THE STUDY OF THE EFFICIENCY OF HOUSEHOLD REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM TO REMOVE THE POLLUTANTS FROM DIFFERENT WATER SOURCES

Abstract

The ability of household Reverse Osmosis system to treat three different water sources has been tested within a period of time. Water samples were analyzed before and after treatment with the system for physical, chemical and heavy metals parameters. The results showed that the values of temperature after treatment by Ro household filter increased slightly (29.88 ºC, 29.78 ºC and 30.66 ºC) in tap water, river water and well water respectively. While the values of pH decreased after treatment (7.07, 7 and 6.82) tap water, river water and well water respectively. The removal efficiencies of different parameters that tested during this study in tap water, river water and well water were as following: electrical conductivity (95.2%, 95.4% and 92.9%), total hardness (94.6%, 95.4% and 96.8%), free residual chlorine (100%), calcium (94.1%, 95.4% and 97.1%), magnesium (94.2%, 97.0% and 96.4%), potassium (88.6%, 72.7% and 84.9%), phosphate (86.4%, 86.8% and 84.3%), nitrite (89.1%, 92.2% and 92.2%), carbonate (100%, 96.9% and 100%), copper (19%, 64.2% and 86.6%), nickel (73.7%, 29.7% and 100%), zinc (38.5%, 83% and 57.6%).

Full text

I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
806
THE STUDY OF THE EFFICIENCY OF HOUSEHOLD REVERSE
OSMOSIS SYSTEM TO REMOVE THE POLLUTANTS FROM DIFFERENT
WATER SOURCES
Ayat Abd-Aljaleel Altekrety & Yaaroub Faleh AL-Fatlawy
Department of Biology, College of Science, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
ABSTRACT
The ability of household Reverse Osmosis system to treat three different water sources has been tested within a period of
time. Water samples were analyzed before and after treatment with the system for physical, chemical and heavy metals
parameters. The results showed that the values of temperature after treatment by Ro household filter increased slightly
(29.88 ºC, 29.78 ºC and 30.66 ºC) in tap water, river water and well water respectively. While the values of pH decreased
after treatment (7.07, 7 and 6.82) tap water, river water and well water respectively. The removal efficiencies of different
parameters that tested during this study in tap water, river water and well water were as following: electrical conductivity
(95.2%, 95.4% and 92.9%), total hardness (94.6%, 95.4% and 96.8%), free residual chlorine (100%), calcium (94.1%,
95.4% and 97.1%), magnesium (94.2%, 97.0% and 96.4%), potassium (88.6%, 72.7% and 84.9%), phosphate (86.4%,
86.8% and 84.3%), nitrite (89.1%, 92.2% and 92.2%), carbonate (100%, 96.9% and 100%), copper (19%, 64.2% and
86.6%), nickel (73.7%, 29.7% and 100%), zinc (38.5%, 83% and 57.6%).
KEYWORDS: reverse osmosis, activated carbon, tap water, river water, well water.
INTRODUCTION
The development of civilization led to increase water
consumption, which negatively affects the quality and
quantity of water sources, therefore to resolve these
problems advanced water treatment technology is needed
such as Reverse osmosis (RO)[1]. In osmosis, water flows
from the lower concentration side of solid to the higher
concentration side through a selective membrane
depending on the naturally occurring osmotic pressure.
While in reverse osmosis an applied pressure force water to
flow in opposite direction leaving behind a concentrated
solution of dissolved solids[2]. The household reverse
osmosis (RO) water treatment system has been spreading
in Iraq, especially in recent years due to deterioration of
water sources. Most RO systems consist of the following
stages.
A. Sediment filter: Polypropylene wound cartridges with
size being of 5μm[3]. It is used to remove fine particles such
as clay, silt and suspended solids[4].
B. Granular activated carbon filter (GAC): Its particles
have sizes ranging from 0.2 to 5 mm[5]. It is able to remove
chlorine, chloramines, and organic chemicals of low
molecular weight such as pesticides, herbicides, and
industrial solvents[4, 6].
C. Block Activated Carbon filter (BAC): finely
powdered (block) carbon that has been bound together into
a rigid solid and it has a relatively smaller particle size
range between 15–25 microns [6, 7]. It is used for taste and
odor control and also effective in removing the organic
precursors that react with chlorine to form harmful THM
compounds after disinfection [8].
D. RO Membrane filter: The spiral wound composite
polyamide membranes are the most widely used types of
membranes for reverse osmosis. The surface morphology
of a polyamide membrane is rough, allowing for many
areas where foulants can be captured and held by the
membrane [9].
E. Post Activated Carbon Filter: to remove compounds
that cause unpleasant taste and odors, including those from
the tank, plastic tubing or any leftover chemicals just
before the water is distributed [10].
F. Grancal Post Filter: It is made from natural healthy
source of granulate calcium, magnesium and carbon that’s
provide a balanced pH adjustment to prevent acid water
corrosion and returning the beneficial minerals calcium and
magnesium to the drinking water [11].
