4.7 Article

Cellulose acetate nanofiltration hollow fiber membranes for forward osmosis processes

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
Volume 355, Issue 1-2, Pages 36-44

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2010.03.003

Keywords

Cellulose acetate; Nanofiltration; Hollow fiber membrane; Forward osmosis; Water flux

Funding

  1. EWI [MEWR 65 J106/158, R-279-000-271-272]
  2. NUS [MEWR 65 J106/158, R-279-000-271-272]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cellulose acetate (CA) nanofiltration (NF) hollow fiber membranes have been fabricated and tested in the forward osmosis (FO) process. A two-step heat-treatment, i.e.. 60 min at 60 degrees C and 20 min at 95 degrees C, effectively shrinks the membrane mean pore radius from 0.63 to 0.30 nm. The molecular weight cut off (MWCO) of the resultant CA NF membrane is 186 Da. In the NF experiments under 1 bar transmembrane pressure, the newly developed CA NF membrane shows a pure water permeability (PWP) of 0.47 L m(-2) bar(-1) h(-1) and rejection levels of 90.17% to NaCl and 96.67% to MgCl2. The water flux and the salt leakage of the CA NF hollow fiber are measured in the FO process using NaCl or MgCl2 draw solutions. With increasing the draw solution concentration, the water flux increases. However, the increase is almost linear when the draw solution flows in the shell side and is nonlinear when the draw solution flows in the lumen side. With 2.0 M MgCl2 draw solution (osmotic pressure approximate to 258.3 bar) flowing in the shell side, the water flux and the salt leakage are 7.3 L m(-2) h(-1) (LMH) and 0.53 g m(-2) h(-1) (gMH), respectively. When using saline water as the feed solution, the efficiency of the osmotic pressure decreases with increasing feed concentration due to the more severe internal concentrative concentration polarization. These preliminary results indicate that CA NF membrane is a promising candidate for FO processes. (C) 2010 Elsevier BM. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available