Water treatment in a new flux-enhancing, continuous forward osmosis design: Transport modelling and economic evaluation towards scale up

Abstract A forward osmosis–nanofiltration integrated system was designed for experimental investigation and mathematical modelling for purification of contaminated water in steady state and continuous mode. Unlike the conventional module of a FO scheme, this new design provided different hydrodynamic regimes that very significantly reduced concentration polarization. Dynamic modelling encompassing the effects of pressure, cross flow rate, draw solution, run time and overall hydrodynamics on the efficiency of separation as well as yield of pure water flux was done to capture the most significant transport phenomena during forward osmosis and nanofiltration. The system applied in purification of arsenic-contaminated water produced encouraging results in terms of 99% purification of water at reasonably high flux of 58–60 L/(m2·h) (LMH). Recovery of draw solute could be done efficiently at the rate of 60 LMH in a steady state continuous operation. The developed model successfully predicted system performance as reflected in the high values of the overall correlation coefficient (R2 > 0.98), Willmott d-index (> 0.95) and low relative error (

[1]  June-Seok Choi,et al.  Toward a combined system of forward osmosis and reverse osmosis for seawater desalination , 2009 .

[2]  J. McCutcheon,et al.  Internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis: role of membrane orientation , 2006 .

[3]  Linda Zou,et al.  Brackish water desalination by a hybrid forward osmosis-nanofiltration system using divalent draw solute , 2012 .

[4]  Parimal Pal,et al.  Contamination of groundwater by arsenic: a review of occurrence, causes, impacts, remedies and membrane-based purification , 2009 .

[5]  S Chakrabortty,et al.  A nanofiltration-coagulation integrated system for separation and stabilization of arsenic from groundwater. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[6]  Bart Van der Bruggen,et al.  Effect of physico-chemical parameters on inorganic arsenic removal from aqueous solution using a forward osmosis membrane , 2014 .

[7]  Sankha Chakrabortty,et al.  Removal of fluoride from contaminated groundwater by cross flow nanofiltration: Transport modeling and economic evaluation , 2013 .

[8]  M. Roy,et al.  Arsenic Separation by a Membrane-Integrated Hybrid Treatment System: Modeling, Simulation, and Techno-Economic Evaluation , 2012 .

[9]  Ivan Mijatović,et al.  Removal of antimicrobials using advanced wastewater treatment. , 2011, Journal of hazardous materials.

[10]  Anthony G Fane,et al.  Fouling propensity of forward osmosis: investigation of the slower flux decline phenomenon. , 2010, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[11]  Jörg E. Drewes,et al.  N-nitrosamine rejection by reverse osmosis: Effects of membrane exposure to chemical cleaning reagents , 2014 .

[12]  Tzahi Y Cath,et al.  Effects of transmembrane hydraulic pressure on performance of forward osmosis membranes. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[13]  Ligia Damasceno Ferreira Marczak,et al.  Membrane concentration of liquid foods by forward osmosis: Process and quality view , 2012 .

[14]  How Yong Ng,et al.  Concentration of brine by forward osmosis: Performance and influence of membrane structure , 2008 .

[15]  Menachem Elimelech,et al.  Removal of trace organic contaminants by the forward osmosis process , 2013 .

[16]  Lin-Han Chiang Hsieh,et al.  Removal of arsenic from groundwater by electro-ultrafiltration , 2008 .

[17]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Network modeling for studying the effect of support structure on internal concentration polarization , 2011 .

[18]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  Forward osmosis: Principles, applications, and recent developments , 2006 .

[19]  P. Pal,et al.  Separating Cyanide from Coke Wastewater by Cross Flow Nanofiltration , 2011 .

[20]  S. Z. Ahammad,et al.  Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water by Chemical Precipitation – A Modeling and Simulation Study of the Physical‐Chemical Processes , 2007, Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation.

[21]  B. Van der Bruggen,et al.  Application of nanofiltration for removal of pesticides, nitrate and hardness from ground water: rejection properties and economic evaluation , 2001 .

[22]  J. McCutcheon,et al.  Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis , 2006 .

[23]  Kai Yu Wang,et al.  Double-Skinned Forward Osmosis Membranes for Reducing Internal Concentration Polarization within the Porous Sublayer , 2010 .

[24]  Linda Zou,et al.  Effects of working temperature on separation performance, membrane scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis desalination , 2011 .

[25]  Yasumoto Magara,et al.  Performance of nanofiltration for arsenic removal. , 2002, Water research.

[26]  Tzahi Y Cath,et al.  Solute coupled diffusion in osmotically driven membrane processes. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[27]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Removal of boron and arsenic by forward osmosis membrane: Influence of membrane orientation and organic fouling , 2012 .

[28]  Robert Y. Ning,et al.  Arsenic removal by reverse osmosis , 2002 .

[29]  Parimal Pal,et al.  Removal of arsenic from contaminated groundwater by membrane-integrated hybrid treatment system , 2010 .

[30]  W. Richard Bowen,et al.  Linearized transport model for nanofiltration: Development and assessment , 2002 .

[31]  L. Rietveld,et al.  Forward osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review. , 2014, Water research.

[32]  Andrew Silva,et al.  Point of use water treatment with forward osmosis for emergency relief , 2013 .

[33]  Qian Yang,et al.  Dual-layer hollow fibers with enhanced flux as novel forward osmosis membranes for water production. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.