Membrane Filtration Companies
Membrane filtration companies across MF, UF, NF, and RO, system design, skids, autopsy, and cleaning services.
28 specialist providers · 111 related · 22 countries
Qualified suppliers come to you.
Filter results
Country
Industry
Technology
Not sure where to start?
Showing 1-20 of 139
Specialists in membrane filtration
Providers whose services or self-declared specialties match this category.
Shandong LoyalMem Tech Co., Ltd.
VerifiedChina · 51-200 employees
Shandong LoyalMem Tech Co., Ltd. manufactures reverse osmosis (RO), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) membrane products, along with electrodeionization (EDI) modules, for industrial and municipal water-treatment applications. LoyalMem supplies membrane elements and modules for water-treatment equipment manufacturers, engineering companies and project buyers.
Buyer's guide
The buyer's guide to membrane filtration
Membrane Filtration Process Selection: MF, UF, NF, and RO Performance Comparison
Membrane filtration is classified by pore size and operating pressure into four types: microfiltration (MF, pore size 0.1 to 1.0 micron, operating pressure 0.1 to 2.0 bar) removes suspended solids, protozoa (Cryptosporidium, Giardia), and bacteria above the pore size; ultrafiltration (UF, 0.005 to 0.1 micron, 0.5 to 5 bar) additionally removes viruses (partially), colloidal organic matter, and macromolecules; nanofiltration (NF, 0.001 to 0.01 micron, 3 to 15 bar) removes divalent ions (calcium, magnesium, sulphate), hardness, and large organic molecules while passing monovalent ions (sodium, chloride) at 20 to 50 percent; reverse osmosis (RO, 0.0001 to 0.001 micron, 5 to 70 bar) rejects 95 to 99.8 percent of all dissolved ions and organics.
Process selection by application: drinking water from surface water sources - UF or MF provides 4-log Cryptosporidium reduction (US EPA LT2ESWTR credit) and physical barrier for pathogen removal, replacing conventional coagulation-sedimentation-filtration in some plants. Wastewater reuse - MBR (UF integrated with bioreactor) achieves direct non-potable reuse quality (BOD below 5, TSS below 1 mg per L). High-purity process water - RO plus CEDI for pharmaceutical and semiconductor. Brackish water or seawater desalination - BWRO or SWRO with UF pretreatment. Industrial effluent treatment - NF for selective concentration of divalent ions, enabling resource recovery or wastewater volume reduction before ZLD evaporation.
Membrane system operational challenges include fouling (biological, organic, colloidal, and scaling) causing flux decline and TMP increase, managed by pretreatment (coagulation before MF/UF, SDI control before RO), chemical enhanced backwash (CEB: NaOCl weekly, citric acid monthly for MF/UF), and CIP (NaOH plus EDTA, citric acid for RO).
Energy consumption: MF/UF approximately 0.05 to 0.3 kWh per m3 (low-pressure, gravity or low-pressure pump), NF 0.3 to 0.8 kWh per m3, BWRO 0.5 to 1.5 kWh per m3, SWRO 2.0 to 4.0 kWh per m3 (with ERD). Total membrane water treatment market: approximately $22 billion globally (2025 estimate), growing at 7 to 9 percent per year driven by water scarcity and reuse mandates.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between microfiltration and ultrafiltration?
Microfiltration (MF, pore size 0.1 to 1.0 micron) removes particles, bacteria (0.2 to 2 microns), Cryptosporidium (4 to 6 microns), and Giardia (8 to 12 microns) by size exclusion. It does not reliably remove viruses (0.02 to 0.3 microns) which are smaller than MF pores. Operating pressure: 0.1 to 2.0 bar. Ultrafiltration (UF, pore size 0.005 to 0.1 micron) removes all bacteria and most viruses, colloidal organic matter, and macromolecules. US EPA LT2ESWTR gives 4-log Cryptosporidium credit to both MF and UF if direct integrity testing (pressure hold or vacuum test) demonstrates no integrity breaches. Virus removal credit (2 to 4 log) is given to UF systems with pore size below 0.05 microns. In practice, UF has replaced MF for most drinking water applications due to its broader pathogen removal spectrum at similar cost.
How does nanofiltration differ from reverse osmosis?
Nanofiltration (NF) operates at lower pressures (3 to 15 bar vs 8 to 70 bar for RO) and has higher water permeability, but rejects divalent ions selectively while allowing monovalent ions (Na+, Cl-, K+) to pass at 20 to 50 percent. This selectivity makes NF ideal for: hardness removal (calcium and magnesium rejection above 90 percent) while retaining some mineral content; colour and disinfection by-product precursor (DOC) removal; concentration of divalent salts for resource recovery; and softening of seawater or brackish water for industrial applications where low TDS is not the goal. RO rejects 95 to 99.8 percent of all ions including monovalent, producing near-pure water but also generating a high-volume, high-salinity reject stream. NF recovery is typically 75 to 85 percent vs 50 to 75 percent for SWRO and 70 to 85 percent for BWRO. NF energy consumption is 30 to 60 percent lower than BWRO for equivalent feed TDS.
What pretreatment is needed before membrane filtration?
Pretreatment requirements depend on membrane type and feed water. Before MF/UF for drinking water surface water: coagulation (alum or ferric, 2 to 10 mg per L) reduces colloidal organic fouling and improves NOM removal; pH adjustment to 6.5 to 7.5 improves coagulation; screening (1 mm wedgewire) removes fibrous material that blocks membrane modules. Before RO for drinking water: MF or UF pretreatment to achieve SDI below 5 (BWRO) or below 3 (SWRO); anti-scalant dosing; acid dosing to pH 6.5 to 7.0; free chlorine reduction to below 0.1 mg per L by sodium metabisulphite (SMBS) dosing (polyamide TFC membranes are chlorine-sensitive); 5-micron cartridge filter as last guard. Before RO for wastewater reclamation: secondary effluent at BOD below 20 mg per L, TSS below 10 mg per L; MF/UF or MBR pretreatment provides adequate feed for RO.
How much does membrane filtration cost per cubic metre of water?
Unit costs (treatment only, excluding intake, storage, and distribution): MF/UF for drinking water surface treatment: $0.05 to $0.15 per m3 (capital plus operating, 20-year lifecycle). NF for softening or colour removal: $0.15 to $0.40 per m3. BWRO for brackish groundwater desalination: $0.25 to $0.80 per m3 (wide range based on feedwater salinity and energy cost). SWRO for seawater desalination: $0.50 to $1.50 per m3 (includes brine disposal; lower end for large plants above 100 MLD in ideal conditions; higher end for small island or remote sites). MBR for wastewater treatment with reuse-quality effluent: $0.20 to $0.80 per m3. Cost drivers: energy (30 to 50 percent of OPEX for RO), membrane replacement (15 to 25 percent), and chemicals (10 to 20 percent). Costs decline with scale and have fallen 50 to 70 percent over the past 20 years due to improved membrane performance, energy recovery devices, and manufacturing scale.
Illustrative scenario · Municipal drinking water
A composite drawn from typical projects in this category, not a single client engagement. Figures are indicative.
- Challenge
- A UK water company treating a peri-urban reservoir in the Midlands experienced seasonal Cryptosporidium breakthrough in the conventional rapid gravity filter (RGF) train during spring turnover events, resulting in two Cryptosporidium-positive source water alerts and DWI correspondence. The existing RGF plant achieved turbidity below 0.5 NTU but could not provide a physical barrier against Cryptosporidium oocysts at concentrations present during spring peaks (up to 2 oocysts per 10 L in raw water).
- Approach
- Designed and installed a UF membrane treatment stage (PVDF hollow fibre, pore size 0.02 microns) in parallel with the existing RGF train, sized for 60 percent of peak flow. During Cryptosporidium alert periods, all flow was routed through the UF train; during normal periods, the UF operated at reduced capacity providing 4-log Cryptosporidium removal credit on the processed fraction. Daily direct integrity testing (DIT) was implemented per US EPA Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual protocols.
- Outcome
- Zero Cryptosporidium-positive treated water samples in the 36 months post-installation. DWI inspector accepted the UF as providing a robust multi-barrier protection layer, closing the regulatory correspondence. The UF produced filtered water turbidity below 0.1 NTU consistently, improving the upstream disinfection efficacy. Annual DIT integrity test results showed 100 percent compliance with the PDR acceptance criterion over 36 months.
Questions to ask shortlisted providers
5
- 01
What pathogen removal credit does your membrane system qualify for under the applicable regulatory framework, and has the credit been verified by direct integrity testing at the proposed operating flux?
US EPA LT2ESWTR and equivalent UK DWI guidance give specific Cryptosporidium removal credits to membrane systems based on pore size and demonstrated integrity. Credit is only valid if the membrane system passes direct integrity testing (DIT: pressure hold or vacuum test at specified intervals). A membrane system with a single broken fibre per module may reduce Cryptosporidium removal by 1 to 2 log. Confirm what pathogen removal credit the system is designed to deliver and how DIT verifies this under operational conditions.
- 02
What is the chemical enhanced backwash (CEB) protocol and what fouling resistance testing was conducted on feed water samples from our specific source?
MF and UF fouling behaviour is highly source-specific: surface water with high algal content fouls differently from groundwater with elevated iron or from wastewater with surfactants. A CEB protocol optimised for one source may be inadequate for another. Ask for pilot plant results (minimum 3 months) on your specific source water across the seasonal range, with data on fouling rate (TMP increase per day), CEB recovery efficiency, and cleaning chemical consumption.
- 03
What is the membrane module service life guarantee and what warranty terms apply to fibre breakage and TMP performance?
Membrane module warranties vary significantly: some manufacturers warranty fibre integrity (zero defects above a specified size) for 2 years, others for 5 years. Fouling-induced performance decline is generally excluded from warranty unless caused by a manufacturing defect. A service life claim of 10 to 15 years should be supported by reference installations of that age operating at comparable flux and with comparable feed water, not just material testing data.
- 04
What aeration and backwash water volumes does the system require, and what is the impact on the net water production percentage and plant hydraulics?
MF and UF systems consume 5 to 15 percent of feed water for backwash (water returned to head of plant or wasted). Systems with high backwash volumes reduce net plant output and increase the required raw water abstraction to meet treated water targets. Confirm the net recovery percentage at design conditions, and how this affects the raw water licence requirements or abstraction volumes.
- 05
What are the requirements for chemical storage for CEB and CIP, and have you confirmed these are acceptable under COSHH and local planning requirements at our site?
CEB chemicals (sodium hypochlorite, citric acid) require bunded storage per EA PPG 26, COSHH risk assessment, and potentially planning notification for above-threshold quantities. For a large UF plant consuming 200 to 500 kg per day of sodium hypochlorite (12 percent), the site storage requirement (typically 7 to 14 days' supply) may require 2,000 to 10,000 L of chemical storage per chemical with secondary containment, which has planning and DSEAR implications.
What drives cost in this category
4
- Feed water quality and fouling rate
- Low-fouling groundwater treated by UF at 60 LMH net flux requires approximately 0.2 m2 of membrane area per m3 per day of throughput. High-fouling surface water (high turbidity, NOM, algae) at 30 LMH requires 0.4 m2 per m3 per day, doubling the membrane area and capital cost for the same output. Coagulation pretreatment (inline, without sedimentation) costs 30,000 to 80,000 GBP additional capital for a 10 MLD plant but reduces fouling rate by 30 to 50 percent, reducing membrane area needed.
- Capital cost versus MF or UF technology
- MF (pore size 0.1 to 1.0 micron): membrane module cost 8 to 15 GBP per m2, total plant cost 80 to 200 GBP per m3 per day for a 10 MLD plant. UF (pore size 0.01 to 0.1 micron): membrane module cost 12 to 22 GBP per m2, total plant cost 100 to 250 GBP per m3 per day. NF: 150 to 400 GBP per m3 per day. RO: 200 to 800 GBP per m3 per day (BWRO) to 600 to 2,000 GBP per m3 per day (SWRO with intake and brine outfall).
- Energy consumption by membrane type
- MF and UF energy: 0.05 to 0.3 kWh per m3 (low-pressure gravity or low-head pump). NF: 0.3 to 0.8 kWh per m3 (moderate pressure, 5 to 15 bar). BWRO: 0.5 to 1.5 kWh per m3. SWRO without ERD: 5 to 8 kWh per m3; with isobaric ERD: 2.0 to 3.5 kWh per m3. For a 10 MLD SWRO plant at 0.15 GBP per kWh, energy cost is 1.1 to 4.4 million GBP per year. Energy recovery devices reduce energy cost by 1.5 to 2.5 million GBP per year at this scale and are essential for economically viable SWRO.
- Membrane module replacement cost over 20-year lifecycle
- MF/UF modules (hollow fibre, 10 to 12 year service life): 12 to 22 GBP per m2. For a 10 MLD UF plant with 5,000 m2 of membrane area, replacement at year 10 costs 60,000 to 110,000 GBP. RO elements (SWRO, 7 to 10 year life): 400 to 700 GBP per 8-inch element. For a 10 MLD SWRO plant with 300 elements, replacement at year 8 costs 120,000 to 210,000 GBP. Both replacement cycles occur once or twice in a 20-year lifecycle and represent 15 to 25 percent of total lifecycle operating cost.
Key regulations and standards
4
- Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016 and DWI Guidance: Membrane Systems
- DWI Technical Guidance (updated 2021) specifies requirements for membrane filtration systems used in public water supply, including integrity testing requirements and validation of pathogen removal credit. UF and MF systems must be validated to demonstrate the claimed log removal value for Cryptosporidium parvum through direct integrity testing (DIT) at defined intervals. DWI's position aligns with US EPA Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (2005) for integrity testing methodology and acceptance criteria.
- UK Cryptosporidium Regulations 1999 (as amended): Monitoring and Treatment
- The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 require water companies to monitor for Cryptosporidium in treated water and source water and to install suitable treatment where Cryptosporidium is detected or risk assessment indicates significant risk. UF or RO membrane filtration providing a minimum 4-log Cryptosporidium removal barrier is the standard technology response for high-risk surface water sources. DWI can issue Regulation 28 undertakings requiring specific treatment upgrade at non-compliant sources.
- PSSR 2000: Pressure Vessels for NF and RO Systems
- NF and RO membrane systems operating above 5 bar include pressure vessels and associated pipework regulated under PSSR 2000. A Written Scheme of Examination is required from a competent inspection body, specifying maximum working pressure, test pressure, and inspection frequency. For large RO plants, the PSSR inspection programme is typically integrated into the plant's planned maintenance schedule, with hydraulic pressure tests and visual inspection of GRP vessels at 3 to 5 year intervals.
- Environment Agency: Membrane Concentrate Disposal Permit
- All membrane filtration processes (NF, RO) produce a concentrate stream requiring disposal. Inland concentrate disposal to sewer requires trade effluent consent. Discharge to surface water requires an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency under EPR 2016, specifying TDS, ionic strength, and specific pollutant limits in the receiving water quality objectives. Marine concentrate disposal requires MMO consent. BWRO and SWRO concentrate must be modelled for receiving water mixing zone compliance before permit application.
From the Insider
- Textile Wastewater Colour Removal: Costs, Technologies, and the Reuse Decision
- Pulp and Paper Wastewater Treatment: Technologies and Compliance
- Landfill Leachate Treatment: Ammonia, the COD Floor, and the Age Problem
- Ion Exchange Systems: A Complete Guide for Industrial Users
- Lithium Extraction from Brines: DLE Technology Guide
- Forward Osmosis: Emerging Industrial Applications