Rejection solute

The pressure difference between the high and low pressure sides of the membrane is denoted as AP the osmotic pressure difference across the membrane is defined as Att the net driving force for water transport across the membrane is AP — (tAtt, where O is the Staverman reflection coefficient and a = 1 means 100% solute rejection. The standardized terminology recommended for use to describe pressure-driven membrane processes, including that for reverse osmosis, has been reviewed (24). 

When it was recognized (31) that the SD model does not explain the negative solute rejections found for some organics, the extended solution—diffusion model was formulated. The SD model does not take into account possible pressure dependence of the solute chemical potential which, although negligible for inorganic salt solutions, can be important for organic solutes (28,29). 

In a permeation experiment, an HERO module with a membrane area of 200 m is used to remove a nickel salt from an electroplating wastewater. TTie feed to the module has a flowrate of 5 x IQ— m /s, a nickel-salt composition of 4,(X)0 ppm and an osmotic pressure of 2.5 atm. The average pressure difference across the membrane is 28 atm. The permeate is collected at atmospheric pressure. The results of the experiment indicate that the water recovery is 80% while the solute rejection is 95%. Evaluate the transport parameters Ay and (D2u/KS). 

Let us first evaluate the composition and flowrate of the permeate using solute rejection and permeate recovery ... 

Water recovery (or conversion) is the ratio of the permeate flowrate to the feed flowrate x 100% Solute rejection is defined as (1 - Cp/Cf ) x 100%. 

The diffusion field just ahead of the solid front can be thought of as containing two ingredients a diffusion layer of thickness associated with global solute rejection, and modulations due to the periodic structure of the solid of extent A (A averaging approximation by Jackson and Hunt [137] seems justified. 

It is not possible at present to provide an equation, or set of equations, that allows the prediction from fu st principles of the membrane permeation rate and solute rejection for a given real separation. Research attempting such prediction for model systems is underway, but the physical properties of real systems, both the membrane and the solute, are too complex for such analysis. An analogous situation exists for conventional filtration processes. The general... 

The solute rejection is defined as the ratio of the concentration difference across the membrane to the bulk concentration on the feed-side of the membrane. If it is assumed that both sides are well - mixed ... 

The thermodynamic approach does not make explicit the effects of concentration at the membrane. A good deal of the analysis of concentration polarisation given for ultrafiltration also applies to reverse osmosis. The control of the boundary layer is just as important. The main effects of concentration polarisation in this case are, however, a reduced value of solvent permeation rate as a result of an increased osmotic pressure at the membrane surface given in equation 8.37, and a decrease in solute rejection given in equation 8.38. In many applications it is usual to pretreat feeds in order to remove colloidal material before reverse osmosis. The components which must then be retained by reverse osmosis have higher diffusion coefficients than those encountered in ultrafiltration. Hence, the polarisation modulus given in equation 8.14 is lower, and the concentration of solutes at the membrane seldom results in the formation of a gel. For the case of turbulent flow the Dittus-Boelter correlation may be used, as was the case for ultrafiltration giving a polarisation modulus of ... 

Ballou, E. V., M. I. Leban and T. Wydeven. 1973. Solute rejection by porous glass membranes. III. Reduced silica dissolution and prolonged hyperfiltration service with feed additive. J. Appl. Chem. Biotechnol. 23 119-30. 

Geong and coworkers reported a new concept for the formation of zeolite/ polymer mixed-matrix reverse osmosis (RO) membranes by interfacial polymerization of mixed-matrix thin films in situ on porous polysulfone (PSF) supports [83]. The mixed-matrix films comprise NaA zeoHte nanoparticles dispersed within 50-200 nm polyamide films. It was found that the surface of the mixed-matrix films was smoother, more hydrophilic and more negatively charged than the surface of the neat polyamide RO membranes. These NaA/polyamide mixed-matrix membranes were tested for a water desalination application. It was demonstrated that the pure water permeability of the mixed-matrix membranes at the highest nanoparticle loadings was nearly doubled over that of the polyamide membranes with equivalent solute rejections. The authors also proved that the micropores of the NaA zeolites played an active role in water permeation and solute rejection. 

Figure 3. Membrane fluxes in relation to additive composition at two typical levels of solute rejection...

Concentration Method. The concentration procedure that was developed and evaluated was a RO-Donnan dialysis system (4). The initial objective during method development was to conduct membranescreening tests to evaluate the suitability of various RO and ion-exchange membranes. The four membranes considered for final evaluation on the basis of solute rejection, chlorine stability, and artifact production were the cellulose acetate and FT-30 (Film Tec) RO membranes, the Nafion cation-exchange membrane, and the ION AC MA 3475 anion-exchange membrane. 

Reverse osmosis for concentrating trace organic contaminants in aqueous systems by using cellulose acetate and Film Tec FT-30 commercial membrane systems was evaluated for the recovery of 19 trace organics representing 10 chemical classes. Mass balance analysis required determination of solute rejection, adsorption within the system, and leachates. The rejections with the cellulose acetate membrane ranged from a negative value to 97%, whereas the FT-30 membrane exhibited 46-99% rejection. Adsorption was a major problem some model solutes showed up to 70% losses. These losses can be minimized by the mode of operation in the field. Leachables were not a major problem. 

---