forward osmosis process for€¦ · with removal efficiency 78.87% after 3 hrs. reverse salt flux...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 535 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2019, pp.535–547, Article ID: IJCIET_10_01_050

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=1

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

©IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

FORWARD OSMOSIS PROCESS FOR

REMOVAL OF CD+2

IONS FROM SIMULATED

WASTEWATER BY USING CELLULOSE

ACETATE (CA) MEMBRANE

Tamara Kawther Hussein

Department of Environmental engineering, College of Engineering,

Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq,

ABSTRACT

In present work forward osmosis (FO) process was used as a novel process for the

removal of Cd+2

ions from wastewater. Cellulose acetate (CA) membrane used as flat

sheet membrane for Cd+2

ions removal. MgSO4.7H2O with different concentration was

used as draw solution. Influence of different parameters was studied such as

concentration of draw solutions ranged (10-150 g/l), concentration of feed solutions

(10-200 mg/l), flow rate of draw solutions (30-100 l/hr), flow rate of feed solutions

(30-100 l/hr), and temperature of both feed and draw solution (10-40oC) at constant

pressure 0.3 bar gauge. The results proved that when the draw solution concentration,

flow rate of feed solution, and temperature of both feed solution and draw solution

increased, the water flux increase. Water flux decreased by increasing cadmium ions

concentration in feed solution, operating time of experiment, and flow rate of draw

solution. Cadmium ions concentration in feed solution effluent increased when

concentration of feed solution increased, time of experimental work, draw solution

concentration, feed solution flow rate, and temperature of feed and draw solutions and

decreased with increasing draw solution flow rate. According to the results obtained,

forward osmosis process can be used to recover Cd+2

ions contaminated wastewater

with removal efficiency 78.87% after 3 hrs. Reverse salt flux of MgSO4.7H2O through

the CA membrane decreased with time which reached 23.34 g/m2.h after 3 hrs.

Keywords: Forward osmosis; Cadmium Ions wastewater; MgSO4.7H2O draw

solution; CA membrane separations.

Cite this Article: Tamara Kawther Hussein, Forward Osmosis Process For Removal

of Cd+2 Ions From Simulated Wastewater by Using Cellulose Acetate (Ca)

Membrane, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 10

(1), 2019, pp. 535–547.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=1

Forward Osmosis Process For Removal of Cd+2

Ions From Simulated Wastewater by Using Cellulose

Acetate (Ca) Membrane


1. INTRODUCTION

One of major environmental problem is water contaminate by toxic heavy metals through

water discharge by activity of industries. Heavy metals are toxic elements and their discharge

into streams cause harmful effects on human health and the environment [1, 2]. So, before

reuse of the water or its discharged to the environment heavy metals must be removed [3].

Cadmium one of highly toxic heavy metals to the environment and human beings and there is

some evidence that it is carcinogenic. Cadmium used in many industries such as cadmium

mining, widely used in pigments, battery industries, and ceramic industries [4]. The

conventional processes have been used for removing of heavy metals are electrochemical

treatment, ion exchange, chemical precipitation, and filtration, but these processes have

disadvantages such as need high energy, huge quantity of toxic sludge production and

recovery of heavy metals contaminate wastewater incomplete [5]. Membrane processes

consider one of important method for removing heavy metals from wastewater. There are

several membrane processes have been used successfully to treat heavy metals contaminate

wastewater including microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), ultrafiltration (UF),

electrodialysis (ED), nanofiltration (NF) [6]. Forward osmosis (FO) has drawn attention as a

potential technology alternative to reverse osmosis (RO) process. Forward osmosis operation

generated by difference in osmotic pressure between feed solution and draw solution. FO has

a lower tendency for irreversible fouling, low cost and higher cleaning efficiency [7, 8]. The

choice of draw solution usually depend on number of many factors such as high osmotic

pressure, high recovery, non-toxic, low cost, and chemically inert to the membrane [9].

This work review the efficiency of forward osmosis (FO) process for the removal of Cd+2

ions from wastewater. In this search using MgSO4.7H2O as draw solution, and the membrane

used in this work is cellulose acetate (CA) consist of active layer and support layer. The

influence of different parameters was studied such as concentration of draw and feed

solutions, experiment work time, temperature of both feed and draw solution, and feed and

draw flow rate on water flux. Feed solution outlet concentration and reverse salt flux through

CA membrane also was studied.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Preparation of Feed Solution

Samples with cadmium Cd+2

ions concentration (10, 30, 50, 80, 200) mg/l were prepared by

dissolving the required amount of Cadmium nitrate tetrahydrate Cd(NO3)2.4H2O (Mwt =

308.42 gm/ml) allowed completely dissolved in deionized water (DI), of 3-8 µS/cm

conductivity. A stirrer at an agitation speed of 1000 rpm was used to mix the solution for 20

min. The total feed solution volume was 4 litters. Mass of cadmium metal added to water was

calculated according to equation (1)

W=V×Ci×wtAt

wtM

.

. (1)

where: W: Weight of cadmium metal salt (mg), V: Volume of solution (1), Ci: Initial

concentration of cadmium metal ions in solution (mg/l), M.wt: Molecular weight of cadmium

metal salt (g/mole), At.wt: Atomic weight of cadmium metal ion (g/mole).

The removal efficiency (R %) of Cd+2

ions by CA membrane was calculated by using

Equation below

100*1%

F

P

C

CR

(2)



where CF is the concentration of Cd+2

ions in the feed solution and CP is the permeate Cd+2

ions concentration.

2.2. Preparation of Draw Solution

For preparing magnesium sulfate hydrate (MgSO4.7H2O) solutions with concentration of 10,

30, 50 and 150 g/l it was supplied from scientific equipment offices in Bab Al-Moatham

markets, Baghdad, Iraq as powder, Deionized water of 3-8 µs/cm conductivity was used and

to mix the solution a stirrer at an agitation speed of 1000 rpm was used for 20 min. The total

draw solution volume was 4 liters. Table 1 shows the chemical specification of the salt

(MgSO4.7H2O).

Table1. Chemical specifications of draw solutions

Component Properties

MgSO4.7H2O MW = 246.47

Assay 98% min.

Max. limits of impurities (%)

Chloride 0.04

Lead 0.0005

2.3. Membrane

The symmetric cellulose acetate (CA) membrane supplied by GE osmonics, England, RO was

used as flat sheet module. Cellulose acetate (CA) membrane consist of thick fabric backing

layer to provide mechanical support for membrane. The membrane maximum operating

temperature 45°C.

2.4. Experimental Work

Experiments were conducted using designed a bench membrane system. Forward osmosis

system consists of draw and feed solution reservoirs (7 liters in volume). Two diaphragm

booster pumps with inlet pressure 80 psia was used to pump draw and feed solution from

reservoir to direct osmosis element. To measure feed and draw volumetric flow rate two

calibrated flow meters were used each of range (30 - 100 l/h). The desired temperature for

both feed and draw solutions was controlled by submersible electrical coil and thermostat of

range from 0 to 80oC. To indicate the feed solution pressure a pressure gauge (range of 0-2

bar gauge) was used. FO osmosis cell consist of two symmetric channels on each side of the

membrane, the dimensions of the channels are 26.5×4×0.3 cm, the membrane provided an

effective area of 106 cm2. active side of CA membrane faced the feed solution Cd

+2 ions and

support layer faced the draw solution MgSO4.7H2O. Both solutions flowing tangentially to

both side of membrane in the same direction (ie co-current flow). The effluent of draw and

feed solutions were recycled back to the main vessels. For all experiments pressure of 0.3 bar

across the membrane sheets in the feed side was applied. Atomic Absorption Spectrometry

(AAS) was used to determine the feed solution (Cd+2

ions) concentration in outlet and

permeate. To determine reverse salt of MgSO4.7H2O concentration of the salt was measured

by using conductivity meter. Scheme of forward osmosis apparatus is shown in Figure 1.

Operating time of experiment was 3 hours. For checking water flux permeate was calculated

by measuring the increasing in volume of DS every 0.5 hour and compared with the reduction

in the FS volume. Water flux measured by dividing this transported water by the effective

area of CA membrane and the time. When the experiment was finished the remaining solution





was drained and physical cleaning was done by circulating deionized water on both side of

membrane.

Figure 1. The schematic diagram of forward osmosis process used in all experiments.

Table 2 Testing and Measuring devices used in forward osmosis process

No. Testing and Measuring Devices

1 Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS)

(Norwalk, Connecticut, U.S.A)

2 Digital laboratory conductivity meter (CRISON

Basic 30 EC-Meter, Spain) with range (0.01μS -

500mS/cm)

3 Stirrer at an agitation (Type Heidolph, model

RZR 2021, speed range: 40 - 2000 rpm)

4 submersible electrical coil (Model CK – 002)

and thermostat of range from 0 to 70 oC

3. RESULT AND DISCUSION

3.1. Effect of Feed Solution Concentration

Figure 2 illustrates the effect of feed solution (Cd+2

ions) concentration on water flux at

different concentrations of draw solution (MgSO4.7H2O) when flow rate of feed and draw

solutions 50 l/h and temperature 25oC. Increasing initial feed solution concentration from 10-

200 mg/l the water flux decreased because of osmotic pressure of feed solution increase and

driving force (∆π= πMgSO4.7H2O – πCd+2 ions metal) decreased. This behavior is well agreed with

[10]. Feed solution outlet concentration increased due to increase the water transport from

feed side (cadmium metal solution) to draw side (magnesium sulfate hydrate solution) across

the CA membrane, which conforms what came to [11] as shown in Figure 3.



0

15

30

45

60

75

90

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

Wa

ter flu

x ,

l/m

2.

h

Conc. of feed, mg/l

Conc. of draw=10 g/l




Figure 2. Effect of concentration of feed solution (Cd+2

ions) on water flux at different draw solution

concentration (MgSO4.7H2O).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

Ccd

+2

ou

tle

t, m

g/l

Conc. of feed, mg/l





Figure 3. Effect of concentration of feed solution (Cd+2

ions) on feed solution outlet concentration

(Cd+2

ions ) at different draw solution concentration (MgSO4.7H2O).

