Volume 9, Issue 11 (November 2022), Pages: 99-105

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Effect of membrane mean pore diameter on water and solute flux in forward osmosis processes

 Author(s): Ibrahim A. Alsayer ^1, *, Ali A. Merdaw ², Ibrahim S. Al-Mutaz ³

 Affiliation(s):

 ¹Department of Chemical Engineering, Northern Border University, Arar, Saudi Arabia
 ²ME Scientific Engineering Ltd., Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
 ³Chemical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5169-3028

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2022.11.012

 Abstract:

Several forward osmosis (FO) experiments were carried out using aqueous solutions of sodium chloride (NaCl) in different concentrations, as draw solution (DS), and freshwater, as feed water (FW). The experiments were conducted at a constant temperature of ~20°C and using a symmetric cellulosic membrane in two grades different in their values of the molecular weight cut-off (MWCO), which is related to the mean pore diameter. This study investigates the effect of the membrane mean pore diameter on water flux and DS solute diffusional flux across the membrane. The value of water flux indicates the performance of the FO process, while solute flux is an important factor that determines its practicality. A proportionality factor is used to specify the relationship between water flux and solute flux for each membrane type and operational conditions. The results of this study show that water flux and solute flux increase as the solute concentration difference across the membrane increases. It is also found that, in the range of the tested membranes, membranes with larger mean pore diameters have lower water flux and higher solute flux.

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Forward osmosis, Semi-permeable membranes, Water treatment, Desalination

 Article History: Received 19 May 2021, Received in revised form 16 June 2022, Accepted 1 August 2022

 Acknowledgment 

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through project number 4426-2020-IF.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Alsayer IA, Merdaw AA, and Al-Mutaz IS (2022). Effect of membrane mean pore diameter on water and solute flux in forward osmosis processes. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 9(11): 99-105

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 

----------------------------------------------    

 References (13)

1. Cheng ZL, Li X, and Chung TS (2018). The forward osmosis-pressure retarded osmosis (FO-PRO) hybrid system: A new process to mitigate membrane fouling for sustainable osmotic power generation. Journal of Membrane Science, 559: 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2018.04.036   [Google Scholar]
2. Ge Q, Ling M, and Chung TS (2013). Draw solutions for forward osmosis processes: Developments, challenges, and prospects for the future. Journal of Membrane Science, 442: 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.046   [Google Scholar]
3. Korenak J, Basu S, Balakrishnan M, Hélix-Nielsen C, and Petrinic I (2017). Forward osmosis in wastewater treatment processes. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 64(1): 83-94. https://doi.org/10.17344/acsi.2016.2852   [Google Scholar] PMid:28380231
4. Loeb S, Titelman L, Korngold E, and Freiman J (1997). Effect of porous support fabric on osmosis through a Loeb-Sourirajan type asymmetric membrane. Journal of Membrane Science, 129(2): 243-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00354-7   [Google Scholar]
5. Lutchmiah K, Verliefde ARD, Roest K, Rietveld LC, and Cornelissen ER (2014). Forward osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: A review. Water Research, 58: 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.045   [Google Scholar] PMid:24762551
6. McCutcheon JR and Elimelech M (2007). Modeling water flux in forward osmosis: Implications for improved membrane design. AIChE Journal, 53(7): 1736-1744. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.11197   [Google Scholar]
7. McNaught AD (1997). Compendium of chemical terminology. Volume 1669, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.   [Google Scholar]
8. Merdaw AA, Sharif AO, and Derwish GAW (2011). Mass transfer in pressure-driven membrane separation processes, Part II. Chemical Engineering Journal, 168(1): 229-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.12.072   [Google Scholar]
9. Pendergast MM, Nowosielski-Slepowron MS, and Tracy J (2016). Going big with forward osmosis. Desalination and Water Treatment, 57(55): 26529-26538. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2016.1168581   [Google Scholar]
10. Ren J, Li Z, and Wong FS (2006). A new method for the prediction of pore size distribution and MWCO of ultrafiltration membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 279(1-2): 558-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.12.052   [Google Scholar]
11. Sarp S and Hilal N (2018). Membrane-based salinity gradient processes for water treatment and power generation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.   [Google Scholar]
12. van't Hoff JH (1995). The role of osmotic pressure in the analogy between solutions and gases. Journal of Membrane Science, 100(1): 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-7388(94)00232-N   [Google Scholar]
13. Wang J and Liu X (2021). Forward osmosis technology for water treatment: Recent advances and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280: 124354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124354   [Google Scholar]