4.8 Article

Permeability and selectivity of reverse osmosis membranes: Correlation to swelling revisited

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 49, Issue -, Pages 444-452

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.029

Keywords

Reverse osmosis; Nanofiltration; Permeability; Swelling; Salt rejection; Dielectric exclusion

Funding

  1. Croatian Science Foundation
  2. Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sports [125-1253008-3009]
  3. Israel Science Foundation [1152/11]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Membrane swelling governs both rejection of solutes and permeability of polymeric membranes, however very few data have been available on swelling in water of saltrejecting reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. This study assesses swelling, thickness and their relation to water permeability for four commercial polyamide (PA) RO membranes (SWC4+, ESPA1, XLE and BW30) using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and attenuated total reflection Fourier transform IR spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). ATR-FTIR offered a significantly improved estimate of the actual barrier thickness of PA, given AFM is biased by porosity (fluffy parts) or wiggling of the active layer or presence of a coating layer. Thus obtained intrinsic permeability (permeability times thickness) and selectivity of aromatic polyamides plotted versus swelling falls well on a general trend, along with previously reported data on several common materials showing RO and NF selectivity. The observed general trend may be rationalized by viewing the polymers as a random composite medium containing molecularly small pores. The results suggest that the combination of a rigid low dielectric matrix, limiting the pore size, with multiple hydrophilic H-bonding sites may be a common feature of RO/NF membranes, allowing both high permeability and selectivity. Crown Copyright (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available