Analysis of the influence of module construction upon forward osmosis performance

Abstract The potential of a commercial forward osmosis (FO) module to recover water from NEWater brine, an RO retentate, was assessed by taking an innovative approach to obtaining the mass transfer coefficients. The performance comparison of the spiral wound (S-W) FO module with that of the flat sheet laboratory unit suggests that the winding involved in S-W construction can adversely affect performance; the values for the S-W mass transfer coefficients were half of those expected. This first-of-its-kind performance comparison utilised coupons of the membrane and spacers taken from the module. The module was used both in the conventional manner for FO and in the reverse manner with the active layer facing the draw solution. Estimates of membrane parameters and mass transfer coefficients experiments for the two orientations were obtained using pure water, 10 mM and 25 mM NaCl solution on the feed side and 1 M NaCl as draw solution. The fouling potential of NEWater brine per se was found to be low. These are the first results with a S-W module that suggest potential for this niche application; nevertheless the level of the water flux through the S-W module clearly indicates that industrial applications of S-W FO will be constrained to special cases.

[1]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Membrane fouling in osmotically driven membrane processes: A review , 2016 .

[2]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Effect of feed spacer induced membrane deformation on the performance of pressure retarded osmosis (PRO): Implications for PRO process operation , 2013 .

[3]  S. Loeb,et al.  Effect of porous support fabric on osmosis through a Loeb-Sourirajan type asymmetric membrane , 1997 .

[4]  V. Vitagliano,et al.  Diffusion in Aqueous Acetic Acid Solutions , 1956 .

[5]  V. Vitagliano,et al.  Diffusion Coefficients for Aqueous Solutions of Sodium Chloride and Barium Chloride , 1956 .

[6]  Rong Wang,et al.  Synthesis and characterization of flat-sheet thin film composite forward osmosis membranes , 2011 .

[7]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Modeling double-skinned FO membranes , 2011 .

[8]  Robert W. Field,et al.  Mass transfer limitations in forward osmosis: Are some potential applications overhyped? , 2013 .

[9]  Walter J. Riker A Review of J , 2010 .

[10]  P. Christofides,et al.  On the analysis of FO mass transfer resistances via CFD analysis and film theory , 2015 .

[11]  R. Field,et al.  Critical flux concept for microfiltration fouling , 1995 .

[12]  Amy E. Childress,et al.  Power generation with pressure retarded osmosis: An experimental and theoretical investigation , 2009 .

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

[14]  Panagiotis D. Christofides,et al.  Analysis of forward osmosis desalination via two-dimensional FEM model , 2014 .

[15]  Pancy Ang Evaluation of the performance of pressure retarded osmosis (pro) membrane modules and systems for renewable energy recovery , 2016 .

[16]  Dianne E. Wiley,et al.  Spacer characterization and pressure drop modelling in spacer-filled channels for ultrafiltration☆ , 1994 .

[17]  J. McCutcheon,et al.  A new commercial thin film composite membrane for forward osmosis , 2014 .

[18]  Chuyang Y. Tang,et al.  Coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes during humic acid filtration , 2010 .

[19]  P. Luis,et al.  Forward osmosis: understanding the hype , 2015 .

[20]  Raphael Semiat,et al.  Finite element analysis of forward osmosis process using NaCl solutions , 2011 .