Forward Osmosis: A Critical Review

Mohammadifakhr, Mehrdad; Grooth, Joris de; Roesink, H.D.W.; Kemperman, A.J.B.

doi:10.3390/pr8040404

Cited by 56 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 216 publications

(328 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Forward osmosis (FO) is an osmotically driven separation process where the higher osmotic potential of the draw solution governs the water through a tight (comparable to RO) semipermeable membrane. To achieve an effective separation, not only does the feed side have to have a thin active layer, but the whole membrane has to be thin to mitigate dilutive internal concentration polarization [ 32 , 33 ]. In spite of some intrinsic advantages, the practical implementation of FO has not caught up with the vast number of scientific publications to date [ 34 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of Volatile Fatty Acids from Model Anaerobic Effluents Using Various Membrane Technologies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effluents of anaerobic processes still contain valuable components, among which volatile fatty acids (VFAs) can be regarded and should be recovered and/or used further in applications such as microbial electrochemical technology to generate energy/energy carriers. To accomplish the separation of VFAs from waste liquors, various membrane-based solutions applying different transport mechanisms and traits are available, including pressure-driven nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) which are capable to clarify, fractionate and concentrate salts and organics. Besides, emerging techniques using a membrane such as forward osmosis (FO) and supported liquid membrane (SILM) technology can be taken into consideration for VFA separation. In this work, we evaluate these four various downstream methods (NF, RO, FO and SILM) to determine the best one, comparatively, for enriching VFAs from pH-varied model solutions composed of acetic, butyric and propionic acids in different concentrations. The assessment of the separation experiments was supported by statistical examination to draw more solid conclusions. Accordingly, it turned out that all methods can separate VFAs from the model solution. The highest average retention was achieved by RO (84% at the applied transmembrane pressure of 6 bar), while NF provided the highest permeance (6.5 L/m2hbar) and a high selectivity between different VFAs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separation of Volatile Fatty Acids from Model Anaerobic Effluents Using Various Membrane Technologies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional benefit of FO is a phenomenon called retarded forward diffusion of solutes [36]. In this phenomenon, the reverse salt flux in FO processes impedes the pore diffusion of feed solutes, leading to the high rejection of feed solutes [29,36]. As mentioned earlier, when a high osmotic pressure gradient is obtained across the membrane, sufficient water flux and recovery can be achieved [15,34].…”

Section: Advantages Of Fo Membranesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Another benefit of FO that is tied to not requiring hydraulic pressure is a reduction of fouling. Recent studies have demonstrated that a lack of applied hydraulic pressure and optimization of the system's hydrodynamics can lead to less fouling and the higher reversibility of fouling [15,[29][30][31][32]. Due to the low flux that can be obtained in FO, there is more opportunity for low fouling [28,32,33].…”

Section: Advantages Of Fo Membranesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shale Oil and Gas Produced Water Treatment: Opportunities and Barriers for Forward Osmosis

Ogletree¹,

Du²,

Kommalapati³

2022

Osmotically Driven Membrane Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of shale oil & gas produced water is a complicated process since it contains various organic compounds and inorganic impurities. Traditional membrane processes such as reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are challenged when produced water has high salinity. Forward osmosis (FO) and membrane distillation as two emerging membrane technologies are promising for produced water treatment. This chapter will focus on reviewing FO membranes, draw solute, and hybrid processes with other membrane filtration applied to produced water treatment. The barriers to the FO processes caused by membrane fouling and reverse draw solute flux are discussed fully by comparing some FO fabrication technologies, membrane performances, and draw solute selections. The future of the FO processes for produced water treatment is by summarizing life cycle assessment and economic analyses for produced water treatment in the last decade.

show abstract

“…This method provides additional resolution and accuracy in determining the osmotic pressure. Knowing the individual osmotic pressures, π(Cm) and π(Cs), the PRO osmotic pressure difference can be calculated by solving for the difference between both terms, as seen by Equation (7). For FO mode, the terms on the right-hand side of Equation 7are reversed.…”

Section: Prediction Of the Osmotic Pressure Difference δπMmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Need for Accurate Osmotic Pressure and Mass Transfer Resistances in Modeling Osmotically Driven Membrane Processes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widely used van ’t Hoff linear relation for predicting the osmotic pressure of NaCl solutions may result in errors in the evaluation of key system parameters, which depend on osmotic pressure, in pressure-retarded osmosis and forward osmosis. In this paper, the linear van ’t Hoff approach is compared to the solutions using OLI Stream Analyzer, which gives the real osmotic pressure values. Various dilutions of NaCl solutions, including the lower solute concentrations typical of river water, are considered. Our results indicate that the disparity in the predicted osmotic pressure of the two considered methods can reach 30%, depending on the solute concentration, while that in the predicted power density can exceed over 50%. New experimental results are obtained for NanoH2O and Porifera membranes, and theoretical equations are also developed. Results show that discrepancies arise when using the van ’t Hoff equation, compared to the OLI method. At higher NaCl concentrations (C > 1.5 M), the deviation between the linear approach and the real values increases gradually, likely indicative of a larger error in van ’t Hoff predictions. The difference in structural parameter values predicted by the two evaluation methods is also significant; it can exceed the typical 50–70% range, depending on the operating conditions. We find that the external mass transfer coefficients should be considered in the evaluation of the structural parameter in order to avoid overestimating its value. Consequently, measured water flux and predicted structural parameter values from our own and literature measurements are recalculated with the OLI software to account for external mass transfer coefficients.

show abstract

Forward Osmosis: A Critical Review

Cited by 56 publications

References 216 publications

Separation of Volatile Fatty Acids from Model Anaerobic Effluents Using Various Membrane Technologies

Separation of Volatile Fatty Acids from Model Anaerobic Effluents Using Various Membrane Technologies

Shale Oil and Gas Produced Water Treatment: Opportunities and Barriers for Forward Osmosis

The Need for Accurate Osmotic Pressure and Mass Transfer Resistances in Modeling Osmotically Driven Membrane Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About