Reprinted from

PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING
THE OFFICIAL TECHNICAL MAGAZINE OF ISPE

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013, VOL 33, NO 5

production systems
©Copyright ISPE 2013
Dechlorination Methods
www.PharmaceuticalEngineering.org

Alternative Dechlorination
Methods in Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Applications
by Mark Wilf, PhD

This article examines the effects of different methods of water dechlorination

on prolonging the lifespan of RO membranes used for industrial water
treatment.

R
RO Membranes and Applications envelopes for a 100 mm diameter and 20 – 30 envelopes for
everse osmosis (RO) technology is the a 200 mm diameter element. Accordingly, the membrane
most common method of desalination of area of a 100 mm diameter element is 8 – 10 m2, and a 200
high salinity water for potable use and diameter element contains 35 – 40 m2 of membrane area.
salinity reduction of any water source During the RO separation process, feed water under pres-
for production of very low salinity water sure flushes the membrane envelopes. A fraction of feed water
for industrial applications. The separa- passes the membrane barrier, and as a permeate water flows
tion of water and dissolved ions in the inside the envelopes to the central permeate tube. Almost all
feed stream is provided by membrane the dissolved ions in the feed water are rejected by the poly-
elements. amide membrane barrier. The remaining, more concentrated
feed water, flows to the next membrane element, connected
RO Membranes and Elements in series, where additional conversion of feed to the permeate
The commercial RO membranes are configured as aggregate takes place - Figure 1.
composite flat sheet layers of polyester support fabric, poly- The composite membrane has very high mechanical and
sulfone porous layer, and aromatic polyamide barrier. This is chemical durability. Properly operated, membrane elements
commonly known as Thin-Film Composite (TFC) membranes. can provide stable performance for 3 to 10 years.
The total thickness of composite flat sheet
membrane is about 0.2 mm. The polyam-
ide barrier is only 1000 – 2000 angstrom
thick. This ultrathin barrier provides the
rejection property of the membranes
towards the dissolved ions and organic
constituents.
The membrane elements are manufac-
tured in a spiral wound configuration. In
this configuration, membrane envelopes
are connected to a central permeate tube.
The number of envelopes in an element
Figure 1. RO spiral membrane design.
depends on element diameter. It is 4 – 5

PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 1

 production systems
Dechlorination Methods

Process Parameters and Performance salinity. For example, reduction of membrane salt rejection
Indicators of RO Membranes and Membrane from 99% to 98% will result in doubling of permeate salinity,
Units an increase of 100%. Therefore, stability of the salt rejection
The basic process parameters of the membrane unit are property of the membrane uniquely defines longevity of mem-
permeate capacity (Qp) and recovery rate (R). The recovery brane elements operating in the desalination unit.
rate is defined as a fraction of feed water (Qf) converted to The stability of the salt rejection property of an RO mem-
permeate (Qp). brane is related to the integrity of the polyamide membrane
barrier. The membrane barrier could be damaged by me-
1
R = 100% * Qp/Qf chanical abrasion by suspended particles present in the feed
stream or by chemical reaction with chemicals that are not
The permeate capacity is defined by membrane area installed
compatible with polyamide polymer.
in membrane unit and the designed rate of average permeate
flux (l/m2/hr). The flux rate is defined as permeate flow (Qp)
Effect of Strong Oxidants on Performance of
produced from a unit area of membrane (MA):
RO Membranes
Flux = Qp/MA 2 Among the few chemicals that react with the polyamide
barrier and damage the salt rejection property are strong oxi-
The feed pressure required to produce given permeate flow is dation agents. These include hydrogen peroxide, potassium
a function of average osmotic pressure of the feed water and permanganate, chloramines, and free chlorine. The last two
water permeability of the membrane. Salinity of permeate chemicals listed are most frequently present in potable water
produced in the membrane unit is a function of average feed supply systems.
salinity and salt rejection of the membrane (SR). Salt rejection The assumed process of reaction of free chlorine with
is derived from calculation of salt passage (SP): polyamide polymer2 is schematically shown on Figure 1. The
chlorine attack starts with chlorination of amidic nitrogen fol-
3
SR = 100% – SP lowing chlorination of aromatic ring through intermolecular
4
rearrangement.
SP = 100% *Cp/Caf
The assumption is that the first step can be reversed in
Where Cp is salinity of permeate water, and Caf is average sa- some conditions. The second step is irreversible and leads to
linity of feed – concentrate stream. During the field operation cleavage of the amine bond5 and damage to the polyamide
of RO unit, it is simpler to measure conductivities of feed and membrane barrier.
permeate streams, rather than conduct analytical determina- Although there is general agreement that the exposure to
tion of concentrations of water samples. free chlorine is detrimental to the salt separation properties of
The conversion factor from conductivity to salinity is polyamide membranes, the mechanism of chlorination reac-
usually determined experimentally from analytical results of tion, conditions of the reaction and its kinetics are still not
concentration and measured conductivity of water samples. well defined. The information reported in scientific literature
For low salinity waters (concentration below ~1000 mg/l), regarding parameters affecting chlorine – polyamide mem-
the value of conversion factor from conductivity to salinity is brane interaction is not always consistent, as illustrated in
about 0.50 – 0.55. results shown in Table A.
The stability of key membrane performance parameters: One possible reason for some level of discrepancy between
water permeability and salt rejection uniquely defines the results obtained at different sites is the catalytic effect of a low
stability of performance of the membrane unit: operating feed concentration of transition metals often present in the feed
pressure and salinity of permeate produced. Conversely, at water stream. It has been observed that minute concentra-
constant process parameters, the values of feed pressure and tions of iron (Fe) or copper (Cu) in the feed water increases
permeate salinity provide clear indication about condition of speed of deterioration of salt rejection, even with a relatively
the membranes operating in the membrane unit. low concentration of free chlorine or chloramines present in
Stability of both membrane performance parameters: wa- the feed stream.4
ter permeability and salt rejection are very important in oper- Tests conducted in controlled conditions indicated that
ation of RO membrane desalination systems. In case of some polyamide membrane has some tolerance to the presence of
decline of membrane water permeability, the decline can be chlorine in the feed water. The level of tolerance is defined
compensated by increase of the feed pressure; however, there by ppm – hr. The concept of “ppm per hr” is described as a
is no practical solution to correct decline of membrane salt multiplier of concentration of chlorine in ppm multiplied by
rejection (increase of salt passage). Even a small reduction of the exposure time in hours.6
salt rejection could result in a significant increase of permeate The majority of manufactures of composite polyamide
membranes provide a level of membrane tolerance to free

2 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING

 production systems
Dechlorination Methods

chlorine exposure in the range of 1000 – 2000 ppm per hr. rate increases with temperature. Commercial RO membranes
However, this limit is very loosely defined, without indication have nominal salt rejection of above 99% – usually 99.5% –
of under what conditions this limit applies. Neither are actual 99.6%. Correspondingly, the nominal salt passage is about
changes of salt rejection specifically defined. 0.5%. Any increase in salt passage will result in a significant
The concept of “ppm per hour” is just a qualitative indica- increase in permeate water salinity.
tor of membrane performance stability. Accordingly, opera- For example, the reduction of nominal salt rejection from
tional experience shows that accidental, short term exposure 99.5% to 99.0% will result in an increase of permeate salinity
of polyamide membranes to free chlorine will not result in by 100%. Such an increase would usually not be acceptable in
irreversible membrane damage which would lead to a loss of the majority of RO applications.
salt rejection.6-7 Figure 2 shows the results of a membrane-damage test
Continuous exposure to free chlorine, both water perme- conducted during August 2011 at Atlantium Laboratories.
ability and salt transport through the membrane increases. The shown fitted (and hence “clean”) curves indicate the salt
According to some sources6 the rate of chlorine attack is passage as determined for two (initially) similar mem-
higher at higher pH; however, contradictory observations are branes. The free chlorine concentration in the upstream
also reported - Table A. water averaged 1.0 ppm. The free chlorine concentration
Temperature affects the rate of membrane chlorination in the feed water for the protected membrane measured
in the same way as it affects other chemical processes. The 0.0 ppm (“below detectable level”), while the average free
chlorine concentration in the feed water
for the unprotected membrane remained
Test conditions Results Reference No unchanged at 1.0 ppm. As shown, the
Free chlorine concentration range Membrane sensitivity to chlorine 3 unprotected membrane degraded unusu-
~4000 ppm, pH range 8.5 – 12.5, is pH dependant. Most model ally fast so that within only nine days
exposure time 15 – 45 min compounds are more reactive at or so, salt passage doubled. The quick
low pH
rise in salt passage validates the need
Chlorine dioxide concentration Membrane sensitivity to chlorine 4 for adequate and continuous membrane
range 1, 5 and 10 ppm, pH range dioxide is quite similar in the protection.
7 – 8.5, exposure time up to 200 whole pH range of 7 – 8.5. At pH
days, separate test at pH = 3.5, 3.8 performance stable for a test
chlorine dioxide concentration of period of 100 days. Chlorination – Dechlorination
~3.8 ppm Processes in RO Systems
Free chlorine concentration range At low pH = 4 and low free 7 Due to unpredicted sensitivity of poly-
5 - 500 ppm, pH range 4 and 9, chlorine concentration, only small amide membranes to the presence of free
exposure time 1 – 360 hr changes of membrane polymer. chlorine and its potential effect on salt
High chlorine concentration
accelerates degradation. At pH = rejection properties, the membrane per-
9 the degradation process slows formance warranty terms usually include
down specification for the allowable level of free
Chlorine, bromine and Free bromine species damage 10 chlorine not to exceed a concentration of
monochloramines total polyamide membranes at faster 0.1 ppm in feed water to the membrane
concentration range 4 – 120 ppm, rate than free chlorine and unit.
pH = 8.2, exposure time up to chloramines
1,800 min. The general tendency during operation
of RO desalination systems is to avoid ad-
Chlorine concentration range 100 Higher degradation rate at lower 8 dition of free chlorine to the feed water on
– 3,000 ppm, pH range 3.6 – 10.2 pH
exposure time 1 – 20 hr a continuous basis.
In addition to the danger of potential
Free chlorine concentration range Sustainable salt rejection and flux 8 damage to the polyamide membrane,
~ 30 ppm, pH range 3.0 – 8.6 at pH 3.0 and 5.8. Some
exposure time up to 328 hr degradation at pH = 8.6 another drawback of feed water chlorina-
tion is the generation of conditions which,
Low pH Membrane more sensitive to 16
after dechlorination, could stimulate
chlorine oxidation
increased growth of bacterial population
Characterization of performance of Free chlorine attack is most rapid 17 in the RO membrane unit.
aromatic polyamide membranes. at low salinity of feed water and
The prevailing opinion is that free chlo-
Free chlorine concentration ~ high feed water pH
3ppm rine breaks organic matter present in the
feed water to biodegradable fragments. In
Table A. Summary of literature review on chlorination exposure tests. RO systems, free chlorine is removed from

PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 3

 production systems
Dechlorination Methods

• Dechlorination by passing feed water

through activated carbon filters
• Dechlorination by dosing a solution
of sulfite compounds to the feed water
stream

In addition to the above, a new process is

being implemented in a small number of
RO systems. This process, that consists of
dechlorination by exposing feed water to
Figure 2. Stages of chlorination of polyamide polymer.
UV radiation, provides chlorine reduc-
tion without the use of chemicals with the
the feed, prior to the RO membrane unit, during the dechlo- additional benefit of the destruction of dissolved organics and
rination step. After the dechlorination step, the bacteria that practically complete reduction of bacterial activity in the RO
survived chlorination and have reached the membrane unit, feed water. The UV radiation which is emitted from medium
benefit from an increased quantity of nutrients to support pressure ultraviolet lamps generates a polychromatic light
their growth. (broader wavelength from 200 nm to 400 nm and above).
It has been observed in RO systems treating surface water This is caused due to higher vapor pressure (0.13 – 13 bar)
that the rate of membranes biofouling was higher during op- and high temperature (600 – 900°C).
erating periods when feed water was chlorinated and dechlori-
nated than during operation without feed water chlorination.8 Dechlorination Using Granular Activated Carbon
In some RO applications; however, free chlorine is already (GAC) Filters
present in the water source, added as a disinfectant. Such Dechlorination using granular activated carbon filters is a
applications include RO processing of low salinity water that very effective method of free chlorine reduction. The end
originates from potable water networks and applications in products of this dechlorination process are chloride ion and
industries that are governed by regulations mandating the CO2 according to reaction:
presence of chlorine residual in the water source. In the above
category are RO units operating to produce process water for C + 2Cl2 + 2H2O = 4 H+ + 4 Cl- + CO2 6

food and beverage industries, and for pharmaceutical manu-

C + 2NH2Cl + 2H2O = 2NH4+ + 2Cl- + CO2 10
facturing.
In water originated from potable water supply systems, The dechlorination equipment in this process consists of
chlorine can be present in the form of free chlorine, chlora- activated carbon filters. The flow velocity through the filters
mines (usually monochloramine), and organic chloramines. is in the range of 5 – 10 m/hr and Empty Bed Contact Time
Free chlorine and monochloramine residual is introduced (EBCT) is in the range of 10 – 15 min. The activated carbon
to potable water to maintain disinfection residual. Organic bed depth is in the range of 1 – 1.5 m.
chloramines could be formed during chlorination of water Dechlorionation using activated carbon filters has been ap-
sources that contain organic nitrogen compounds (usually at plied extensively in the past to treat RO feed. It is a very reliable
low concentrations). All three types of compounds present in method for reduction of concentration of free chlorine and
the water source contributed to the measurement of the total chloramines. This process also has the capacity to reduce some-
(or combined) chlorine.9 what the concentration of organics present in the feed water.
If any form of combined chlorine is present in feed water For RO applications; however, GAC dechlorination also
sources, it has to be removed prior to feed water entering the introduces some obstacles into the proper operation of the RO
RO membrane unit equipped with polyamide membrane ele- process. The use of GAC for treatment of feed water to the RO
ments. system could result in fouling of RO membranes. Membrane
fouling that is related to the GAC operation could be caused
Removal of Free Chlorine Compounds from by one of two processes:
RO Feed Water
A number of methods have been tested and applied for • Release of carbon fines from the carbon bed and subse-
removal of chlorine (and other oxidants) from RO feed water. quent blockage of feed channels of membrane elements,
All dechlorination processes are based on reduction of free mainly in the lead position in the RO membrane unit.
chlorine or chloramines to the chloride ion. For practical • Growth of biofilm in the carbon filter and sloughing of
reasons, the methods that are currently being applied in com- biological fragments into RO feed stream causing biofoul-
mercial systems are limited to two processes: ing and excessive pressure drop in the membrane unit.

4 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING

 production systems
Dechlorination Methods

The GAC dechlorination process is reliable and the GAC that has potential to sufficiently reduce free chlorine with-
equipment is simple to operate; however, GAC pressure ves- out the use of activated carbon or chemicals was postulated
sels require a significant additional area in the system layout. and evaluated in the early eighties.11-14 The initial application
considered was removal of free and combined chlorine from
Dechlorination Using Sulfite Compounds water supply to the fish tanks.11-12
Water dechlorination using sulfite compounds relies on The results of these early works indicated that UV is
reduction-oxidation reaction between sulfur containing com- effective in reduction of free and combined chlorine below
pound, at +4 oxidation state, and chlorine. In this process, the detection limit. Some tests indicated12 that reduction of
sulfur is oxidized to +6 oxidation state and chlorine is reduced free chlorine with UV was more complete than the chlorine
to chloride ion (-1 oxidation sate). Sulfur containing com- reduction using GAC, tested in parallel. However, it was found
pounds that are suitable for the dechlorination process may out that the intensity of UV radiation required for effective
include: dechlorination has to be significantly higher than the UV
intensity commonly used for water sterilization.
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) The dechlorination (or photodecomposition) process con-
• Sodium sulfite (Na2SO3) sists of absorption of UV photons followed by decomposition
• Sodium bisulfite (NaHSO3) of the photon-absorbing molecules:15
• Sodium metabisulfite (Na2S2O5)
• Sodium thiosulfite (Na2S2O3) 2(HOCl) + 2hν → 2H+ + 2Cl- + O2 16

2(OCl-) + 2hν → 2Cl- + O2 17

The dechlorination process consists of reaction of S(+4) spe-
cies, such as sulfite ion (SO3-2) with free or combined chlorine: Several other photodecomposition processes, some of which
-2 -2 - + 7 involve the intermediate formation of hydroxyl radicals are
SO 3 + HOCl = SO
4 + Cl + H
also discussed in the literature.18
SO3-2 + NH2Cl + H2O = SO4-2 + Cl- + NH4+ 5 The rate of photodecomposition of aqueous chlorine
molecules follows first-order kinetics.18 Meaning – the con-
The above reactions are rapid and result in complete conver- centration of aqueous chlorine molecules vs. applied effective
sion of chlorine compounds to the chloride ion. After addition UV-Dose follows an exponential decay curve as seen in Figure
of sulfite compound to the RO feed stream, a contact time 3.
below one minute for free chlorine and below five minutes for
chloramines is usually sufficient for complete dechlorination.
Based on the stoichiometry of the dechlorination reac-
tions, the quantity of sulfite compound required per 1 ppm of
residual chlorine range from 0.9 ppm of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
to 1.8 ppm of sodium sulfite (Na2SO3). In RO applications, the
excess of sulfite compound is used, the ratio being around 3:1.
The dechlorination equipment required for sulfite based
dechlorination usually is limited to chemical solution storage
tanks and dosing unit.
The rate of addition of sulfite compound solution is based
on projected residual concentration of free or combined chlo-
rine in the feed water to the RO unit.
The dechlorination process using sulfur (+4) containing
compounds is very reliable. However, this process involves
supply and management of inventory of dechlorination chem-
icals and periodic replacement of dosing solution to maintain
designed concentration of the active ingredient.
Figure 3. Salt passage (Equation 4) vs. time for two of the membranes
RO systems applying the above method of free chlorine re-
studied. The protected membrane by Free Chlorine Oxidation
duction, frequently suffer from formation of biofouling layers maintained the salt passage constantly for the study period. The
in the membrane unit. unprotected membrane for which the Free Chlorine was not Oxidized
quickly degraded and the resulting salt passage noticeably increased
Dechlorination Using UV Radiation within a week of operation. The quick rise of salt passage validates the
need for adequate and continuous membrane protection [“elimination”
Use of UV radiation as an alternative dechlorination method
of the oxidizing Free-Chlorine molecules (HClO and OCl-)].

PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 5

 production systems
Dechlorination Methods

Summary
Free chlorine is frequently present in feed water sources
utilized by industrial RO desalination systems. RO polyamide
membranes are easily damaged by strong oxidants; therefore,
any free chlorine compounds have to be removed from the RO
feed water.
Reliable dechlorination process alternatives include reduc-
tion of chlorine compounds by applying dechlorination with
granular activated carbon or by injection of solution of sulfite
compound. Both of the above methods have some drawbacks
related to handling of additional process chemicals or could
contribute to increased rate of fouling of RO membranes.
Both theoretical and experimental data clearly indicate
Figure 4. Theoretical decay of aqueous chlorine concentration with efficacy of UV radiation as an effective chlorine reducing
__
x

increased effective UV Dose. The equation follows 1( ) in which x

320

process for dechlorination of RO feed water. The UV dechlo-

2
(mJ/cm2) is Effective UV-Dose and 320 mJ/cm2 is the UV-Dose rination process is a chemical free method and could provide
required to reduce amount of Free Chlorine by half. additional benefit of reduction in membrane fouling rate.

References
Several dechlorination field-tests conducted by Atlantium 1. Rozelle, L.T., Cadotte, J. E., Corneliussen, R.D., and
scientists indeed verify the first-order kinetics theory as seen Erickson, E.E., Development of New Reverse Osmosis
in Figure 4. Membranes for Desalination, Office of Saline Water Re-
Water conductivity data, collected in a dechlorination field search and Development, Report No. 359, US Dept. of the
installation from April 2011 through July 2011, verify the ef- Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240, 1968.
fectiveness of the UV membrane protection method. During 2. Glater, J., Hong, S. and Elimelech, M., “The Search for a
the four month follow-up period, salt passage through a bank Chlorine Resistant Reverse Osmosis Membranes,” Desali-
of polyamide RO membranes remained essentially constant nation, Volume 95 (1994), pp. 325-345.
as seen in Figure 5. 3. Raval, H.D., Trivedi, J.J., Joshi, S.V., Devmurari, C.V. ,
The installed high-power UV-systems, equipped with high “Flux Enhancement of Thin Film Composite RO Mem-
intensity Medium-Pressure-Lamps (MPLs) treated a flow-rate brane by Controlled Chlorine Treatment,” Desalination,
of about 20 m3/h (~90 gpm) and provided continuous protec-
tion to the salt-rejecting RO membranes - Figure 6.

Figure 6. The curves shown relate to the last month of a four-month

in-plant operation of a bank of polyamide RO membranes. The RO
membrane bank is protected by a dedicated in-line high-power
high-intensity MPL-based UV system. Flow-rate through the
membrane branch – about 20 m3/hour (~90 gpm). Average pre-UV
Figure 5. Dechlorination field test. Aqueous chlorine concentration chlorine concentration – 1.0 ppm. Past-UV chlorine concentration
indeed follows an exponentially decaying curve. (in the membrane-feed water) – “below detectable level”.

6 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING

 production systems
Dechlorination Methods

Volume 250, Issue 3, 30 January 2010, pp. 945-949. 18. Feng, Y., Smith, D.W., Bolton, J.R., “Photolysis of Aque-
4. Adams, W.R., “The Effects of Chlorine Dioxide on Reverse ous Free Chlorine Species (HOCl and OClˉ) with 254 nm
Osmosis Membranes,” Desalination, Volume 78, Issue 3, Ultraviolet Light,” Journal of Environmental Engineer-
October 1990, Pages 439-453 ing Science, (6): pp. 277-284, 2007.
5. Mitrouli, S.T., Karabelas, A.J., Isaias, N.P., “Polyamide 19. Current Technology of Chlorine Analysis for Water and
Active Layers of Low Pressure RO Membranes: Data on Wastewater, Technology Information Series – Booklet
Spatial Performance Non-uniformity and Degradation No. 17, Hach Company.
by Hypochlorite Solutions,” Desalination, Volume 260,
Issues 1-3, 30 September 2010, pp. 91-100. About the Author
6. Filmtec Membranes. Water Chemistry and Pretreatment: Mark Wilf, PhD, recognized as a global
Biological Fouling Prevention. Tech Manual Excerpt. expert for membrane applications, provides
7. Avlonitis, S., Hanbury, W.T., Hodgkiess, T. “Chlorine Deg- expertise to the engineering and scientific
radation of Aromatic Polyamides,” Desalination, Volume community worldwide and participates in
85, Issue 3, March 1992, pp. 321-334. professional forums defining future direc-
8. Saeed, M.O, “Effect of Dechlorination Point Location and tions for membrane technology and applica-
Residual Chlorine on Biofouling in a Seawater Reverse tion development. This includes reverse osmosis, nanofiltra-
Osmosis Plant,” Desalination, Volume 143, Issue 3, 10 tion, ultrafiltration, and microfiltration technologies applied
June 2002, pp. 229-235. Mohamed O. Saeed for water desalination, potable water treatment, and indus-
9. Dennermair, M. and Blatchley, E., “Disinfection Efficacy trial and municipal wastewater reclamation. Dr. Wilf has
of Organic Chloramines,” Water Reasearch, 37 (2003) been involved in process development, system design, project
1557-1570. execution, plant operation, and maintenance of large, com-
10. Shemer, H., and Semiat, R., “Impact of Halogen Based mercial desalination plants in the US, Europe, and the Middle
Disinfectants in Seawater on Polyamide RO Membranes,” East since 1977. Dr. Wilf has been involved in development
Desalination, In Press, Corrected Proof, available online 2 of new desalination processes and optimization of membrane
July 2010. technologies. Some of his inventions have resulted in patent
11. Armstrong, F. and Scott, D., “Photochemical Dechlorina- applications and are being used in commercial desalina-
tion of Water Supply for Fish Tanks with Commercial tion systems. Dr. Wilf is a member of the Editorial Board of
Water Sterilizers,” J. Fish. Res. Board. Can, vol. 31 (12) the Desalination Journal, an Advisory Expert to the Middle
1974, pp. 1881-1885. East Desalination Research Center, and a peer reviewer to
12. Seegert, G. and Brooks, A., “Dechlorination Water for number of journals on water treatment. He frequently reviews
Fish Culture: Comparison of the Activated Carbon, Sulfite research projects and publications for these organizations. Dr.
Reduction and Photochemical Methods,” J. Fish. Res. Wilf is regular contributor to professional journals. He wrote
Board. Can, vol. 35 1978, pp. 88-92. chapters on membrane technology processes and applications
13. “Water Dechlorination by Activated carbon, Ultraviolet for several books. He co-wrote and edited The Guidebook
Radiation and Sodium Sulfite: A Comparison of Treat- to Membrane Desalination Technology that was published
ment Methods Suitable for Fish Culture,” Water Res., in 2006. The second book on membrane technology, The
Vol.17 No. 6, 1983, pp. 667-676 Guidebook to Membrane Technology for Wastewater Rec-
14. Adams, B., “The Case of UV in Dechlorination Applica- lamation, was published in January 2010. Dr. Wilf regularly
tions,” Water Conditioning and Purification, pp. 34-46, presents seminars and teaches courses in desalination and
January 2003. membrane technology to engineers and water professionals.
15. De La Matter, D., Swimming Pool Chemistry, http:// His seminars and courses are offered through the European
www.dougdelamatter.com/website/science/chemistry/ Desalination Society at the University in Genoa, Italy and in
pool/pool1.pdf San Diego, US. He can be contacted by email at: mark.wilf@
16. Glater, J., Zachariah, M.R., and McCray, S.B., McCutchan, ROtechnology.net.
J.W., “Reverse Osmosis Membrane Sensitivity to Ozone Altantium – Bio-Pharma, 11 Hamaelacha St., Industrial
and Halogen Disinfectants,” Desalination, Volume 48, Park, 99100 Israel.
Issue 1, 1983, pp. 1-16.
17. Larson, R.E., Cadotte, J.E., and Petersen, R.J., “The FT-
30 Seawater Reverse Osmosis Membrane--Element Test
Results,” Desalination, Volume 38, November 1981, pp.
473-483.

PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2013 7