Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes with substrate layer composed of polysulfone blended with PEG or polysulfone grafted PEG methyl ether methacrylate

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To advance commercial application of forward osmosis (FO), we investigated the effects of two additives on the performance of polysulfone (PSf) based FO membranes: one is poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), and another is PSf grafted with PEG methyl ether methacrylate (PSf-g-PEGMA). PSf blended with PEG or PSf-g-PEGMA was used to form a substrate layer, and then polyamide was formed on a support layer by interfacial polymerization. In this study, NaCl (1 mol∙L–1) and deionized water were used as the draw solution and the feed solution, respectively. With the increase of PEG content from 0 to 15 wt-%, FO water flux declined by 23.4% to 59.3% compared to a PSf TFC FO membrane. With the increase of PSf-g-PEGMA from 0 to 15 wt-%, the membrane flux showed almost no change at first and then declined by about 52.0% and 50.4%. The PSf with 5 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA FO membrane showed a higher pure water flux of 8.74 L∙m–2∙h–1 than the commercial HTI membranes (6–8 L∙m–2∙h–1) under the FO mode. Our study suggests that hydrophobic interface is very important for the formation of polyamide, and a small amount of PSfg-PEGMA can maintain a good condition for the formation of polyamide and reduce internal concentration polarization.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cath T Y, Childress A E, Elimelech M. Forward osmosis: Principles, applications, and recent developments. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 281(1-2): 70–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee S, Boo C, Elimelech M, Hong S. Comparison of fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO). Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 365(1-2): 34–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mi B, Elimelech M. Organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes: Fouling reversibility and cleaning without chemical reagents. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 348(1-2): 337–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mi B, Elimelech M. Gypsum scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis: Measurements and mechanisms. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(6): 2022–2028

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mi B, Elimelech M. Silica scaling and scaling reversibility in forward osmosis. Desalination, 2013, 312: 75–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaffer D L, Yip N Y, Gilron J, Elimelech M. Seawater desalination for agriculture by integrated forward and reverse osmosis: Improved product water quality for potentially less energy. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 415: 1–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Su J, Chung T S, Helmer B J, de Wit J S. Enhanced double-skinned FO membranes with inner dense layer for wastewater treatment and macromolecule recycle using sucrose as draw solute. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 396: 92–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ge Q, Wang P, Wan C, Chung T S. Polyelectrolyte-promoted forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD) hybrid process for dye wastewater treatment. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(11): 6236–6243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Petrotos K B, Quantick P, Petropakis H. A study of the direct osmotic concentration of tomato juice in tubular membrane-module configuration. I. The effect of certain basic process parameters on the process performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 1998, 150(1): 99–110

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nayak C A, Rastogi N K. Forward osmosis for the concentration of anthocyanin from Garcinia indica Choisy. Separation and Purification Technology, 2010, 71(2): 144–151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. She Q, Jin X, Tang C Y. Osmotic power production from salinity gradient resource by pressure retarded osmosis: Effects of operating conditions and reverse solute diffusion. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 401: 262–273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chou S, Wang R, Shi L, She Q, Tang C, Fane A G. Thin-film composite hollow fiber membranes for pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) process with high power density. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 389: 25–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yip N Y, Tiraferri A, PhillipWA, Schiffrnan J D, Hoover L A, Kim Y C, Elimelech M. Thin-film composite pressure retarded osmosis membranes for sustainable power generation from salinity gradients. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(10): 4360–4369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yip N Y, Elimelech M. Performance limiting effects in power generation from salinity gradients by pressure retarded osmosis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(23): 10273–10282

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Abdallah H, El-Gendi A, Khedr M, El-Zanati E. Hydrophobic polyethersulfone porous membranes for membrane distillation. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2015, 9(1): 84–93

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Xie M, Nghiem L D, Price W E, Elimelech M. A forward osmosismembrane distillation hybrid process for direct sewer mining: System performance and limitations. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(23): 13486–13493

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Phuntsho S, Shon H K, Hong S, Lee S, Vigneswaran S. A novel low energy fertilizer driven forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation: Evaluating the performance of fertilizer draw solutions. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 375(1-2): 172–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Phuntsho S, Shon H K, Majeed T, El Saliby I, Vigneswaran S, Kandasamy J, Hong S, Lee S. Blended fertilizers as draw solutions for fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis desalination. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(8): 4567–4575

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sukitpaneenit P, Chung T S. High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes with macrovoid-free and highly porous structure for sustainable water production. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(13): 7358–7365

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang R, Shi L, Tang C Y, Chou S, Qiu C, Fane A G. Characterization of novel forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 355(1-2): 158–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao S, Zou L, Tang C Y, Mulcahy D. Recent developments in forward osmosis: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 396: 1–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tiraferri A, Yip N Y, Phillip W A, Schiffman J D, Elimelech M. Relating performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes to support layer formation and structure. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 367(1-2): 340–352

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. McCutcheon J R, Elimelech M. Influence of membrane support layer hydrophobicity on water flux in osmotically driven membrane processes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2008, 318(1-2): 458–466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ghosh A K, Hoek E M V. Impacts of support membrane structure and chemistry on polyamide-polysulfone interfacial composite membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2009, 336(1-2): 140–148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Widjojo N, Chung T S, Weber M, Maletzko C, Warzelhan V. The role of sulphonated polymer and macrovoid-free structure in the support layer for thin-film composite (TFC) forward osmosis (FO) membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 383(1-2): 214–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhong P, Fu X, Chung T S, Weber M, Maletzko C. Development of thin-film composite forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes using direct sulfonated polyphenylenesulfone (sPPSU) as membrane substrates. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(13): 7430–7436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chakrabarty B, Ghoshal A K, Purkait M K. Effect of molecular weight of PEG on membrane morphology and transport properties. Journal of Membrane Science, 2008, 309(1-2): 209–221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu B, Chen C, Li T, Crittenden J, Chen Y. High performance ultrafiltration membrane composed of PVDF blended with its derivative copolymer PVDF-g-PEGMA. Journal of Membrane Science, 2013, 445: 66–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nhu-Ngoc B, McCutcheon J R. Hydrophilic nanofibers as new supports for thin film composite membranes for engineered osmosis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(3): 1761–1769

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Park J Y, Acar M H, Akthakul A, Kuhlman W, Mayes A M. Polysulfone-graft-poly(ethylene glycol) graft copolymers for surface modification of polysulfone membranes. Biomaterials, 2006, 27(6): 856–865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ghosh A K, Jeong B H, Huang X, Hoek E M V. Impacts of reaction and curing conditions on polyamide composite reverse osmosis membrane properties. Journal of Membrane Science, 2008, 311(1-2): 34–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cadotte J E. Interfacially synthesized reverse osmosis membrane. US Patent, 4277344, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yip N Y, Tiraferri A, Phillip W A, Schiffman J D, Elimelech M. High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(10): 3812–3818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Phillip W A, Yong J S, Elimelech M. Reverse draw solute permeation in forward osmosis: Modeling and experiments. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(13): 5170–5176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cath T Y, Elimelech M, McCutcheon J R, McGinnis R L, Achilli A, Anastasio D, Brady A R, Childress A E, Farr I V, Hancock N T, Lampi J, Nghiem L D, Xie M, Yip N Y. Standard methodology for evaluating membrane performance in osmotically driven membrane processes. Desalination, 2013, 312: 31–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Boom R M, Wienk I M, Vandenboomgaard T, Smolders C A. Microstructures in phase inversion membranes.2. The role of a polymeric additive. Journal of Membrane Science, 1992, 73(2-3): 277–292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu B, Chen C, Zhang W, Crittenden J, Chen Y. Low-cost antifouling PVC ultrafiltration membrane fabrication with Pluronic F 127: Effect of additives on properties and performance. Desalination, 2012, 307: 26–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei J, Qiu C, Tang C Y, Wang R, Fane A G. Synthesis and characterization of flat-sheet thin film composite forward osmosis membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 372(1-2): 292–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Huang L, McCutcheon J R. Impact of support layer pore size on performance of thin film composite membranes for forward osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 483: 25–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mi Y F, Zhao Q, Ji Y L, An Q F, Gao C J. A novel route for surface zwitterionic functionalization of polyamide nanofiltration membranes with improved performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 490: 311–320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, China

    Baicang Liu, Pingju Zhao & Qingyuan Wang

  2. Institute of New Energy and Low Carbon Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610207, China

    Baicang Liu, Pingju Zhao & Qingyuan Wang

  3. Litree Purifying Technology Co., Ltd, Haikou, 571126, China

    Chen Chen

  4. Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China

    Tong Li

  5. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150090, China

    Caihong Liu

  6. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Yongsheng Chen & John Crittenden

Authors
  1. Baicang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pingju Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caihong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qingyuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yongsheng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John Crittenden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baicang Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, B., Chen, C., Zhao, P. et al. Thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes with substrate layer composed of polysulfone blended with PEG or polysulfone grafted PEG methyl ether methacrylate. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 10, 562–574 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-016-1588-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-016-1588-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation