Treatment Technologies
Ultrafiltration System Companies
UF suppliers for pretreatment, reuse, and potable water, hollow-fiber and spiral-wound membrane systems at any scale.
This page is a good fit if you need:
- Flat Sheet UF Membranes or Hollow Fiber RO capabilities
- Suppliers with food-beverage sector experience
- Providers operating in China or Netherlands
- Providers
- 9
- Verified
- 4
- Countries
- 7
Can't find the right fit? Post a brief and let qualified suppliers come to you.
Post a projectHow to choose a ultrafiltration system provider
Start with providers that clearly operate in your target geography and project footprint.
Look for industry exposure that matches your water challenge, compliance constraints, and deployment context.
Use technologies, service scope, and proof signals to narrow the list before reaching out to suppliers.
Not sure where to start? Our experts can help.
Filter results
Verified providers
4 claimed companies in this category
Country
Industry
Technology
Find a Ultrafiltration System Provider
Showing 1-9 of 9
9 results from 9 matched providers
Ultrafiltration Membrane Systems: Module Design, Integrity Testing, and Fouling Control
Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes (pore size 0.01 to 0.1 micron, MWCO 10,000 to 150,000 Dalton) remove suspended solids, bacteria, viruses (partially), Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and macromolecular organics by size exclusion. Transmembrane pressure (TMP) for UF: 0.1 to 1.0 bar (10 to 100 kPa) vs RO at 5 to 80 bar; low-energy process. UF module configurations: hollow-fibre (HF, outside-in or inside-out flow; fibres 0.5 to 2 mm inner diameter, 1 to 2 million fibres per module; Dupont iCUE, Pentair X-Flow, Toray, SUEZ ZeeWeed); spiral-wound (less common for UF, used in NF/RO); multi-tubular (large-bore, 5 to 25 mm, for high-turbidity or high-fouling feeds). Hollow fibre outside-in (feed on shell side, permeate inside fibres): standard for drinking water; better solids handling, backwashable; inside-out (feed inside fibres, permeate on shell side): higher pressure, used in some wastewater applications. Flux rates: 40 to 100 LMH (L/m2/h) for drinking water UF at 0.2 to 0.5 bar TMP; 20 to 60 LMH for wastewater secondary effluent polishing; higher flux increases fouling rate.
UF system design includes backwash, forward flush, and chemical enhanced backwash (CEB) cycles to maintain membrane performance. Standard cycle: filtration 20 to 60 minutes, backwash 30 to 60 seconds (permeate at 1.5 to 3 times flux rate in reverse); air-assisted backwash (air scouring at 0.1 to 0.3 bar) for outside-in modules. CEB (chemical enhanced backwash): periodic backwash with low-dose chemical (chlorine 50 to 200 mg/L for organic fouling; caustic NaOH pH 12 for biofouling; citric acid 0.2 percent for inorganic scaling) every 1 to 12 hours depending on source water quality. CIP (clean-in-place): more intensive chemical cleaning (chlorine 500 to 2,000 mg/L, NaOH 1 percent, citric acid 2 percent) conducted when TMP reaches 1.5 to 2 times initial value; frequency varies from weekly to monthly depending on water quality. Fouling types: reversible (hydraulic backwash restores flux); irreversible reversible (CEB restores); irreversible (CIP required); truly irreversible (membrane replaced). UF membrane life: 5 to 10 years typically; integrity failure (fibre breach from mechanical fatigue, oxidant damage) reduces earlier; minimise hypochlorite exposure (limit CEB chlorine dose and frequency to protect PVDF fibre from oxidative damage).
UF in drinking water treatment: standalone UF or as pre-treatment to NF/RO. Standalone drinking water UF: pre-coagulation (alum or ferric, 1 to 10 mg/L inline dose) before UF removes NOM and colloidal silica that would foul UF and does not pass size exclusion; UF provides Cryptosporidium log removal credit (greater than 4 log per US EPA LT2ESWTR; 3 to 4 log per UK DWI guidance); post-UF disinfection (chlorination + UV at 40 mJ/cm2) provides additional multi-barrier. UF before RO: seawater RO UF pre-treatment reduces SDI15 from greater than 5 to less than 2, improving RO performance and extending membrane life; replaces conventional sand filtration + coagulation with more compact, consistent process. Wastewater UF applications: membrane bioreactor (MBR) integrates UF with biological treatment (activated sludge at MLSS 6,000 to 15,000 mg/L); HF UF submerged in aeration tank or external sidestream; treats sewage to effluent quality suitable for direct reuse (SS less than 1 mg/L, BOD5 less than 5 mg/L, E. coli less than 1 cfu/100 mL); no secondary clarifier required. Leading MBR suppliers: Kubota, Toray, Mitsubishi Rayon, Dupont (ZeeWeed 500/700), Pentair X-Flow.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between microfiltration and ultrafiltration?
Microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) are both low-pressure membrane processes but differ in pore size and removal capability: MF: pore size 0.1 to 1.0 micron; MWCO not applicable (pores too large for molecular weight characterisation); removes: suspended solids, bacteria (greater than 6 log), Cryptosporidium (4 to 6 micron, greater than 4 log), Giardia (8 to 12 micron, greater than 4 log); does NOT remove viruses reliably (20 to 300 nm, smaller than MF pores, limited log removal 1 to 2 log at best); does NOT remove macromolecular organics (NOM, humic acids). UF: pore size 0.01 to 0.1 micron; MWCO 10,000 to 150,000 Da; removes all MF targets PLUS: viruses (1 to 3 log for larger viruses; greater than 3 log for tight UF less than 100,000 MWCO); macromolecular organics (greater than 100,000 Da) partially. Practical distinctions: UF provides higher treatment security for virus removal; MF is lower TMP (0.05 to 0.3 bar) and lower cost per membrane area; both provide Cryptosporidium barrier. US EPA LT2ESWTR awards both MF and UF the same Cryptosporidium log removal credit (up to 5.5 log) based on integrity testing demonstration rather than pore size.
How is UF membrane integrity tested?
UF membrane integrity testing detects fiber breaches or defects that could allow pathogens to bypass the membrane barrier. Standard method: Pressure Decay Test (PDT, also called Pressure Hold Test or Air Pressure Test): (1) Drain permeate side of membrane; (2) Apply air pressure at 20 to 40 kPa (2 to 4 times typical TMP) to feed side or permeate side; (3) Monitor pressure decay over 5 to 15 minutes; (4) Calculate rate of pressure decay (kPa/min); (5) Compare to integrity threshold corresponding to required log removal credit (US EPA IT/CR relationship: lower decay rate = higher log removal credit); integrity failure indicated by decay rate greater than threshold. Alternative methods: Direct Turbidity Test (DTT): online turbidity monitoring of permeate (greater than 0.15 NTU indicates potential integrity breach). Diffusive Air Flow (DAF) test: measures airflow through wetted membrane pores at given transmembrane pressure - flow increases with fiber breach. PDT sensitivity limits: can detect a single broken fiber in a module (smallest detectable breach 3 to 4 log Cryptosporidium equivalent); US EPA IT/CR guidance (2005, updated) provides calculation methodology. Frequency: US LT2ESWTR requires continuous online turbidity monitoring plus periodic PDT (minimum every 2 days for full credit). UK DWI: PDT or equivalent required at frequency specified in plant's risk assessment; typically daily or after each CIP.
What causes UF membrane fouling and how is it controlled?
UF membrane fouling types and control: (1) Organic fouling (NOM, humic acids, EPS from algae/bacteria): most common in surface water UF; forms gel layer on membrane surface; controlled by: pre-coagulation (alum 1 to 5 mg/L inline removes NOM adsorbed on coagulant floc); CEB with NaOH (pH 11 to 12, 2 to 4 minutes) breaks down organic gel layer; reduce flux (lower TMP); (2) Biofouling (bacterial biofilm on membrane surface): controlled by: chlorine CEB (50 to 200 mg/L, 2 to 5 minutes) kills biofilm-forming bacteria; minimise biofilm-forming NOM in feed; UV pre-disinfection; maintain minimum chlorine residual in feed; (3) Inorganic scaling (calcium carbonate, iron, manganese, silica): controlled by: acid CEB (citric acid 0.2 to 0.5 percent, or HCl pH 2 to 3); pre-treatment to remove iron/manganese (oxidation-filtration, green sand); reduce feed calcium and bicarbonate (softening); (4) Colloidal fouling (clay, fine silica): controlled by: pre-coagulation; backwash optimisation (air + water); reduce feed turbidity via pre-settling. Typical fouling indicator: TMP rise rate (kPa/hour at constant flux); design target less than 0.1 kPa/hour. Fouling prevention hierarchy: reduce feed loading, optimise backwash, CEB, CIP as escalating interventions.
What is the energy consumption of ultrafiltration systems?
UF system energy consumption depends on configuration, flux rate, and pre/post-treatment: Pressure-driven UF (feed pumped through external pressure vessel modules): energy 0.05 to 0.15 kWh/m3 for drinking water at 40 to 60 LMH, TMP 0.2 to 0.5 bar; add pre-treatment (coagulation dosing) and post-treatment (UV, chlorination) for total system energy 0.1 to 0.3 kWh/m3 for standalone surface water UF plant. Submerged UF (gravity or low-suction, permeate drawn by vacuum from hollow fibres submerged in tank - Zenon/GE ZeeWeed, Kubota): energy 0.1 to 0.2 kWh/m3; aeration for scouring adds 0.05 to 0.1 kWh/m3; lower pressure than external but higher air energy. MBR (UF integrated with biological treatment): total energy 0.4 to 1.0 kWh/m3 wastewater treated (higher aeration demand for MLSS 8,000 to 15,000 mg/L); aerobic MBR 0.6 to 1.0 kWh/m3; anoxic/anaerobic zone reduces aeration. Comparison: RO desalination 2.5 to 4.0 kWh/m3; conventional surface water treatment 0.1 to 0.3 kWh/m3; UF is comparable to or slightly more than conventional for drinking water applications. Energy efficiency improvements: VFD pump control; flux optimisation (reduce flux to reduce TMP and fouling-related CIP chemical and downtime costs); energy recovery from backwash water.
A water company in South East England abstracting from a lowland river with highly variable turbidity (5 to 450 NTU) and elevated NOM (TOC 8 to 14 mg/L) needed to increase treatment capacity from 12 MLD to 28 MLD at an existing works with a constrained site footprint. Conventional settlement expansion was not feasible within the site boundary.
The engineer specified pressure-driven outside-in UF membranes (Toray HFU 2020, 0.02 micron PVDF hollow fibre) with coagulant-enhanced pre-treatment (PACl at 4 to 8 mg/L inline) to address NOM fouling. The system was designed for 50 LMH operating flux with automatic backwash every 30 minutes and chemical-enhanced backwash (CEB) twice weekly using NaOCl (500 mg/L). Integrity testing by pressure hold test was specified at 30-minute intervals. Permeate UVT averaged 92%, enabling downstream UV dosing at 40 mJ/cm2.
The UF system consistently achieved permeate turbidity below 0.05 NTU even during peak raw water turbidity events of 420 NTU, providing 4 log Cryptosporidium reduction credit per the DWI risk assessment. System energy consumption averaged 0.11 kWh/m3 at design flux. Membrane integrity (SDI15 below 0.5 on all trains) was maintained throughout the first 18 months of operation. CIP chemical consumption was 30% below design estimate due to optimised CEB scheduling.
Questions to Ask Shortlisted Providers
- 1
What is the target membrane flux (LMH), and has the design flux been validated against the specific raw water fouling potential (SDI, SUVA, TOC)?
Operating above the critical flux for the specific water quality causes irreversible fouling; SUVA (specific UV absorbance) above 2.5 L/mg.m indicates high NOM fouling risk requiring lower flux or inline coagulation pre-treatment.
- 2
What Cryptosporidium log reduction credit will be assigned to the UF system under the DWI risk assessment, and what integrity testing frequency is required?
