4.8 Article

Adverse Impact of Feed Channel Spacers on the Performance of Pressure Retarded Osmosis

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 46, 期 8, 页码 4673-4681

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es3002597

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM)
  2. World Class University (WCU) through the National Research Foundation of Korea
  3. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [R33-10046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article analyzes the influence of feed channel spacers on the performance of pressure retarded osmosis (PRO). Unlike forward osmosis (FO), an important feature of PRO is the application of hydraulic pressure on the high salinity (draw solution) side to retard the permeating flow for energy conversion. We report the first observation of membrane deformation under the action of the high hydraulic pressure on the feed channel spacer and the resulting impact on membrane performance. Because of this observation, reverse osmosis and FO tests that are commonly used for measuring membrane transport properties (water and salt permeability coefficients, A and B, respectively) and the structural parameter (5) can no longer be considered appropriate for use in PRO analysis. To accurately predict the water flux as a function of applied hydraulic pressure difference and the resulting power density in PRO, we introduced a new experimental protocol that accounts for membrane deformation in a spacer-filled channel to determine the membrane properties (A, B, and S). PRO performance model predictions based on these determined A, B, and S values closely matched experimental data over a range of draw solution concentrations (0.5 to 2 M NaCl). We also showed that at high pressures feed spacers block the permeation of water through the membrane area in contact with the spacer, a phenomenon that we term the shadow effect, thereby reducing overall water flux. The implications of the results for power generation by PRO are evaluated and discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据