4.7 Article

Influence of draw solution type and properties on the performance of forward osmosis process: Energy consumption and sustainable water reuse

Journal

CHEMOSPHERE
Volume 233, Issue -, Pages 234-244

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.05.241

Keywords

Aquaponic; Aquaculture wastewater; Forward osmosis; Fertilizer draw solute

Funding

  1. Qatar National Research Fund under the National Priorities Research Program [NPRP 8-270-2-106]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Single and multi-component fertilizers were used as a draw solution (DS) in forward osmosis (FO) to produce high-quality water from synthetic and seawater solution, eliminating the need for DS regeneration and reducing the operational energy. The effect of DS type, concentration, circulation flow rates on the FO water flux (WF), specific water flux (SWF), percentage water recovery (%W-recovery), reverse salt flux (RSF) and percentage salt rejection (%R) were studied. The results showed that single fertilizer draw solution (SFDSs) produced higher WF (4.43 L/m(2).h), %W-recovery (30%) and RSF (60%) in comparison with multi-component draw solution (MCDS) with WF, %W-recovery and RSF of 2.57 L/m(2).h, 17% and 46%, respectively. DS with higher concentration produced the highest SWF and %W-recovery and consumed less energy. MCDS with concentration of 200 g/L showed SWF in the range of 14.0 to 10.4 L/m(2)h and energy consumption of 0.312 kW/h m(3) in comparison with 10 to 7.8 L/m(2)h and 0.23 kW/h m(3) for MCDS with concentration of 100 g/L. Increasing the recirculation flow rate showed minimum effect on WF and up to 35% energy saving. Pure water extracted using liquid fertilizers utilizing the unique FO mass transport properties balanced nutrient requirement and the water quality parameters, thereby sustaining the aquaponics industry. (C) 2019 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available