Advertisement

Chemical Papers

, Volume 72, Issue 12, pp 3159–3167 | Cite as

Study on preparation and performances of cellulose acetate forward osmosis membrane

  • Min Shang
  • Baoli Shi
Original Paper
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Cellulose acetate (CA) forward osmosis (FO) membranes were prepared via a phase inversion process. CA was used as membrane material for FO. Acetone and 1,4-dioxane were employed as solvent. Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), maleic acid, and methanol were applied as additives. An orthogonal experiment was performed to optimize the ratio of every component in the casting solution. The membrane with best performance was selected to concentrate an anthocyanin solution. Saturated sucrose solution (about 60°Brix) was fit for using as draw solution in the concentration experiment. Water flux, porosity, and rejection rate were measured to evaluate the membrane properties. Reverse water rinsing was used in cleaning membrane that was fouled by anthocyanin solution. Results showed that under membrane thickness of 100 μm, coagulation temperature at room temperature, and evaporation time of 30 s, the optimum components in casting solution were 13% CA, 45% 1,4-dioxane, 31% acetone, 2% maleic acid, 3% PVP, and 6% methanol. In the concentration experiment, the prepared FO membrane showed water flux of 2.04 L m−2 h−1 and rejection rate of 98.61%. In the membrane cleaning experiment, the water flux of the FO membrane recovered 87.51% after rinsing for 1 h. The prepared membranes and previously published membranes were compared which showed the prepared membrane could significantly improve the rejection rate for anthocyanin solution.

Keywords

Cellulose acetate Forward osmosis membrane Anthocyanin 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support by Harbin Applied Technology Research and Development Project (2016RAQXJ011).

References

  1. Akther N, Sodiq A, Giwa A, Daer S, Arafat HA, Hasan SW (2015) Recent advancements in forward osmosis desalination: a review. Chem Eng J 281(1):502–522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asghar MR, Zhang Y, Wu A, Yan XH, Shen SY, Ke CC, Zhang JL (2018) Preparation of microporous Cellulose/Poly(vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene) membrane for lithium ion batteries by phase inversion method. J Power Sources 379:197–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.01.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babu J, Murthy ZVP (2017) Treatment of textile dyes containing wastewaters with PES/PVA thin film composite nanofiltration membranes. Sep Purif Technol 183:66–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babu BR, Rastogi NK, Raghavarao KSMS (2006) Effect of process parameters on transmembrane flux during direct osmosis. J Membr Sci 280:185–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron G, Altomare A, Regazzoni L, Redaelli V, Grandi S, Riva A, Morazzoni P, Mazzolari A, Carini M, Vistoli G, Aldini G (2017) Pharmacokinetic profile of bilberry anthocyanins in rats and the role of glucose transporters: LC–MS/MS and computational studies. J Pharm Biomed Anal 144:112–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2017.04.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boriboon D, Vongsetskul T, Limthongkul P, Kobsiriphat W, Tammawat P (2018) Cellulose ultrafine fibers embedded with titania particles as a high performance and eco-friendly separator for lithium-ion batteries. Carbohydr Polym 189:145–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.01.077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cath TY, Childress AE, Elimelech M (2006) Forward osmosis: principles, applications, and recent developments. J Membr Sci 281(1):70–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.05.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chanukya BS, Rastogi NK (2017) Ultrasound assisted forward osmosis concentration of fruit juice and natural colorant. Ultrason Sonochem 34:426–435.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.06.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen X, Xu J, Lu J, Shan B, Gao C (2017) Enhanced performance of cellulose triacetate membranes using binary mixed additives for forward osmosis desalination. Desalination 405:68–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chung TS, Li X, Rui CO, Ge QC, Wang HL, Han G (2012) Emerging forward osmosis (FO) technologies and challenges ahead for clean water and clean energy applications. Curr Opin Chem Eng 1(3):246–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2012.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cui JQ, Liu JQ, He CF, Li J, Wu XF (2017) Composite of polyvinylidene fluoride–cellulose acetate with Al(OH)3, as a separator for high-performance lithium ion battery. J Membr Sci 541:661–667.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.07.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etemadi H, Yegani R, Seyfollahi M (2017) The effect of amino functionalized and polyethylene glycol grafted nanodiamond on anti-biofouling properties of cellulose acetate membrane in membrane bioreactor systems. Sep Purif Technol 177:350–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gao Y, Fang Z, Liang P, Huang X (2018) Direct concentration of municipal sewage by forward osmosis and membrane fouling behavior. Bioresour Technol 247:730–735.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.145 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ge QC, Ling MM, Chung TS (2013) Draw solutions for forward osmosis processes: developments, challenges, and prospects for the future. J Membr Sci 442:225–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gray GT, Mccutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2006) Internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis: role of membrane orientation. Desalination 197(1–3):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jafari SM, Ghalenoei MG, Dehnad D (2017) Influence of spray drying on water solubility index, apparent density, and anthocyanin content of pomegranate juice powder. Powder Technol 311:59–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2017.01.070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiao B, Cassano A, Drioli E (2004) Recent advances on membrane processes for the concentration of fruit juices: a review. J Food Eng 63:303–324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2003.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Law JY, Mohammad AW (2017) Multiple-solute salts as draw solution for osmotic concentration of succinate feed by forward osmosis. Ind Eng Chem 51(5):264–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2017.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee S, Boo C, Elimelech M, Elimelech M, Hong S (2010) Comparison of fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO). J Membr Sci 365(1):34–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li JF, Xu ZL, Yang H, Yu LY, Liu M (2009) Effect of TiO2, nanoparticles on the surface morphology and performance of microporous PES membrane. Appl Surf Sci 255(9):4725–4732.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2008.07.139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lutchmiah K, Verliefde ARD, Roest K, Rietveld LC, Cornelissen ER (2014) Forward osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res 58(3):179–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Malek SAA, Seman MNA, Johnson D, Hilal N (2017) Formation and characterization of polyethersulfone membranes using different concentrations of polyvinylpyrrolidone. Desalination 288:31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nayak CA, Rastogi NK (2010) Forward osmosis for the concentration of anthocyanin from Garcinia indica, Choisy. Sep Purif Technol 71(2):144–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petrotos KB, Lazarides HN (2001) Osmotic concentration of liquid foods. J Food Eng 49:201–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(00)00222-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phuntsho S, Sahebi S, Majeed T, Lotfi F, Kim JE, Shon HK (2013) Assessing the major factors affecting the performances of forward osmosis and its implications on the desalination process. Chem Eng J 231(3):484–496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.07.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Qasim M, Mohammed F, Aidan A, Darwish NA (2017) Forward osmosis desalination using ferric sulfate draw solute. Desalination 423:12–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.08.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rabiee H, Vatanpour V, Zarrabi H (2015) Improvement in flux and antifouling properties of PVC ultrafiltration membranes by incorporation of zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles. Sep Purif Technol 156:299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roy D, Rahni M, Pierre P, Yargeau V (2016) Forward osmosis for the concentration and reuse of process saline wastewater. Chem Eng J 287:277–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sairam M, Sereewatthanawut E, Li K, Bismarck A, Livingston AG (2011) Method for the preparation of cellulose acetate flat sheet composite membranes for forward osmosis—desalination using MgSO4 draw solution. Desalination 273:299–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waheed S, Ahmad A, Khan SM, Sabad-e-Gul Jamil T, Islam A, Hussain T (2014) Synthesis, characterization, permeation and antibacterial properties of cellulose acetate/polyethylene glycol membranes modified with chitosan. Desalination 351:59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.07.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu WX, Chen QZ, Ge QC (2017) Recent advances in forward osmosis (FO) membrane: chemical modifications on membranes for FO processes. Desalination 419:101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Chemistry, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of ScienceNortheast Forestry UniversityHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations