This research examines the performance of two commercially available point-of-use (POU) microfiltration membrane filters (MF) under hydrated (wet) versus a multi-day dry period (dehydrated). Filter performance is monitored in terms of water quality and flowrate, as well as flowrate recovery following different cleaning regimes. The cleaning methods tested were backwashing with filtrate at room temperature, filtrate heated to 45 °C, filtrate at 45 °C with gentle shaking, and a vinegar solution (5% acetic acid). The selected cleaning methods reflect easily accessible cleaning methods with a goal to assess their impacts on flowrate recovery under both wet and dry conditions. After initial testing, hydrated MF flowrate varied between 197 ± 22 mL/min and backwashing with filtrate at room temperature was sufficient to maintain the membrane flowrate, while any of the other methods initially improved the system flowrate. In experiments where the filters were subject to a 5-day dry condition MF flowrates dropped to 65 ± 35 mL/min and filtrate at room temperature did not recover the flowrate sufficiently, however heated filtrate (45 °C) with/without gentle shaking was effective at recovering the MF for use. Water quality remained similar throughout the study, and 0 CFU/mL of E. coli were found in filtrate samples.

本研究考察了两种市售使用点 (POU) 微滤膜过滤器 (MF) 在水合（湿）状态下与多天干燥状态（脱水）下的性能。过滤器性能根据水质和流量以及不同清洁方案后的流量恢复情况进行监控。测试的清洗方法是用室温滤液反洗、将滤液加热至45℃、45℃轻轻摇动滤液以及醋溶液（5%乙酸）反洗。所选的清洁方法反映了易于使用的清洁方法，旨在评估其在潮湿和干燥条件下对流量恢复的影响。初始测试后，水合 MF 流速在 197 ± 22 mL/min 之间变化，并且在室温下用滤液反洗足以维持膜流速，而任何其他方法最初都提高了系统流量。在过滤器经受 5 天干燥条件的实验中，MF 流速降至 65 ± 35 mL/min，并且室温下的滤液没有充分恢复流速，但是在有/没有轻微摇动的情况下加热滤液 (45 °C)有效回收 MF 以供使用。在整个研究过程中，水质保持相似，0 CFU/mL滤液样品中发现大肠杆菌。