Reverse Osmosis (RO) is a rapid-developing desalination technology; however, it suffers from inefficient energy consumption. To reduce energy consumption, in this study, reverse osmosis thin-film composite membrane (TFC) module was prepared and composed of m-phenylenediamine (MPD), graphene oxide, and 1,3,5-benzenetricarbonyl chloride (TMC) by interfacial polymerization on the surface of a polysulfone substrate. The graphene oxide was embedded in the mentioned thin-film composite by adding it to MPD aqueous solution to enhance permeation flux and, thus, reduce energy consumption. This study assessed the performance of the membrane using a lab-scale RO setup and evaluated permeability and salt rejection. The chemical properties of TFC were also analyzed using ATR-FTIR. Incorporating various concentrations (0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 ppm) of graphene oxide into the TFC was shown to improve water flux. Flux improvement of 50% was achieved by using graphene (80 ppm), while 10% of salt rejection was lost. These flux increases resulted from the changes in surface charge, surface roughness, and hydrophilicity due to the embedment of GO nanosheets. The simplicity of the method, compatibility of GO with polyamide membrane, and quite short-time reaction are the highlights of this technique for developing novel TFC membranes for water treatment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This research is been founded by Iran National Science Foundation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors whose names are mentioned in this article certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Otitoju TA, Saari RA, Ahmad AL. Progress in the modification of reverse osmosis (RO) membranes for enhanced performance. J Ind Eng Chem. 2018;67:52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Vincenzo M, Barboiu M, Tiraferri A, Legrand YM. Polyol-functionalized thin-film composite membranes with improved transport properties and boron removal in reverse osmosis. J Membr Sci. 2017;540:71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontié M, Awad S, Tazerout M, Chaouachi O, Chaouachi B. Recycling and energy recovery solutions of end-of-life reverse osmosis (RO) membrane materials: A sustainable approach. Desalination. 2017;423:30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li M. Reducing specific energy consumption of seawater desalination: Staged RO or RO-PRO? Desalination. 2017;422:124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aybar HŞ, Akhatov JS, Avezova NR, Halimov ASJASE. Solar powered RO desalination: Investigations on pilot project of PV powered RO desalination system. Appl Solar Energy. 2010;46(4):275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ančić I, Vladimir N, Luttenberger LR. Energy efficiency of ro-ro passenger ships with integrated power systems. Ocean Eng. 2018;166:350–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski W, Marszalek J, Tomczak E. Water desalination by pervaporation – Comparison of energy consumption. Desalination. 2018;433:89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi M, Wang Z, Zhao S, Wang J, Wang S. A support surface pore structure re-construction method to enhance the flux of TFC RO membrane. J Membr Sci. 2017;541:39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin L, Wang Z, Zheng S, Mi B. Polyamide-crosslinked graphene oxide membrane for forward osmosis. J Membr Sci. 2018;545:11–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aljundi IH. Desalination characteristics of TFN-RO membrane incorporated with ZIF-8 nanoparticles. Desalination. 2017;420:12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armendáriz-Ontiveros MM, García García A, de los Santos Villalobos S, Fimbres Weihs GA. Biofouling performance of RO membranes coated with Iron NPs on graphene oxide. Desalination. 2018;451:45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saleh TA, Gupta VK. Synthesis and characterization of alumina nano-particles polyamide membrane with enhanced flux rejection performance. Sep Purif Technol. 2012;89:245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niksefat N, Jahanshahi M, Rahimpour A. The effect of SiO2 nanoparticles on morphology and performance of thin film composite membranes for forward osmosis application. Desalination. 2014;343:140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee HS, Im SJ, Kim JH, Kim HJ, Kim JP, Min BR. Polyamide thin-film nanofiltration membranes containing TiO2 nanoparticles. Desalination. 2008;219(1):48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong B-H, et al. Interfacial polymerization of thin film nanocomposites: A new concept for reverse osmosis membranes. J Membr Sci. 2007;294(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ounaies Z, Park C, Wise KE, Siochi EJ, Harrison JS. Electrical properties of single wall carbon nanotube reinforced polyimide composites. Compos Sci Technol. 2003;63(11):1637–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park HM, Jee KY, Lee YT. Preparation and characterization of a thin-film composite reverse osmosis membrane using a polysulfone membrane including metal-organic frameworks. J Membr Sci. 2017;541:510–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bi R, Zhang Q, Zhang R, Su Y, Jiang Z. Thin film nanocomposite membranes incorporated with graphene quantum dots for high flux and antifouling property. J Membr Sci. 2018;553:17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karkooti A, Yazdi AZ, Chen P, McGregor M, Nazemifard N, Sadrzadeh M. Development of advanced nanocomposite membranes using graphene nanoribbons and nanosheets for water treatment. J Membr Sci. 2018;560:97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao W, Liu H, Meng N, Jian M, Wang H, Zhang X. Graphene oxide incorporated thin film nanocomposite membrane at low concentration monomers. J Membr Sci. 2018;565:380–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farahani MHDA, Vatanpour V. Chapter 4 - Polymer/Carbon Nanotubes Mixed Matrix Membranes for Water Purification. In: Thomas S, Pasquini D, Leu S-Y, Gopakumar DA, editors. Nanoscale Materials in Water Purification. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019. p. 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezaee R, et al. Fabrication and characterization of a polysulfone-graphene oxide nanocomposite membrane for arsenate rejection from water. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2015;13(1):61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang CY, Kwon Y-N, Leckie JOJD. Effect of membrane chemistry and coating layer on physiochemical properties of thin film composite polyamide RO and NF membranes: I. FTIR and XPS characterization of polyamide and coating layer chemistry. Desalination. 2009;242(1–3):149–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling R, Yu L, Pham TPT, Shao J, Chen JP, Reinhard M. The tolerance of a thin-film composite polyamide reverse osmosis membrane to hydrogen peroxide exposure. J Membr Sci. 2017;524:529–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang T, Zhang K, Li J, Yue X. Simultaneously enhancing hydrophilicity, chlorine resistance and anti-biofouling of APA-TFC membrane surface by densely grafting quaternary ammonium cations and salicylaldimines. J Membr Sci. 2017;528:296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You X, et al. Enhancing the permeation flux and antifouling performance of polyamide nanofiltration membrane by incorporation of PEG-POSS nanoparticles. J Membr Sci. 2017;540:454–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar