 170–174. 62. Tay, K.G.; Song, L. A more effective method for fouling characterization in a full-scale reverse osmosis process. Desalination 2005,177, 95–107. 63. Zhao, Y.; Song, L.; Ong, S.L. Fouling behavior and foulant characteristics of reverse osmosis membranes for treated secondary effluent reclamation. J. Membr. Sci. 2010,349, 65–74. 64. Chen, K.L.; Song, L.; Ong, S.L.; Ng, W.J. The development of membrane fouling in full-scale RO processes. J. Membr. Sci. 2004,232, 63–72. 65. Belkacem, M.; Bekhti, S.; Bensadok, K. Groundwater treatment by reverse osmosis. Desalination 2007 , 206, 100–106. c 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).