Advertisement

Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering

, Volume 41, Issue 8, pp 1089–1101 | Cite as

Application of forward osmosis technology in crude glycerol fermentation biorefinery-potential and challenges

  • S. Kalafatakis
  • S. Braekevelt
  • A. Lymperatou
  • A. Zarebska
  • C. Hélix-Nielsen
  • L. Lange
  • I. V. Skiadas
  • H. N. Gavala
Research Paper

Abstract

Forward osmosis (FO) is a low energy-intensive process since the driving force for water transport is the osmotic pressure difference, Δπ, between the feed and draw solutions, separated by the FO membrane, where πdraw > πfeed. The potential of FO in wastewater treatment and desalination have been extensively studied; however, regeneration of the draw solution (thereby generating clean water) requires application of an energy-intensive process step like reverse osmosis (RO). In this study, the potential of applying FO for direct water recirculation from diluted fermentation effluent to concentrated feedstock, without the need for an energy-intensive regeneration step (e.g. RO), has been investigated. Butanol production during crude glycerol fermentation by Clostridium pasteurianum, has been selected as a model process and the effect of cross-flow velocity and the dilution of draw solution on the water flux during short-term experiments (200 min), were investigated. Statistical analysis revealed that the dilution of the draw solution is the most influential factor for the water flux. Subsequent modelling of an integrated FO-fermentation process, showed that water recoveries could lead to substantial financial benefits, although the integrated FO-fermentation process demonstrated lower water flux than expected. FTIR analyses of the membrane surface implied that the decrease in water flux was due to the presence of proteins, polysaccharides and other extracellular polymeric substances on the membrane active layer, indicating the presence of a fouling layer. Based on these findings, possible fouling alleviation strategies and future research directions are discussed and proposed.

Keywords

Forwards osmosis Biorefinery Crude glycerol Novel draw solution application 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the Innovation Fund Denmark via IBISS: Industrial Biomimetic Sensing and Separation (Grant no. 97-2012-4), MEMENTO (Grant no. 4106-00021B) and Technical University of Denmark.

References

  1. 1.
    Yang X, Choi HS, Park C, Kim SW (2015) Current states and prospects of organic waste utilization for biorefineries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 49:335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liguori R, Amore A, Faraco V (2013) Waste valorization by biotechnological conversion into added value products. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:6129–6147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Santibáñez C, Varnero MT, Bustamante M (2011) Residual glycerol from biodiesel manufacturing, waste or potential source of bioenergy: a review. Chil J Agric Res 71:469–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson E, Sarchami T, Kießlich S et al (2016) Consolidating biofuel platforms through the fermentative bioconversion of crude glycerol to butanol. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 32:103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clomburg JM, Gonzalez R (2013) Anaerobic fermentation of glycerol: a platform for renewable fuels and chemicals. Trends Biotechnol 31:20–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dürre P (2008) Fermentative butanol production: bulk chemical and biofuel. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1125:353–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson JC, He BB (2006) Characterization of crude glycerol from biodiesel production from multiple feedstocks. Appl Eng Agric 22:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chatzifragkou A, Papanikolaou S (2012) Effect of impurities in biodiesel-derived waste glycerol on the performance and feasibility of biotechnological processes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 95:13–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalafatakis S, Braekevelt S, Carlsen NS et al (2017) On a novel strategy for water recovery and recirculation in biorefineries through application of forward osmosis membranes. Chem Eng J 311:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cath TY, Childress AE, Elimelech M (2006) Forward osmosis: principles, applications, and recent developments. J Memb Sci 281:70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cai Y, Hu X (2016) A critical review on draw solutes development for forward osmosis. Desalination 391:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yangali-Quintanilla V, Li Z, Valladares R et al (2011) Indirect desalination of Red Sea water with forward osmosis and low pressure reverse osmosis for water reuse. Desalination 280:160–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bucs SS, Linares VR, Vrouwenvelder JS, Picioreanu C (2016) Biofouling in forward osmosis systems: an experimental and numerical study. Water Res 106:86–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    She Q, Jin X, Li Q, Tang CY (2012) Relating reverse and forward solute diffusion to membrane fouling in osmotically driven membrane processes. Water Res 46:2478–2486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao P, Gao B, Yue Q et al (2015) Fatty acid fouling of forward osmosis membrane: Effects of pH, calcium, membrane orientation, initial permeate flux and foulant composition. J Environ Sci (China) 46:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suh C, Lee S (2013) Modeling reverse draw solute flux in forward osmosis with external concentration polarization in both sides of the draw and feed solution. J Memb Sci 427:365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boo C, Elimelech M, Hong S (2013) Fouling control in a forward osmosis process integrating seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation. J Memb Sci 444:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dreszer C, Wexler AD, Drusová S et al (2014) In-situ biofilm characterization in membrane systems using optical coherence tomography: formation, structure, detachment and impact of flux change. Water Res 67:243–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lutchmiah K, Verliefde ARD, Roest K et al (2014) Forward osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res 58:179–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varrone C, Heggeset TMB, Le SB et al (2015) Comparison of different strategies for selection/adaptation of mixed microbial cultures able to ferment crude glycerol derived from second-generation biodiesel. Biomed Res Int 2015:932934.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/932934 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Biebl H (2001) Fermentation of glycerol by Clostridium pasteurianum-batch and continuous culture studies. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 27:18–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dabrock B, Bahl H, Gottschalk G (1992) Parameters affecting solvent production by Clostridium pasteurianum. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:1233–1239PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao Y, Qiu C, Li X et al (2012) Synthesis of robust and high-performance aquaporin-based biomimetic membranes by interfacial polymerization-membrane preparation and RO performance characterization. J Memb Sci 423:422–428Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang X, Ning Z, Wang DK, Diniz da Costa JC (2013) A novel ethanol dehydration process by forward osmosis. Chem Eng J 232:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Esbensen K (2006) Multivariate data analysis in practice. An introduction to multivariate data analysis and experimental design, 5th edn., CAMO Software AS, Oslo, ISBN 82 993330-3-2Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reichert P (1998) Aquasim 2.0—computer program for the identification and simulation of aquatic systems. Dubendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Blandin G, Verliefde ARD, Comas J et al (2016) Efficiently combining water reuse and desalination through forward osmosis-reverse osmosis (FO-RO) hybrids: a critical review. Membranes 6:37.  https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes6030037 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hancock NT, Phillip WA, Elimelech M, Cath TY (2011) Bidirectional permeation of electrolytes in osmotically driven membrane processes. Environ Sci Technol 45:10642–10651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phuntsho S, Hong S, Elimelech M, Shon HK (2014) Osmotic equilibrium in the forward osmosis process: modelling, experiments and implications for process performance. J Memb Sci 453:240–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    She Q, Wang R, Fane AG, Tang CY (2016) Membrane fouling in osmotically driven membrane processes: a review. J Memb Sci 499:201–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gruber MF, Johnson CJ, Tang CY et al (2011) Computational fluid dynamics simulations of flow and concentration polarization in forward osmosis membrane systems. J Memb Sci 379:488–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coday BD, Yaffe BGM, Xu P, Cath TY (2014) Rejection of trace organic compounds by forward osmosis membranes: a literature review. Environ Sci Technol 48:3612–3624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cath TY, Hancock NT, Lundin CD et al (2010) A multi-barrier osmotic dilution process for simultaneous desalination and purification of impaired water. J Memb Sci 362:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hancock NT, Cath TY (2009) Solute coupled diffusion in osmotically driven membrane processes. Environ Sci Technol 43:6769–6775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bellona C, Drewes JE, Xu P, Amy G (2004) Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment—a literature review. Water Res 38:2795–2809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Linares R, Li Z, Yangali-Quintanilla V et al (2016) Life cycle cost of a hybrid forward osmosis—low pressure reverse osmosis system for seawater desalination and wastewater recovery. Water Res 88:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang X, Chang VWC, Tang CY (2016) Osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) technology for wastewater treatment and reclamation: advances, challenges, and prospects for the future. J Memb Sci 504:113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bell EA, Poynor TE, Newhart KB et al (2016) Produced water treatment using forward osmosis membranes: evaluation of extended-time performance and fouling. J Memb Sci 525:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mi B, Elimelech M (2008) Chemical and physical aspects of organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes. J Memb Sci 320:292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kwan SE, Bar-Zeev E, Elimelech M (2015) Biofouling in forward osmosis and reverse osmosis: measurements and mechanisms. J Memb Sci 493:703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Freger V, Gilron J, Belfer S (2002) TFC polyamide membranes modified by grafting of hydrophilic polymers: an FT-IR/AFM/TEM study. J Memb Sci 209:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kwon YN, Leckie JO (2006) Hypochlorite degradation of crosslinked polyamide membranes. II. Changes in hydrogen bonding behavior and performance. J Memb Sci 282:456–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McCutcheon J, Hoek E, Bui N, Lind Mary L (2013) Nanostructured membranes for engineered osmosis applications. US 20130105395 A1. http://www.google.com/patents/US20130105395. US 20130105395 A1. http://www.google.com/patents/U
  44. 44.
    Tang CY, Kwon Y-N, Leckie JO (2009) Effect of membrane chemistry and coating layer on physiochemical properties of thin film composite polyamide RO and NF membranes. Desalination 242:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maruyama T, Katoh S, Nakajima M et al (2001) FT-IR analysis of BSA fouled on ultrafiltration and microfiltration membranes. J Memb Sci 192:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xu P, Drewes JE, Kim TU et al (2006) Effect of membrane fouling on transport of organic contaminants in NF/RO membrane applications. J Memb Sci 279:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chapman RG, Ostuni E, Liang MN et al (2001) Polymeric thin films that resist the adsorption of proteins and the adhesion of bacteria. Langmuir 17:1225–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Kalafatakis
    • 1
  • S. Braekevelt
    • 3
  • A. Lymperatou
    • 1
  • A. Zarebska
    • 2
  • C. Hélix-Nielsen
    • 2
    • 3
  • L. Lange
    • 1
  • I. V. Skiadas
    • 1
  • H. N. Gavala
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biochemical EngineeringTechnical University of Denmark (DTU)Kgs. LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Environmental EngineeringTechnical University of Denmark (DTU)Kgs. LyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Aquaporin A/SKgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations