Paper Titles
Comparative Photocatalytic Performance of Pullulan-Assisted Copper Oxide, Zinc Oxide, and their Composites for Methylene Blue Degradation
p.71
Cu/Mn Oxidation Catalyst Integration into Recycled Carbon Fiber-Based Filter for Diesel Soot Emission Control
p.77
Modular Integration of 3D-Printed Solar-Driven Interfacial Evaporation System for Enhanced Water Purification Efficiency
p.87
Fabrication of Eggshell Membrane-Templated CuO-ZnO Nanocomposite for Microbial Desalination Cell
p.95
Synthesis and Performance Evaluation of Chitosan-PEG-Cellulose Acetate Nanofiltration Membrane for Calcium Removal in Groundwater
p.103
The Efficiency of Walnut Shells Filter in the Removal of Cooking Oil Residues from Domestic Kitchen Wastewater
p.113
Effects of Storage Temperature and Sunlight Exposure on the Physiochemical Properties of Bottled Drinking Water
p.121
Influence of pH on Nitrate Removal from Groundwater Using Shredded Tire Rubber
p.145
Comparative Evaluation of Fittonia argyroneura and Syngonium podophyllum in Phytoremediation of Synthetic Domestic Wastewater under Different Contact Times
p.151

Synthesis and Performance Evaluation of Chitosan-PEG-Cellulose Acetate Nanofiltration Membrane for Calcium Removal in Groundwater

Article Preview

Abstract:

The increasing demand for clean water necessitates the development of advanced and cost-effective treatment technologies. Nanofiltration (NF) membranes offer high efficiency in removing divalent ions, but their application is often limited by membrane fouling and stability issues. While various polymer blends have been studied to address these limitations, the effect of incorporating chitosan (CS) into polyethylene glycol/cellulose acetate (PEG/CA) membranes for treating calcium-rich water remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CS incorporation on the performance of PEG/CA NF membranes, specifically focusing on water flux and salt rejection in the removal of calcium carbonate from simulated groundwater. Membranes with 1–3 wt % CS were fabricated and compared to unmodified PEG/CA membranes. Attenuated Total Reflectance-Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy confirmed CS presence, while Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) revealed morphological changes. Performance testing showed that the 1 % CS membrane had the highest water flux, whereas the 3 % CS membrane achieved the highest salt rejection. An inverse relationship between flux and rejection was observed with increasing CS content. Statistical analysis confirmed significant performance differences between modified and unmodified membranes. These results indicate that chitosan incorporation enhances NF membrane performance, offering a promising approach for improving water purification systems, particularly for hard water treatment.

You might also be interested in these eBooks
Additive Manufacturing, Biodiesel, Pollutants Removal and Water Treatment View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volume 1052)

Pages:

103-112

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/p-23Jqtl

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

May 2026

Authors:

Eden S. Erasga*, Diana P. Tolentino, Jayvee C. Valenzuela, Renzo D. Veyra

Keywords:

Calcium Ions, Cellulose Acetate, Chitosan, Groundwater, Membrane, Nanofiltration, Polyethylene Glycol

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

© 2026 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

References

[1] Information on https://psa.gov.ph

Google Scholar

[2] T. Hosono, F. Siringan, T. Hosono, F. Siringan, T. Yamanaka, Y. Umezawa, S. Onodera, T. ichi, Nakano and M. Taniguchi: Appl. Geochem Vol. 25 (2010), p.900–909.

DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2010.03.009

Google Scholar

[3] A. Bhatia. CED Engineering (2020).

Google Scholar

[4] Information on https://columbiawatertech.com/boiler-water-wastewater-treatment/

Google Scholar

[5] H. Harwin, H: Aceh Int. J. Sci. Technol. Vol. 13 (2024), p.19–30.

Google Scholar

[6] V. Vatanpour, A. Yuksekdag, M. Ağtaş, M. Mehrabi, E. Salehi, R. Castro-Muñoz and I. Koyuncu: Carbohydr. Polym. Vol. 299 (2023), p.120230.

DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2022.120230

Google Scholar

[7] S. Waheed, A. Ahmad, S.M. Khan, S. Gul, T. Jamil, A. Islam and T. Hussain: Desalination Vol. 351 (2014), p.59–69.

Google Scholar

[8] M.D. Islam, F.J. Uddin, T.U. Rashid and M. Shahruzzaman: Mater. Adv. Vol. 4 (2023), p.4054–4102.

Google Scholar

[9] M. Oprea and S.I. Voicu: Ind. Crops Prod. Vol. 206 (2023), p.117716.

Google Scholar

[10] A. Ghaee, M. Shariaty-Niassar, J. Barzin, T. Matsuura, T., A. Fauzi Ismail: Desal. Water Treatment Vol. 57 (2016), p.14453–14460.

DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2015.1068228

Google Scholar

[11] S. Mulyati, S. Aprilia, N. Safiah, N. Syawaliah, M.A. Armando and H. Mawardi: IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. Vol. 352 (2018), p.012051.

DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/352/1/012051

Google Scholar

[12] H. Bai, Y. Zhou, X. Wang and L. Zhang: Procedia Environ. Sci. Vol. 16 (2012), p.346–351.

Google Scholar

[13] S. Rajesh, K.H. Shobana, S. Anitharaj and D.R. Mohan: Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Vol. 50 (2011), p.5550–5564.

DOI: 10.1021/ie1019613

Google Scholar

[14] H. Mao, C. Wei, Y. Gong, S. Wang and W. Ding: Polymers Vol. 11 (2019), p.166.

Google Scholar

[15] H.N. Iman, H. Susilo, A. Satriyatama, I.D.M. Budi, K.A. Kurnia, I.G. Wenten and K. Khoiruddin: BMC Chemistry, Vol. 18 (2024), p.224.

DOI: 10.1186/s13065-024-01341-w

Google Scholar

[16] Y. Yildiz and A. Manzak: Water Air & Soil Pollut. Vol. 235 (2024), p.517.

Google Scholar

[17] H.D. Raval, P.S. Rana and S. Maiti: RSC Advances Vol. 5 (2014), p.6687–6694.

Google Scholar

[18] Y. Wang, H. Li, J. Zhao, Z. Li, J. Li, and J. Li: J. Ind. Eng. Chem. Vol. 132 (2023), p.318–325.

Google Scholar

[19] S. Bao, R. Hou, J. Dai, W. Yan, Y. Zhou and C. Gao: Desal. Water Treat. Vol. 321 (2025), p.101043.

Google Scholar

[20] Q. Guo, X. Wu, Y. Ji, Y. Hao, S. Liao, Z. Cui, J. Li, M. Younas and B. He: J. Membr. Sci. Vol. 635 (2021), p.119445.

Google Scholar

[21] J. Zhu, M. Tian, Y. Zhang, H. Zhang and J. Liu: Chem. Eng. J. Vol. 265 (2015), p.184–193.

Google Scholar

[22] J.J. Poon, C.Y. Cheok and M.C. Tan: Research Square Preprint (2024), version 1.

Google Scholar

[23] M. Amara, O. Arous, F. Smail, H. Kerdjoudj, M. Trari and A. Bouguelia: J. Hazard. Mater. Vol. 169 (2009), p.195–202.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.03.085

Google Scholar

[24] D. Estupiñán Méndez and T. Allscher: Polymers, Vol. 14 (2022), p.808.

Google Scholar

[25] P.N. Sudha, P.A. Vinodhini, K. Sangeetha, S. Latha, T. Gomathi, J. Venkatesan and S.K. Kim: Der Pharmacia Lettre, Vol. 6 (2014), p.37–46.

Google Scholar

[26] H. Zhou, H. Tong, J. Lu, Y. Cheng, F. Qian, Y. Tao and H. Wang: Carbohydr. Polym. Vol. 270 (2021), p.118381.

Google Scholar

[27] A. Kramar, T. Luxbacher, N. Moshfeghi Far and J. González-Benito: Polymers Vol. 15 (2023), p.3276.

DOI: 10.3390/polym15153276

Google Scholar

[28] A. Ahmad, S. Waheed, S.M. Khan, S. e-Gul, M. Shafiq, M. Farooq, K. Sanaullah and T. Jamil: Desalination Vol. 355 (2015), p.1–10.

DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.004

Google Scholar

[29] H. Zhou, H. Tong, J. Lu, Y. Cheng, F. Qian, Y. Tao and H. Wang: Carbohydr. Polym. Vol. 270 (2021), p.118381.

Google Scholar

[30] T. A. Otitoju, M. Ahmadipour, S. Li, N.F. Shoparwe, L.X. Jie and A.L. Owolabi: J. Water Proc. Eng. Vol. 36 (2020), p.101356.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101356

Google Scholar