Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aluminum Sulfate as an Innovative Draw Solute for Forward Osmosis Desalination

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Chemistry Africa Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forward osmosis (FO) is a membrane technology which has attracted attention for water treatment and desalination. However, selecting an appropriate draw solute is vital to optimize its performance. This study seeks the efficiency of aluminum sulfate as an alternative draw solute in FO desalination with a cellulose triacetate (CTA) membrane. The effects of operating parameters on the performance of the FO were studied such as feed and draw temperatures, concentrations and flow. The experiments revealed that the permeate flux was improved by monitoring draw temperature, with a maximum of 2.5 L/m2 h was obtained at 53 °C. Also, the permeate flux was found to decrease with feed concentration. A maximum permeate flux of 2 L/m2 h was obtained at a draw flow rate of 35 L/h and draw concentration of 1 mol/L. On the other hand, using deionized water as feed solution yielded a reverse aluminum sulfate flux of 1.46 g/m2 h. The plots of the experimental and the modeling water flux displayed analogous trends in all tests, but the results showed a large deviation which was attributed to reverse solute flux, internal polarization concentration (ICP), external polarization concentration (ECP) and membrane fouling. Precipitation reaction using calcium hydroxide served to recover product water from the diluted draw solution. This operation was carried out via a precipitation reaction of aluminum sulfate with calcium hydroxide to eliminate the soluble chemicals like insoluble aluminum hydroxide and calcium sulfate. Eventually, aluminum sulfate draw solution was recovered by the reaction of aluminum hydroxide with sulfuric acid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ϕ:

Osmotic coefficient

νa :

Number of anions in the electrolyte formula

νc :

Number of cations in the electrolyte formula

Za :

Charges of the anion

Zc :

Charges of the cation

m:

Overall molality of the electrolyte (mol/kg)

Cac :

Third virial coefficient

C:

Solution concentration (mg/L)

M:

Molar mass of aluminum sulfate (kg/mol)

ρ:

Draw solution density (kg/m3)

Cϕ :

Pitzer parameter

β(0)ac , β(1)ac :

Second virial coefficients

α, b:

Model parameters

I:

Ionic strength

Aϕ :

Debye–Hückel constant

ma :

Respective molality values of the anion (mol/kg)

mb :

Respective molality values of the cation (mol/kg)

NA :

Avogadro number

\( \uprho_{{{\text{H}}_{2} {\text{O}}}} \) :

Density of water (kg/m3)

e:

Electronic charge

T:

Absolute temperature (K)

ε:

Water dielectric constant

k:

Boltzmann’s constant

π:

Osmotic pressure (Pa)

R:

Universal gas constant (J/mol/K)

ρ:

Density of aluminum sulfate draw solution (kg/m3)

w:

Mass fraction

\( \bar{\nu } \) :

Partial molar volume (m3/kg)

Jw :

Water flux (L/m2 h, LMH)

ΔV:

The change in volume of feed solution (L)

Δt:

Time interval for the volume change of ΔV (h)

S:

Active membrane surface area (m2)

A:

Membrane water permeability coefficient (m/s/Pa)

πD :

Osmotic pressure of the draw solution (Pa)

πF :

Osmotic pressure of the feed solution (Pa)

Js :

Reverse salt flux (g/m2 h, gMH)

C0 :

Initial feed concentrations (g/L)

Cf :

Final feed concentrations (g/L)

V0 :

Initial volume of the feed solution (L)

Vf :

Final volume of the feed solution (L)

σ0 :

Initial conductivity of the feed solution (S/m)

σf :

Final conductivity of the feed solution (S/m)

λ:

Molar electrical conductivity of the feed solution (S m2/mol)

C0 :

Initial aluminum feed concentration (mol/m3)

Cf :

Final aluminum feed concentration (mol/m3)

CP:

Concentration polarization

ICP:

Internal concentration polarisation

ECP:

External concentration polarisation

FS:

Feed solution

DS:

Draw solution

FO:

Forward osmosis

CTA:

Cellulose triacetate membrane

References

  1. El-Mokhtar I, Boubakri A, Bouguecha SAT, Hafiane A (2019) Modeling and experimental study of air gap membrane distillation unit: application for seawater desalination. Desalin Water Treat 154:72–81

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Karagiannis IC, Soldatos PG (2008) Water desalination cost literature: review and assessment. Desalination 223:448–456

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wensong C, Jiahao M, Xing D, Zhien Z, Wenxiang Z (2019) Biomimetic dynamic membrane for aquatic dye removal. Water Res 15:243–251

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jiahao M, Qi Y, Na Z, Wenxiang Z, Yi Z, Zhien Z (2018) A review on agro-industrial waste (AIW) derived adsorbents for water and wastewater treatment. J Environ Manag 227:395–405

    Google Scholar 

  5. Valladares LR, Li Z, Yangali-Quintanilla V, Li Q, Amy G (2013) Cleaning protocol for a FO membrane fouled in wastewater reuse. Desalin Water Treat 51:4821–4824

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wang Y, Wicaksana F, Tang CY, Fane AG (2010) Direct microscopic observation of forward osmosis membrane fouling. Environ Sci Technol 44:7102–7109

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cartinella JL, Cath TY, Flynn MT, Miller GC, Hunter KW, Childress AE (2006) Removal of natural steroid hormones from wastewater using membrane contactor processes. Environ Sci Technol 40:7381–7386

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao S, Zou L, Mulcahy D (2012) Brackish water desalination by a hybrid forward osmosis–nanofiltration system using divalent draw solute. Desalination 284:175–181

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nguyen HT, Nguyen NC, Chen SS, Ngo HH, Guo W, Li CW (2015) A new class of draw solutions for minimizing reverse salt flux to improve forward osmosis desalination. Sci Total Environ 538:129–136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chekli L, Phuntsho S, Shon HK, Vigneswaran S, Kandasamy J, Chanan A (2012) A review of draw solutes in forward osmosis process and their use in modern applications. Desalin Water Treat 43:167–184

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ge Q, Ling M, Chung TS (2013) Draw solutions for forward osmosis processes: developments, challenges, and prospects for the future. J Membr Sci 442:225–237

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cath TY, Childress AE, Elimelech M (2006) Forward osmosis: principles, applications, and recent developments. J Membr Sci 281:70–87

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao S, Zou L, Tang CY, Mulcahy D (2012) Recent developments in forward osmosis: opportunities and challenges. J Membr Sci 396:1–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Batchelder GW (1965) Process for the demineralization of water. US Patent 3:171–799

  15. McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2006) Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis. J Membr Sci 284:237–247

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Adham S, Oppenheimer J, Liu L, Kumar M (2007) Dewatering reverse osmosis concentrate from water reuse using forward osmosis. Water Reuse Found Res Rep 5:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ge Q, Su J, Chung TS (2011) Amy G Hydrophilic superparamagnetic nanoparticles: synthesis, characterization, and performance in forward osmosis processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 50:382–388

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ling MM, Chung TS (2011) Desalination process using super hydrophilic nanoparticles via forward osmosis integrated with ultrafiltration regeneration. Desalination 278:194–202

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ge Q, Su J, Amy GL, Chung TS (2012) Exploration of polyelectrolytes as draw solutes in forward osmosis processes. Water Res 46:1318–1326

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stone ML, Rae C, Stewart FF, Wilson AD (2013) Switchable polarity solvents as draw solutes for forward osmosis. Desalination 312:124–129

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Qasim M, Mohammed F, Aidan A, Darwish NA (2017) Forward osmosis desalination using ferric sulfate draw solute. Desalination 423:12–20

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bouchrit R, Boubakri A, Mosbahi T, Hafiane A, Bouguecha SAT (2017) Membrane crystallization for mineral recovery from saline solution: study case Na2SO4 crystals. Desalination 412:1–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ben Maouia D, Boubakri A, Bouchrit R, Hafiane A, Bouguecha SAT (2019) Chromium removal by forward osmosis: a flux modeling and experimental validation. Desalin Water Treat 154:30–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith JM, Van Ness HC, Abbott MM (2005) Introduction to chemical engineering thermodynamics. J Chem Educ 584:10–27

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pitzer KS, Mayorga G (1973) Thermodynamics of electrolytes. II. Activity and osmotic coefficients for strong electrolytes with one or both ions univalent. J Phys Chem 77:2300–2308

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hu ZA, Wu HY, Gao JZ (1999) Calculation of osmotic pressure difference across membranes in hyperfiltration. Desalination 121:131–137

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Laliberte M, Cooper WE (2004) Model for calculating the density of aqueous electrolyte solutions. J Chem Eng Data 49:1141–1151