DWI Cryptosporidium risk assessments assign log credit to UF based on demonstrated integrity testing; pressure hold test or vacuum decay test must detect a single fibre break; testing frequency and alarm action levels must be defined in the risk assessment.
- 3
What chemical enhanced backwash (CEB) and clean-in-place (CIP) frequency and chemical regime is specified, and what is the wastewater disposal route?
CEB (sodium hypochlorite and citric acid) is essential for sustainable NOM fouling management; CIP frequency affects membrane life and chemical cost; CEB/CIP reject water disposal must be accounted for in the wastewater management plan.
- 4
What is the UV transmittance (UVT) of the UF permeate and does this support the downstream UV disinfection dose calculation?
UV dose is calculated as UV intensity times exposure time at the minimum UVT; lower UVT requires higher UV intensity (more lamps, higher energy) to achieve the same log reduction; UF typically improves UVT from raw water values, reducing UV system capital and operating cost.
- 5
What is the membrane warranty period and what are the manufacturer's guaranteed performance specifications for recovery, flux, and rejection?
Membrane warranties (typically 2 to 5 years) specify minimum recovery and pressure conditions; operating outside warranty conditions voids coverage; procurement contracts should include performance guarantees linked to the warranty to protect the operator.
What Drives Cost in This Category
Pressure-driven UF modules cost GBP 200 to 600 per m2 of membrane area; for a 10 MLD plant at 50 LMH flux requiring approximately 200 m2 of membrane, module cost is GBP 40,000 to 120,000; typical module life 7 to 12 years with correct CEB and CIP management.
PACl inline coagulant pre-treatment at 4 to 8 mg/L costs GBP 0.006 to 0.018 per m3; this cost is offset by reduced membrane fouling, extended CIP intervals, and longer membrane life; omitting pre-treatment for high-NOM water causes membrane biofouling within 12 to 24 months.
Sodium hypochlorite for CEB at 500 mg/L, 15 minutes, twice weekly: approximately GBP 0.005 to 0.015 per m3 product; citric acid CIP costs GBP 0.008 to 0.02 per m3; CEB/CIP reject water disposal to inlet works or WwTW must account for chemical oxygen demand loading.
Pressure hold or vacuum decay testing requires automated instrumentation; automatic isolation and alarm on integrity failure adds GBP 15,000 to 40,000 per system but is mandatory under DWI Cryptosporidium Risk Assessment requirements for membrane systems claiming log reduction credit.
Key Regulations & Standards
UF membranes with pore size below 0.2 micron can be assigned Cryptosporidium log reduction credit in the DWI risk assessment; credit is conditional on continuous integrity monitoring, defined action levels, and documented testing protocol; full 4 log credit requires demonstrating breach detection below a single broken fibre.
UF permeate typically achieves below 0.1 NTU, providing substantial margin against the 1 NTU parametric value; turbidimeters must be calibrated and records maintained per DWI guidance on Treatment Works Risk Assessment.
PVDF, PES, and PTFE hollow fibre membranes must be manufactured from DWI Approved or WRAS-approved materials for potable water applications; membrane manufacturers must provide material certificates and compliance documentation.
UF backwash water and CIP chemical waste must be managed under an Environmental Permit or appropriate Regulatory Position Statement; discharge to sewer requires trade effluent consent covering pH, chlorine, and BOD parameters from CIP chemicals.
Explore Related Categories
Membrane Technologies
Process Applications
Related Articles from Aguato Insider
- MBR vs Conventional Activated Sludge: A B2B Comparison
- Dialysis Water Treatment: Standards, Systems & Risks
- Microfiltration: Complete Guide for Industrial Users
- RO vs Nanofiltration vs Ultrafiltration: Industrial Cost Guide
- Ultrafiltration Systems: A Technical Guide for Industrial Applications
- Reverse Osmosis Systems: Industrial Design, Sizing, and Operation
- Membrane Filtration System: Choosing Between MF, UF, NF, and RO
- Ceramic Membranes: The 15-Year TCO Case Against Polymeric UF
- Graphene-Based Water Filtration: Current State and Applications
- Ceramic vs Polymeric Membranes: Industrial Selection Guide