Still Confusion between Proprietary and Non-Proprietary MF/UF Systems

Are the proprietary system suppliers fuelling this fire?



 I recently attended a conference and saw a presentation from an operator of a proprietary microfiltration (MF) system who was discussing the pros and cons of proprietary and non-proprietary MF/UF systems. This presentation, which was prepared by his consultant, was totally off track and only associating non-proprietary systems with Universal/Open Platform systems. It is a disturbing trend I have seen recently where some engineers and end users believe they have two options now when considering a MF/UF System; A proprietary system where they are locked in to the OEM’s exclusive membrane (such as Pall, GE or Evoqua), or a non-proprietary system that is designed to use membranes from a number of non-exclusive membrane module suppliers (aka Universal/Open Platform/Flexible MF/UF Systems). To simplify this discussion, I am going to group all these definitions as ‘Flexible’ systems which is probably the most accurate description of a MF/UF system that can accept more than one type of module.

This perception is partly correct in that the Flexible systems are certainly provided by OEMs who do not have an exclusive arrangement with a particular membrane module manufacturer (otherwise how could they supply a Flexible system?). But, a non-proprietary system does not have to be a Flexible system. The OEMs who are offering Flexible systems (such as Wigen Water Technologies and H2O Innovation, etc.) all started out building UF systems designed specifically for membrane modules supplied by Toray, Dow, Inge, etc. These OEMs have built many more of these non-proprietary, module specific MF/UF systems than Flexible systems and still can do so if that is the customer’s preference.

Ship has Sailed for Flexible System Deniers

While the entrenched Big Three proprietary MF/UF system suppliers originally tried to fend off the acceptance of Flexible systems, that ship has sailed, with many flexible systems now being specified and built. I believe the new strategy of the proprietary MF/UF system suppliers is trying to divide the market into two options; proprietary systems and non-proprietary Universal/Open Platform systems. Then they just have to convince the customer against a Flexible system, arguing they are more complex, more expensive and larger footprint (which is baloney by the way) so that the competition from the non-proprietary OEMs goes away. That is certainly the impression I got from that recent misguided presentation and a few other discussions with engineers I have had.

Fairly Comparing the MF/UF System Options
Let me debunk the myth that Flexible systems are more expensive and have a larger footprint than proprietary systems. I have seen many bids where the proprietary systems (from all of the Big Three OEMs) have been higher in price with their standard system than OEMs offering flexible systems, so it is BS to say that a Flexible MF/UF system will be more expensive than a proprietary MF/UF system (unless a proprietary supplier tried to build one….). Also, the modules on Pall, GE and Evoqua systems have 30% to 55% less surface area than the modules being used in Flexible systems, so  even allowing for a little extra footprint to accommodate a number of these modules on a Flexible system, the footprint of the proprietary systems is still larger. When a non-proprietary system is designed for a single module, the footprint is even less.

So the takeaway here is if an end user does not see a benefit in a Flexible system, or is not comfortable with the limited operating history of Flexible systems, but wants to minimize footprint and cost, he/she should be considering a non-proprietary system built for a specific module, in conjunction with the proprietary systems – these are not mutually exclusive options! I still see some specs wanting 10 years’ of operating experience of the OEM’s MF/UF equipment. That is currently a good way to eliminate the non-proprietary OEMs where their experience with the modules on the market is only up to about 7-8 years so far (using Toray and Dow). If the customer/engineer wants to be conservative, I believe the real requirement should not only be experience building MF/UF Systems, but also years of experience with the specific MF/UF module being offered – that significantly shortens the years of experience for Evoqua and GE to less than some non-proprietary system suppliers.

This last point is a diversion from my main topic of this post, and I don’t see many specs like this anymore, but I just wanted to make the point that other than Pall with Asahi’s Microza membrane, I don’t think there is a membrane module currently on the market that has been around more than about 7 years and the next longest modules on the market are probably Toray and Dow’s which are used in the non-proprietary systems.