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Christov C (2001) Thermodynamic study of the K–Mg–AI–CI–SO4–H2O system at the temperature 298.15 K. Calphad 25:445–454

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Phuntsho S, Shon HK, Vigneswaran S, Kandasamy J, Hong SK, Lee SY (2012) Influence of temperature and temperature difference in the performance of forward osmosis desalination process. J Membr Sci 416:734–744

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yang Q, Wang KY, Chung TS (2009) Dual-layer hollow fibers with enhanced flux as novel forward osmosis membranes for water production. Environ Sci Technol 43:2800–2805

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rannany M, Sousa S, Lora-Garcia J, López-Pérez MF (2018) Experimental study and modeling of forward osmosis process for activated sludge concentration by using residual brine from a stuffed olive factory as draw solution. J Water Process Eng 21:143–153

    Google Scholar 

  32. Park M, Kim JH (2013) Numerical analysis of spacer impacts on forward osmosis membrane process using concentration polarization index. J Membr Sci 427:10–20

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang KY, Teoh MM, Nugroho A, Chung TS (2011) Integrated forward osmosis–membrane distillation (FO–MD) hybrid system for the concentration of protein solutions. Chem Eng Sci 66:2421–2430

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. McCutcheon JR, McGinnis RL, Elimelech M (2005) A novel ammonia–carbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process. Desalination 174:1–11

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Elimelech M, Bhattacharjee S (1998) A novel approach for modeling concentration polarization in crossflow membrane filtration based on the equivalence of osmotic pressure model and filtration theory. J Membr Sci 145:223–241

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gao Y, Haavisto S, Li W, Tang CY, Salmela J, Fane AG (2014) Novel approach to characterizing the growth of a fouling layer during membrane filtration via optical coherence tomography. Environ Sci Technol 48:14273–14281

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. She Q, Hou D, Liu J, Tan KH, Tang CY (2013) Effect of feed spacer induced membrane deformation on the performance of pressure retarded osmosis (PRO): implications for PRO process operation. J Membr Sci 445:170–182

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mi B, Elimelech M (2010) Gypsum scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis: measurements and mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 44:2022–2028

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zou S, Gu Y, Xiao D, Tang CY (2011) The role of physical and chemical parameters on forward osmosis membrane fouling during algae separation. J Membr Sci 366:356–362

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mi B, Elimelech M (2010) Organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes: fouling reversibility and cleaning without chemical reagents. J Membr Sci 348:337–345

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. She Q, Wang R, Fane AG, Tang CY (2015) Membrane fouling in osmotically driven membrane processes: a review. J Membr Sci 30270:2376–7388

    Google Scholar 

  42. Xie M, Price WE, Nghiem LD, Elimelech M (2013) Effects of feed and draw solution temperature and transmembrane temperature difference on the rejection of trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis. J Membr Sci 438:57–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Alnaizy R, Aidan A, Qasim M (2013) Copper sulfate as draw solute in forward osmosis desalination. J Environ Chem Eng 1:424–430

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bhattacharya M, Dutta SK, Sikder J, Mandal MK (2014) Computational and experimental study of chromium (VI) removal in direct contact membrane distillation. J Membr Sci 450:447–456

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang W, Zhang Y, Esparra-Alvarado M, Wang X, Yang H, Xie Y (2014) Effects of pH and temperature on forward osmosis membrane flux using rainwater as the makeup for cooling water dilution. Desalination 351:70–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bahar R (2010) Conversion of saline water to fresh water using air gap membrane distillation AGMD (thèse)

  47. Touati K, Tadeo F (2016) Study of the reverse salt diffusion in pressure retarded osmosis: influence on concentration polarization and effect of the operating conditions. Desalination 389:171–186

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Water, Membranes and Environmental Biotechnologies, Center for Water Researches and Technologies, P.B. 273, 8020, Soliman, Tunisia

    Dhouha Ben Maouia, Ali Boubakri & Amor Hafiane

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdul-Aziz University, P.B. 80204, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia

    Salah Bouguecha

Authors
  1. Dhouha Ben Maouia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Boubakri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amor Hafiane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salah Bouguecha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dhouha Ben Maouia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maouia, D.B., Boubakri, A., Hafiane, A. et al. Aluminum Sulfate as an Innovative Draw Solute for Forward Osmosis Desalination. Chemistry Africa 3, 141–152 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42250-019-00092-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42250-019-00092-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation