4.7 Article

A novel analysis of reverse draw and feed solute fluxes in forward osmosis membrane process

Journal

DESALINATION
Volume 352, Issue -, Pages 128-135

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.08.012

Keywords

Forward osmosis (FO) membrane; Reverse draw solute flux; Feed solute flux; Solute permeability coefficient (B); Internal concentration polarization (ICP)

Funding

  1. Fundamental R&D Program for Technology of World Premier Materials - Ministry of Knowledge Economy, South Korea [10037715]
  2. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [10037715] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A novel method to determine reverse draw and forward feed solute fluxes in forward osmosis (FO) membrane was developed to analyze FO performance more accurately. Specifically, apparent draw solute permeability (B-d) and feed solute permeability (B-f) were proposed, instead of relying on single solute permeability (B). Our results clearly demonstrated that both draw and feed fluxes were not well predicted with the solute permeability (B) measured by RO mode experiment, typically employed in FO membrane characterization. In this study, the draw and feed solute permeabilities were evaluated independently by the experimental protocols which simulated actual FO operation more closely. Much better agreement between experimental observations and theoretical predictions was obtained when both Bd and Bf were applied for the analysis of draw and feed solute fluxes, respectively. Thus, the utilization of apparent draw and feed solute permeabilities provides more precise assessment of draw solute loss and permeate water quality, which are very important for FO membrane process design and operation. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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