- #36
Asymptotic
- 781
- 529
Do you mean 2 nanometers? From what I've been reading, the final carbon block filter feeding RO membrane cartridges in these home RO systems is often rated 0.5 or 1 micron.dlgoff said:Just curious about these sizes. At one lab that I worked at, the last RO element filterd down to 2 micrometers.
I've been trying to understand RO filter membrane specifications, but with mixed results. I had been expecting in part something similar to how other filters are rated, a combination of nominal and absolute micron sizes (for example, 50 micron nominal/20 micron absolute), or a filtering effectiveness and pore size (95% capture at 1 micron), but these types of values aren't provided in any of the manufacturer specs sheets I've read so far.
For instance, the spec sheet for the Pentair TLS series gives them a flow rate in liters/day at a 98% rejection rate for NaCl at both 500 ppm and 1000 ppm salt concentrations, at 65 PSI inlet pressure, at 25°C. Specs for Dow Filmtec elements are much the same, although theirs is for 250 ppm softened water, and include graphs showing the effects of pressure (at constant temperature) and temperature (at constant pressure) on permeate flow rate. Neither mentions pore size.
From what I've gathered, such elements come in two basic types - CTA (cellulose acetate) and TFC (polyamide-based thin film composite). CTA is more tolerant to oxidizers such as chlorine, but more prone to organic fouling, have a smaller pH range (4 to 8), and a salt rejection of only 93%. TFC elements operate over a pH range of 4 to 11 at a 98% rejection rate, but even small concentrations of chlorine (0.1 ppm max) cause premature failure.
Everything I've seen so far regarding particle size through an RO element has been on the "hand wavy" side, with claims ranging from 0.004 micron to 0.0001 micron (although 0.001` micron appears to be cited more than the others). This ought to be small enough to block disease viruses, but none of the elements I've investigated are certified to guarantee 100% elimination.
Nothing so far indicates whether some percentage of the smaller viruses can pass through an intact membrane, although mention was made that downstream UV disinfection is required to allow for small tears and general degradation of the RO film.
The questions move on to "how effective is UV in reducing infectivity?", and "what UV flux is required?".
Take the Norwalk norovirus. It is 27 nm in diameter, so it ought not pass through an intact 1 nm RO membrane. Provided that it does, will a 30 millijoule/cm2 rated UV disinfector inactivate it?
Near as I can determine, it's a definite maybe. From https://www.waterpathogens.org/book/norovirus-and-other-caliciviruses
A few studies have investigated the effect of ultraviolet irradiation on noroviruses but, since no cultivation method is available, only MNV data are available so far, which showed no evidence of resistance higher than other (cultivable) enteric viruses (Lee and Ko, 2013). It is noteworthy that PCR data may overestimate the persistence of noroviruses after inactivation by UV (Rönnqvist, 2014); norovirus genome reduced only 0.62 log10 at 300mJ/cm2 by low-pressure mercury-vapor UV lamp, whereas MNV infectivity reduced 5 log10 at 90mJ/cm2.
I'd be interested in learning a virologist's take on the matter were one to weigh in ...