G. Ultra Violet Filter: it ensures product water free from
microbial contamination.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Water samples collected from three different water sources
include: tap water samples collected from the advanced
ecology lap at biology department, river water samples
collected from Tigris River and well water samples
collected from home well at AL-Ghazalia city from about 9
meters below the earth surface. The study period extended
from the beginning of November 2016 to the end of April
2017 in which 25 liters of each water sources were passed
through the RO system and the water samples before and
after treatment were analyzed using different physical,
chemical and heavy metals tests.
Water samples before and after treatment with the RO
system were analyzed for: temperature, pH, Ec, total
hardness, free residual chlorine, Ca, Mg, K, Po4, No2, Co3,
Cu +2, Ni +2, Zn +2. Temperature was measured by HANNA
meter. PH was measured by PH-meter 315i/SET/WTW/
Germany. Electrical conductivity was measured by EC
meter 330i/ST/ WTW/ Germany. Total hardness and Ca

Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
807
were measured by titration with 0.01N EDTA. Mg was
measured by the difference between total hardness and
calcium hardness. Free residual chlorine was measured by
lovibond Comparator 2000+ portable meter. NO3, NO2and
PO4were measured by ultraviolet spectrophotometric
screening method. CO3was measured by titration with
H2SO4. K was measured by the flame photometric method.
Heavy metals were measured by flame atomic absorption
spectrometry (FAAS) [12].
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Temperature: The average values of temperature in inlet
water for tap water, river water and well water were 23.44
ºC, 16.5 ºC, and 17.66 ºC respectively and of outlet water
29.88 ºC, 29.78 ºC and 30.66 ºC respectively. The increase
in water temperature may relate to the low-pressure
mercury vapor lamp emits energy in the form of heat, and
this energy cases warms the water up [14].
FIGURE 1: Mean Temperature Value (ºC) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
PH: The results showed that the average values of inlet
water for tap water, river water and well water were 7.8,
7.7 and 7.74[13] respectively and of outlet water 7.07, 7 and
6.82 [13] respectively. The reduction of pH value due to the
desalination process and the elements removal [15]. These
results agreed with the studies of [15, 16].
FIGURE 2: Mean pH Value of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Electrical conductivity: The removal efficiencies of (EC) in
tap water, river water and well water were 95.2%, 95.4%
and 92.9% [13] with average concentrations of inlet water
840.8 µs/cm, 921 µs/cm and 4526 µs/cm respectively and
of outlet water 40.24 µs/cm, 42.02 µs/cm and 318.88
µs/cm[13] respectively. These results agreed with the studies
of [16, 17].
FIGURE 3: Mean Electrical Conductivity Value (µs/cm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
0
10
20
30
40
Tap Water
Temperature ( C )
0
2
4
6
8
Tap Water
PH
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Tap Water
Ec ( Us/cm )
Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
807
were measured by titration with 0.01N EDTA. Mg was
measured by the difference between total hardness and
calcium hardness. Free residual chlorine was measured by
lovibond Comparator 2000+ portable meter. NO3, NO2and
PO4were measured by ultraviolet spectrophotometric
screening method. CO3was measured by titration with
H2SO4. K was measured by the flame photometric method.
Heavy metals were measured by flame atomic absorption
spectrometry (FAAS) [12].
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Temperature: The average values of temperature in inlet
water for tap water, river water and well water were 23.44
ºC, 16.5 ºC, and 17.66 ºC respectively and of outlet water
29.88 ºC, 29.78 ºC and 30.66 ºC respectively. The increase
in water temperature may relate to the low-pressure
mercury vapor lamp emits energy in the form of heat, and
this energy cases warms the water up [14].
FIGURE 1: Mean Temperature Value (ºC) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
PH: The results showed that the average values of inlet
water for tap water, river water and well water were 7.8,
7.7 and 7.74[13] respectively and of outlet water 7.07, 7 and
6.82 [13] respectively. The reduction of pH value due to the
desalination process and the elements removal [15]. These
results agreed with the studies of [15, 16].
FIGURE 2: Mean pH Value of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Electrical conductivity: The removal efficiencies of (EC) in
tap water, river water and well water were 95.2%, 95.4%
and 92.9% [13] with average concentrations of inlet water
840.8 µs/cm, 921 µs/cm and 4526 µs/cm respectively and
of outlet water 40.24 µs/cm, 42.02 µs/cm and 318.88
µs/cm[13] respectively. These results agreed with the studies
of [16, 17].
FIGURE 3: Mean Electrical Conductivity Value (µs/cm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
807
were measured by titration with 0.01N EDTA. Mg was
measured by the difference between total hardness and
calcium hardness. Free residual chlorine was measured by
lovibond Comparator 2000+ portable meter. NO3, NO2and
PO4were measured by ultraviolet spectrophotometric
screening method. CO3was measured by titration with
H2SO4. K was measured by the flame photometric method.
Heavy metals were measured by flame atomic absorption
spectrometry (FAAS) [12].
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Temperature: The average values of temperature in inlet
water for tap water, river water and well water were 23.44
ºC, 16.5 ºC, and 17.66 ºC respectively and of outlet water
29.88 ºC, 29.78 ºC and 30.66 ºC respectively. The increase
in water temperature may relate to the low-pressure
mercury vapor lamp emits energy in the form of heat, and
this energy cases warms the water up [14].
FIGURE 1: Mean Temperature Value (ºC) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
PH: The results showed that the average values of inlet
water for tap water, river water and well water were 7.8,
7.7 and 7.74[13] respectively and of outlet water 7.07, 7 and
6.82 [13] respectively. The reduction of pH value due to the
desalination process and the elements removal [15]. These
results agreed with the studies of [15, 16].
FIGURE 2: Mean pH Value of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Electrical conductivity: The removal efficiencies of (EC) in
tap water, river water and well water were 95.2%, 95.4%
and 92.9% [13] with average concentrations of inlet water
840.8 µs/cm, 921 µs/cm and 4526 µs/cm respectively and
of outlet water 40.24 µs/cm, 42.02 µs/cm and 318.88
µs/cm[13] respectively. These results agreed with the studies
of [16, 17].
FIGURE 3: Mean Electrical Conductivity Value (µs/cm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Before filter
Before filter
807

I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
808
Total hardness: The results showed that the Reverse
Osmosis filter was able to remove (94.6%) of total
hardness in tap water with average concentrations of inlet
water (460.4 ppm) and of outlet water (24.8 ppm). Higher
removal efficiency found in river water (95.4%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (438 ppm) and of
outlet water (20 ppm). The highest removal efficiency was
in well water (96.8% [13]) with average concentrations of
inlet water (1500 ppm) and of outlet water (48 ppm).
Reverse Osmosis membrane is able to reduce water
hardness, but the high level of hardness can adversely
affect RO membrane and reduce its life as it is quickly
fouled by hard water. Therefore, pre-filter must be used
such as activated carbon filter to protect the RO membrane
[18].
FIGURE 4: Mean Total Hardness Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Free residual chlorine: The removal efficiency of chlorine
by RO household filter in tap water was (100%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (2.52 ppm) and of
outlet water (zero ppm). In both river water and well water,
there is no chlorine in inlet and outlet water. The study of
[19] showed similar finding. The removal mechanism of AC
involves a chemical reaction of the activated carbon’s
surface being oxidized by chlorine as shown below:
HOCl + Carbon →H+ + Cl– + CO
OCl–+ Carbon →Cl–+ CO
These reactions occur very quickly in which chlorine
reduced to chloride ion and the site of (AC) after reacting
with chlorine is CO [20].
FIGURE 5: Mean Free Residual Chlorine Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
FIGURE 6: Mean Calcium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
0
500
1000
1500
Tap Water
Total Hardness ( ppm )
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Tap Water
Free R.esidual
Chlorine(ppm)
0
100
200
300
400
Tap Water
Ca (ppm)
I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
808
Total hardness: The results showed that the Reverse
Osmosis filter was able to remove (94.6%) of total
hardness in tap water with average concentrations of inlet
water (460.4 ppm) and of outlet water (24.8 ppm). Higher
removal efficiency found in river water (95.4%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (438 ppm) and of
outlet water (20 ppm). The highest removal efficiency was
in well water (96.8% [13]) with average concentrations of
inlet water (1500 ppm) and of outlet water (48 ppm).
Reverse Osmosis membrane is able to reduce water
hardness, but the high level of hardness can adversely
affect RO membrane and reduce its life as it is quickly
fouled by hard water. Therefore, pre-filter must be used
such as activated carbon filter to protect the RO membrane
[18].
FIGURE 4: Mean Total Hardness Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Free residual chlorine: The removal efficiency of chlorine
by RO household filter in tap water was (100%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (2.52 ppm) and of
outlet water (zero ppm). In both river water and well water,
there is no chlorine in inlet and outlet water. The study of
[19] showed similar finding. The removal mechanism of AC
involves a chemical reaction of the activated carbon’s
surface being oxidized by chlorine as shown below:
HOCl + Carbon →H+ + Cl– + CO
OCl–+ Carbon →Cl–+ CO
These reactions occur very quickly in which chlorine
reduced to chloride ion and the site of (AC) after reacting
with chlorine is CO [20].
FIGURE 5: Mean Free Residual Chlorine Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
FIGURE 6: Mean Calcium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
808
Total hardness: The results showed that the Reverse
Osmosis filter was able to remove (94.6%) of total
hardness in tap water with average concentrations of inlet
water (460.4 ppm) and of outlet water (24.8 ppm). Higher
removal efficiency found in river water (95.4%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (438 ppm) and of
outlet water (20 ppm). The highest removal efficiency was
in well water (96.8% [13]) with average concentrations of
inlet water (1500 ppm) and of outlet water (48 ppm).
Reverse Osmosis membrane is able to reduce water
hardness, but the high level of hardness can adversely
affect RO membrane and reduce its life as it is quickly
fouled by hard water. Therefore, pre-filter must be used
such as activated carbon filter to protect the RO membrane
[18].
FIGURE 4: Mean Total Hardness Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Free residual chlorine: The removal efficiency of chlorine
by RO household filter in tap water was (100%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (2.52 ppm) and of
outlet water (zero ppm). In both river water and well water,
there is no chlorine in inlet and outlet water. The study of
[19] showed similar finding. The removal mechanism of AC
involves a chemical reaction of the activated carbon’s
surface being oxidized by chlorine as shown below:
HOCl + Carbon →H+ + Cl– + CO
OCl–+ Carbon →Cl–+ CO
These reactions occur very quickly in which chlorine
reduced to chloride ion and the site of (AC) after reacting
with chlorine is CO [20].
FIGURE 5: Mean Free Residual Chlorine Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
FIGURE 6: Mean Calcium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Before filter
Before filter
Before filter
808

Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
809
Calcium (Ca+2): The results of calcium removal in tap
water by the RO household filter showed a high removal
efficiency which reached to (94.1%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (112.2 ppm) and of outlet
water (6.6 ppm). While in river water the removal
efficiency was (95.4%) with average concentrations of
inlet water (133.2 ppm) and of outlet water (6.04 ppm). For
well water the removal efficiency reached to (97.1% [13])
with average concentrations of inlet water (344 ppm) and
of outlet water (9.96 ppm). These results agreed with the
studies of [21, 22].
Magnesium (Mg+2): High concentrations of magnesium
and sulfate in drinking water above 250 mg/l cause a
laxative effect [23]. The current work showed high removal
efficiency for magnesium in tap water, river water and well
water as 94.2%, 97.0% and 96.4% [13] respectively. While
the average concentrations of inlet water were (36.32 ppm,
26.8 ppm and 155.6 ppm) respectively; and the average
concentrations of outlet water were (2.1 ppm, 0.78 ppm,
and 5.56 ppm) respectively. The studies of [24, 25] showed
similar results to this study. The low concentration of Ca+,
Mg and total hardness in RO water attributed to the process
of desalinization which removes the minerals from the raw
water [26].
FIGURE 7: Mean Magnesium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Potassium (K): Consuming drinking-water with unusually
high levels of potassium may cause hyperkalaemia in
individuals especially those in which excretion of
potassium ions might be reduced or compromised,
including those with kidney disease or renal insufficiency,
older individuals and infants with immature kidney
function [27]. Regarding water potassium content, the
results showed that the percent of removal of potassium
from tap water by the RO household filter reached to
(88.6%) with average concentrations of inlet water (3.09
ppm) and of outlet water (0.35 ppm). Lower removal
efficiency founded in river water (72.7%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (2.02 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.5 ppm). Finally, in well water the removal
efficiency (84.9%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (3.32 ppm) and of outlet water (0.5 ppm). Same
results were found in the studies of [28, 29].
FIGURE 8: Mean Potassium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Phosphate (Po4): It has been found that the RO household
filter was able to remove (86.4%) of phosphate from tap
water with average concentrations of inlet water (1.14
ppm) and of outlet water (0.154 ppm). While in river
water, the removal efficiency was (86.8%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (1.22 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.16 ppm). For well water, RO filter was able to
remove (84.3%) with average concentrations of inlet water
(3.96 ppm) and of outlet water (0.62 ppm). The results
obtained in this study agreed with the studies of [24, 30 ].
0
50
100
150
200
Tap Water
Mg (ppm)
0
1
2
3
4
Tap Water
K (ppm)
Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
809
Calcium (Ca+2): The results of calcium removal in tap
water by the RO household filter showed a high removal
efficiency which reached to (94.1%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (112.2 ppm) and of outlet
water (6.6 ppm). While in river water the removal
efficiency was (95.4%) with average concentrations of
inlet water (133.2 ppm) and of outlet water (6.04 ppm). For
well water the removal efficiency reached to (97.1% [13])
with average concentrations of inlet water (344 ppm) and
of outlet water (9.96 ppm). These results agreed with the
studies of [21, 22].
Magnesium (Mg+2): High concentrations of magnesium
and sulfate in drinking water above 250 mg/l cause a
laxative effect [23]. The current work showed high removal
efficiency for magnesium in tap water, river water and well
water as 94.2%, 97.0% and 96.4% [13] respectively. While
the average concentrations of inlet water were (36.32 ppm,
26.8 ppm and 155.6 ppm) respectively; and the average
concentrations of outlet water were (2.1 ppm, 0.78 ppm,
and 5.56 ppm) respectively. The studies of [24, 25] showed
similar results to this study. The low concentration of Ca+,
Mg and total hardness in RO water attributed to the process
of desalinization which removes the minerals from the raw
water [26].
FIGURE 7: Mean Magnesium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Potassium (K): Consuming drinking-water with unusually
high levels of potassium may cause hyperkalaemia in
individuals especially those in which excretion of
potassium ions might be reduced or compromised,
including those with kidney disease or renal insufficiency,
older individuals and infants with immature kidney
function [27]. Regarding water potassium content, the
results showed that the percent of removal of potassium
from tap water by the RO household filter reached to
(88.6%) with average concentrations of inlet water (3.09
ppm) and of outlet water (0.35 ppm). Lower removal
efficiency founded in river water (72.7%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (2.02 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.5 ppm). Finally, in well water the removal
efficiency (84.9%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (3.32 ppm) and of outlet water (0.5 ppm). Same
results were found in the studies of [28, 29].
FIGURE 8: Mean Potassium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Phosphate (Po4): It has been found that the RO household
filter was able to remove (86.4%) of phosphate from tap
water with average concentrations of inlet water (1.14
ppm) and of outlet water (0.154 ppm). While in river
water, the removal efficiency was (86.8%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (1.22 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.16 ppm). For well water, RO filter was able to
remove (84.3%) with average concentrations of inlet water
(3.96 ppm) and of outlet water (0.62 ppm). The results
obtained in this study agreed with the studies of [24, 30 ].
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
809
Calcium (Ca+2): The results of calcium removal in tap
water by the RO household filter showed a high removal
efficiency which reached to (94.1%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (112.2 ppm) and of outlet
water (6.6 ppm). While in river water the removal
efficiency was (95.4%) with average concentrations of
inlet water (133.2 ppm) and of outlet water (6.04 ppm). For
well water the removal efficiency reached to (97.1% [13])
with average concentrations of inlet water (344 ppm) and
of outlet water (9.96 ppm). These results agreed with the
studies of [21, 22].
Magnesium (Mg+2): High concentrations of magnesium
and sulfate in drinking water above 250 mg/l cause a
laxative effect [23]. The current work showed high removal
efficiency for magnesium in tap water, river water and well
water as 94.2%, 97.0% and 96.4% [13] respectively. While
the average concentrations of inlet water were (36.32 ppm,
26.8 ppm and 155.6 ppm) respectively; and the average
concentrations of outlet water were (2.1 ppm, 0.78 ppm,
and 5.56 ppm) respectively. The studies of [24, 25] showed
similar results to this study. The low concentration of Ca+,
Mg and total hardness in RO water attributed to the process
of desalinization which removes the minerals from the raw
water [26].
FIGURE 7: Mean Magnesium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Potassium (K): Consuming drinking-water with unusually
high levels of potassium may cause hyperkalaemia in
individuals especially those in which excretion of
potassium ions might be reduced or compromised,
including those with kidney disease or renal insufficiency,
older individuals and infants with immature kidney
function [27]. Regarding water potassium content, the
results showed that the percent of removal of potassium
from tap water by the RO household filter reached to
(88.6%) with average concentrations of inlet water (3.09
ppm) and of outlet water (0.35 ppm). Lower removal
efficiency founded in river water (72.7%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (2.02 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.5 ppm). Finally, in well water the removal
efficiency (84.9%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (3.32 ppm) and of outlet water (0.5 ppm). Same
results were found in the studies of [28, 29].
FIGURE 8: Mean Potassium Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Phosphate (Po4): It has been found that the RO household
filter was able to remove (86.4%) of phosphate from tap
water with average concentrations of inlet water (1.14
ppm) and of outlet water (0.154 ppm). While in river
water, the removal efficiency was (86.8%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (1.22 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.16 ppm). For well water, RO filter was able to
remove (84.3%) with average concentrations of inlet water
(3.96 ppm) and of outlet water (0.62 ppm). The results
obtained in this study agreed with the studies of [24, 30 ].
Before filter
Before filter
After filter
809

I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
810
FIGURE 9: Mean Phosphate Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Nitrite (NO2-): The result showed that the removal
efficiency of nitrite in tap water was (89.1%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (3.06 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.332 ppm). The removal efficiency of RO
household filter in both river water and well water were
(92.2%) with average concentrations of inlet water (3.52
ppm, 7.04 ppm) respectively, and of outlet water (0.274
ppm, 0.548 ppm) respectively. This result agreed with the
result of [31].
FIGURE 10: Mean Nitrite Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Carbonate (CO3): The removal efficiency of carbonate in
tap water was (100%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (3.6 ppm) and of outlet water (zero ppm). While in
river water the removal efficiency was (96.9%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (7.2 ppm) and of
outlet water (0.22 ppm). In well water the removal
efficiency was (100%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (7.2 ppm) and of outlet water (Zero ppm).
FIGURE 11: Mean Carbonate Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
0
1
2
3
4
Tap Water
PO4 (ppm)
0
2
4
6
8
Tap Water
NO2 (ppm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tap Water
CO3(ppm)
I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
810
FIGURE 9: Mean Phosphate Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Nitrite (NO2-): The result showed that the removal
efficiency of nitrite in tap water was (89.1%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (3.06 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.332 ppm). The removal efficiency of RO
household filter in both river water and well water were
(92.2%) with average concentrations of inlet water (3.52
ppm, 7.04 ppm) respectively, and of outlet water (0.274
ppm, 0.548 ppm) respectively. This result agreed with the
result of [31].
FIGURE 10: Mean Nitrite Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Carbonate (CO3): The removal efficiency of carbonate in
tap water was (100%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (3.6 ppm) and of outlet water (zero ppm). While in
river water the removal efficiency was (96.9%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (7.2 ppm) and of
outlet water (0.22 ppm). In well water the removal
efficiency was (100%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (7.2 ppm) and of outlet water (Zero ppm).
FIGURE 11: Mean Carbonate Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
WellWater
Before filter
After filter
I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
810
FIGURE 9: Mean Phosphate Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Nitrite (NO2-): The result showed that the removal
efficiency of nitrite in tap water was (89.1%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (3.06 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.332 ppm). The removal efficiency of RO
household filter in both river water and well water were
(92.2%) with average concentrations of inlet water (3.52
ppm, 7.04 ppm) respectively, and of outlet water (0.274
ppm, 0.548 ppm) respectively. This result agreed with the
result of [31].
FIGURE 10: Mean Nitrite Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Carbonate (CO3): The removal efficiency of carbonate in
tap water was (100%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (3.6 ppm) and of outlet water (zero ppm). While in
river water the removal efficiency was (96.9%) with
average concentrations of inlet water (7.2 ppm) and of
outlet water (0.22 ppm). In well water the removal
efficiency was (100%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (7.2 ppm) and of outlet water (Zero ppm).
FIGURE 11: Mean Carbonate Ions Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Before filter
Before filter
Before filter
810

Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
811
Copper (Cu+2): High levels of copper in drinking water can
cause vomiting, abdominal pain, nausea; diarrhea and can
cause death by nervous system, liver and kidney failure [23].
The obtained results showed that the Reverse Osmosis
system was able to remove (19%, 64.2% and 86.6%) of
(Cu) from tap water, river water and well water
respectively. The average concentrations of inlet water
were (0.02 ppm, 0.014 ppm and 0.03 ppm) respectively,
and of outlet water (0.0162 ppm, 0.005 ppm and 0.004
ppm) respectively. These results were different from the
study of [24] which found that the RO system was able to
remove (97%) of copper solution.
FIGURE 12: Mean Copper Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Nickel (Ni+2): In high quantities Ni can also cause cancer,
respiratory failure, birth defects, allergies, dermatitis,
eczema, nervous system and heart failure [33]. The results
showed that the removal efficiency of RO system to
remove (Ni) from tap water was (73.7%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (0.016 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.0042 ppm). In river water the removal efficiency
was (29.7%) with average concentrations of inlet water
(0.0074 ppm) and of outlet water (0.0052 ppm). In well
water the removal efficiency was (100%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (0.014 ppm) and of outlet
water (Zero ppm). The results disagreed with the study of
[34].
FIGURE 13: Mean Nickel Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
FIGURE 14: Mean Zinc Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
Tap Water
Cu (ppm)
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
Tap Water
Ni (ppm)
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Tap Water
Zn (ppm)
Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
811
Copper (Cu+2): High levels of copper in drinking water can
cause vomiting, abdominal pain, nausea; diarrhea and can
cause death by nervous system, liver and kidney failure [23].
The obtained results showed that the Reverse Osmosis
system was able to remove (19%, 64.2% and 86.6%) of
(Cu) from tap water, river water and well water
respectively. The average concentrations of inlet water
were (0.02 ppm, 0.014 ppm and 0.03 ppm) respectively,
and of outlet water (0.0162 ppm, 0.005 ppm and 0.004
ppm) respectively. These results were different from the
study of [24] which found that the RO system was able to
remove (97%) of copper solution.
FIGURE 12: Mean Copper Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Nickel (Ni+2): In high quantities Ni can also cause cancer,
respiratory failure, birth defects, allergies, dermatitis,
eczema, nervous system and heart failure [33]. The results
showed that the removal efficiency of RO system to
remove (Ni) from tap water was (73.7%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (0.016 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.0042 ppm). In river water the removal efficiency
was (29.7%) with average concentrations of inlet water
(0.0074 ppm) and of outlet water (0.0052 ppm). In well
water the removal efficiency was (100%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (0.014 ppm) and of outlet
water (Zero ppm). The results disagreed with the study of
[34].
FIGURE 13: Mean Nickel Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
FIGURE 14: Mean Zinc Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Tap Water
River Water
Well Water
Before filter
After filter
Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
811
Copper (Cu+2): High levels of copper in drinking water can
cause vomiting, abdominal pain, nausea; diarrhea and can
cause death by nervous system, liver and kidney failure [23].
The obtained results showed that the Reverse Osmosis
system was able to remove (19%, 64.2% and 86.6%) of
(Cu) from tap water, river water and well water
respectively. The average concentrations of inlet water
were (0.02 ppm, 0.014 ppm and 0.03 ppm) respectively,
and of outlet water (0.0162 ppm, 0.005 ppm and 0.004
ppm) respectively. These results were different from the
study of [24] which found that the RO system was able to
remove (97%) of copper solution.
FIGURE 12: Mean Copper Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Nickel (Ni+2): In high quantities Ni can also cause cancer,
respiratory failure, birth defects, allergies, dermatitis,
eczema, nervous system and heart failure [33]. The results
showed that the removal efficiency of RO system to
remove (Ni) from tap water was (73.7%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (0.016 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.0042 ppm). In river water the removal efficiency
was (29.7%) with average concentrations of inlet water
(0.0074 ppm) and of outlet water (0.0052 ppm). In well
water the removal efficiency was (100%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (0.014 ppm) and of outlet
water (Zero ppm). The results disagreed with the study of
[34].
FIGURE 13: Mean Nickel Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
FIGURE 14: Mean Zinc Value (ppm) of Water Samples before/after Treatment
Before filter
Before filter
Before filter
811

I.J.S.N., VOL.8 (4) 2017: 806-813 ISSN 2229 –6441
812
Zinc (Zn+2): High concentration of zinc cause vomiting,
lethargy abdominal pain, anemia, dizziness and nausea [35].
The removal efficiency of the Reverse Osmosis system in
tap water was (38.5%) with average concentrations of inlet
water (0.042 ppm) and of outlet water (0.0258 ppm). In
river water the removal efficiency (83%) with average
concentrations of inlet water (0.02 ppm) and of outlet
water (0.0054 ppm). In well water the removal efficiency
was (57.6%) with average concentrations of inlet water
(0.052 ppm) and of outlet water (0.022 ppm). [3 6, 37] reached
to the same results, but disagreed with [38] who found that
the removal rate was 98.2%.
According to the negative charge of RO membrane and the
Donnan potential, the positively charge ions (cations) such
as calcium and magnesium had a higher removal
efficiencies than the negatively charge ions (anions) such
as, nitrite and phosphate [39]. Also, the surface of AC has a
negative charged at high pH value because the numbers of
the hydroxyl ions concentration increase and result in
enhancing the adsorption of cationic contaminants [40].
According to this reason the removal efficiency of cations
group was higher than of anions group except for
potassium because of its low concentration.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study showed that the Reverse osmosis
system was efficient in removing water contaminants with
a high value. So this type of systems is recommended to
treat water contamination.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the staff of Ecology
Science at Department of biology, College of Sciences,
University Of Baghdad, Baghdad.
REFERENCES
[1]. Kieniewicz, A. (2006) A reverse osmosis (RO) plant
for sewage treatment and nutrient recovery–the
influence of pre-treatment methods. TRITA-LWR
Degree Project, 06-08.
[2]. McMordie Stoughton, K., Duan, X., & Wendel, E.M.
(2013) Reverse Osmosis Optimization (No. PNNL-
22682) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL), Richland, WA (US).
[3]. AWWA. American Water Works Association (2007)
Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration: Manual of
Water Supply Practices (M46).
[4]. Ingram, C. (2006) The Drinking Water Book: How to
Eliminate the Most Harmful Toxins from Your
Water. Random House Digital, Inc.
[5]. Poulopoulos, S.G., & Inglezakis, V.J. (2006)
Adsorption, ion exchange and catalysis: design of
operations and environmental applications. Elsevier
Science & Technology.
[6]. Haas, E.M. (2006) Staying Healthy With Nutrition,
21st Century Edition: The Complete Guide to Diet &
Nutritional Medicine. Random House Digital, Inc.
[7]. Degremont, S.A. (1979) Water treatment handbook.
5th ed, Halsted Press, New York.
[8]. Spellman, F.R. & Drinan, J. (2012) The drinking
water handbook. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis
Group.
[9]. Kucera, J. (2015) Reverse osmosis: design, processes,
and applications for engineers. John Wiley & Sons.
[10]. Kneen, B., Lemley, A. & Wagenet, L. (2005)
Reverse Osmosis Treatment of Drinking Water.
Water Conditioning and Purification International,
50, 58.
[11]. Puricom Company Site. Available online at: http://
www. puricom.com/exec/ product.php? mod= show
& cid= 69&pid= FT-0033-2&lg=E
[12]. APHA, AWWA and WEF (2012) Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 22st
edition. Washington, DC: American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association,
Water Environment Federation.
[13]. Altekrety, A.A., AL-Fatlawy, Y.F. (2017) The Study
of Groundwater Treatment by Household Reverse
Osmosis System. International Journal of Science and
Research, 6: 648-653. DOI: 10.21275/ART20176684.
[14]. Luminoruv, (2017). Available at: http://www. Lum
inoruv. com/ qanda_uv.php
[15]. Aish, A.M. (2011) Water quality evaluation of small
scale desalination plants in the Gaza Strip, Palestine.
Desalination and Water Treatment, 29(1-3), 164-173.
[16]. Belkacem, M., Bekhti, S. & Bensadok, K. (2007)
Groundwater treatment by reverse osmosis.
Desalination, 206(1-3), 100-106.
[17]. Hamdy, S.M. (2016) Examination and Analysis of
Water from Household Water Filter System
(Kifllow). Eng. & Tech. Journal, Vol. 34, Part (B),
No. 3, 2016.
[18]. Benham, B.L. & Ling, E. (2013) Virginia Household
Water Quality Program: Household Water Treatment.
Virginia Cooperative Extension, p. 442-670.
[19]. Lim, M., Delehomme, C. & Capece, J. (2008)
Removal of Residual Chlorine from Drinking-Water
By Solar Radiation (UV) and Activated Carbon
Filtration. Intelligentsia International, Inc.
[20]. Potwora, R. (2009). Chlorine and chloramine
removal with activated carbon. Water Conditioning
& Purification, 14-16.
[21]. Saad, N.A., Bashboosh, A.E., Abbass, T.S. (2012)
Bacteriological and Chemical study on different types
of Drinking Water. Kufa Med. Journal 2012. VOL.
15.No.1.
[22]. Abbas, A.H. (2015) RO softens brackish groundwater
in Tikrit, Iraq. World Water: Water Reuse &
Desalination.
[23]. WHO (World Health Organization) (2011)
Guidelines for drinking-water quality - 4th ed.
Geneva 27, Switzerland.
[24]. Schoeman, J.J. & Steyn, A. (2003) Nitrate removal
with reverse osmosis in a rural area in South Africa.
Desalination, 155(1), 15-26.
[25]. Pawlak, Z., Żak, S. & Zabłocki, L. (2006) Removal
of Hazardous Metals from Groundwater by Reverse
Osmosis. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,
15(4) 21-29.
[26]. Moyel, M.S., Amteghy, A.H., Naseer, T.K., Mahdi,
E.A., Younus, B.M. & Albadran, M.A. (2013)
Comparison of total hardness, calcium and
magnesium concentrations in drinking water (RO),
and municipal water with WHO and local authorities
at Basrah province, Iraq. Marsh Bulletin 8(1)65-75.

Mice fertility by immunization with culture filtrated C. pseudotuberculosis
813
[27]. WHO. (World health organization) (2009) Guidelines
for Drinking-water Quality, WHO/HSE/ WSH/
09.01/7.
[28]. Garabedian, S.A. (2011) The Quality of Reverse
Osmosis Water in Storage Tanks in Basrah city –
Iraq. Marsh Bulletin 6(1)1-8.
[29]. Al-Bayati, M.A., Saleh, S.A. & Al-Abdraba, W.M.
(2015) Evaluation of Efficiency of Groundwater
Desalination Plants in Different Hydrogeological
Conditions in Salahaddin Governorate/ Iraq. Tikrit
Journal of Pure Science, 20(5).
[30]. Bodalo-Santoyo, A., Gómez-Carrasco, J. L., Gomez-
Gomez, E., Maximo-Martin, F. & Hidalgo-
Montesinos, A. M. (2003) Application of reverse
osmosis to reduce pollutants present in industrial
wastewater. Desalination, 155(2), 101-108.
[31]. Šír, M., Podhola, M., Patočka, T., Honzajková, Z. ,
Kocurek, P., Bystrianský, M., Vurm1, R. & Kubal,
M. (2015) Removal of pesticides and inorganic
pollutants by reverse osmosis. Environment
Protection Engineering, 41(2).
[32]. Qdais, H.A. & Moussa, H. (2004) Removal of heavy
metals from wastewater by membrane processes: a
comparative study. Desalination, 164(2), 105-110.
[33]. Marfo, B.T. (2014) Heavy metals contaminations of
soil and water at Agbogbloshie Scrap Market, Accra
(Doctoral dissertation).
[34]. Rodrigues Pires da Silva, J., Merçon, F., Guimarães
Costa, C.M. & Radoman Benjo, D. (2016)
Application of reverse osmosis process associated
with EDTA complexation for nickel and copper
removal from wastewater. Desalination and Water
Treatment, 57(41), 19466-19474.
[35]. Porea, T.J., Belmont, J.W. & Mahoney Jr, D.H.
(2000) Zinc-induced anemia and neutropenia in an
adolescent. The Journal of pediatrics, 136(5), 688-
690.
[36]. Al-Jlil, S.A. & Alharbi, O.A. (2010) Comparative
study on the use of reverse osmosis and adsorption
process for heavy metals removal from wastewater in
Saudi Arabia. Research Journal of Environmental
Sciences, 4(4), 400-406.
[37]. Al-Alawy, F.A. and Salih, M.H. (2016) Experimental
Study and Mathematical Modelling of Zinc Removal
by Reverse Osmosis Membranes. Iraqi Journal of
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering. Vol.17 No.3,
57- 73. ISSN: 1997-4884.
[38]. Aljendeel, H.A. (2011) Removal of heavy metals
using reverse osmosis. Journal of Engineering,
Volume 17 June 2011, Number 3.
[39]. Ong, S.L., Zhou, W., Song, L. & Ng, W.J. (2002)
Evaluation of feed concentration effects on salt/ion
transport through RO/NF membranes with the
Nernst- Planck- Donnan model. Environmental
engineering science, 19(6), 429-439.
[40]. Iqbal, M.J. & Ashiq, M.N. (2007) Adsorption of dyes
from aqueous solutions on activated charcoal. Journal
of Hazardous Materials, 139(1), 57-66.