3.2. Effect of Experimental Operating Time

Figure 4. illustrates the effect of time on water flux at different concentrations of draw

solution (MgSO4.7H2O) range from 10-150 g/l with constant concentration of Cd+2

ions

solution 80 mg/l, flow rate of both feed and draw solutions was 50 l/h and temperature 25oC.

With the time, the water flux decreased and after 2 hrs steady state was reached due to

diminish concentration of draw solution and formation of concentration polarization (CP)

phenomenon on the CA membrane. These conclusions are well agreed with the investigation

of, [12]. Also with the time, feed solution outlet concentration increased due to increasing

pure water transport across the CA membrane from feed side to draw side, which conforms

what came to [2] as shown in Figure 5.





0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Wa

ter fl

ux

, l/

m2.

h

Time, h





Figure 4. Effect of experimental operating time on water flux at different draw solution concentration

(MgSO4.7H2O).

75

85

95

105

115

125

135

145

155

165

175

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Ccd

+2

ou

tle

t, m

g/l

Time, h




Conc.of draw=150 g/l

Figure 5. Effect of experimental operating time on Feed solution outlet concentration (Cd+2 ions)

at different draw solution concentration (MgSO4.7H2O).

3.3. Effect of Draw Solution Concentration

Increasing concentration of draw solution from 10-150 g/l, the water flux increased and this

attributed to increasing in driving force (∆π) and water transport through the membrane as

shown in Figure 6 when the flow rate of both feed and draw solutions was 50 l/h and

temperature 25oC. These conclusions are well agreed with the investigation of [13]. Also feed

solution outlet concentration increased as shown in Figure 7 due to increase the volume of

water permeate from feed side (cadmium metal solution) to draw side (magnesium sulfate

hydrate solution) across the membrane, which conforms what came to [14].



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Wa

ter fl

ux

, l

/m2.

h

Conc. of draw, g/l

Conc. of feed=10 mg/l





Figure 6. Effect of draw solution concentration (MgSO4.7H2O) on water flux at different feed solution

concentration (Cd+2

ions).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Ccd

+2

ou

tle

t, m

g/l

Conc. of draw, g/l






Figure 7. Effect of draw solution concentration (MgSO4.7H2O) on Feed solution outlet concentration

(Cd+2

ions) at different feed solution concentration (Cd+2

ions).

3.4. Effect of Draw Solution Flow Rate

Figures 8, 9 illustrate the effect of draw solution flow rate (Qd) on water flux and feed

solution outlet concentration at different concentrations of draw solution (MgSO4.7H2O)

when concentration of Cd+2

ions solution was 80 mg/l, flow rate of feed solution 50 l/h and

temperature 25oC. Decreasing the draw solution flow rate (Qd) increasing the concentration of

MgSO4.7H2O build at the vicinity of the membrane surface (support layer membrane), and

lead to increasing the driving force (∆π) which resulting in increasing water flux through the

CA membrane, this conclusion correspond with the investigation of [15]. Decreasing flow

rate of MgSO4.7H2O draw solution will increase water permeate and this will cause

increasing of Cd+2

ions concentration in feed solution outlet. This conclusion is compatible

what came to investigation of [16].





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Wate

r flu

x ,

l/m

2.

h

Draw solution flowrate (Qd), l/hr





Figure 8. Effect of draw solution flow rate (Qd) on water flux at different draw solution concentration.

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Ccd

+2

ou

tlet,

m

g/l

Draw solution flowrate (Qd), l/hr





Figure 9. Effect of draw solution flow rate (Qd) on Feed solution outlet concentration (Cd+2

ions) at

different draw solution concentration (MgSO4.7H2O)

3.5. Effect of Feed Solution Flow Rate

The flux of water increased by increasing the flow rate of feed solution at different

concentrations of draw solution (MgSO4.7H2O) with constant Cd+2

ions concentration 80

mg/l, flow rate of draw solution was 50 l/h and temperature 25oC as shown in Figure 10.

Increasing the flow rate of feed solution from 30 to 100 l/hr caused low concentration of

cadmium metal salt build up near the active layer of membrane surface (i.e. reducing the

concentrative external concentration polarization (CECP)), and this cause decreasing in

osmotic pressure in the feed solution side and result in increasing the driving force (∆π).

These observations are well agreed with results of, [17]. Increasing feed solution flow rate

lead to increasing Cd+2

ions concentration in feed solution due to increasing the transmission

of water from feed solution to draw solution through CA membrane as shown in Figure 11.

This conclusion correspond with previous studies [18, 19].



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Wa

ter flu

x ,

l/m

2.

h

Feed solution flowrate (Qf), l/hr





Figure 10. Effect of feed solution flow rate (Qf) on water flux with at different draw solution

concentration.

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Ccd

+2

ou

tle

t, m

g/l

Feed solution flowrate (Qf), l/hr





Figure 11. Effect of feed solution flow rate (Qf) on Feed solution outlet concentration (Cd+2

ions) at

different draw solution concentration.

3.6. Effect of Temperature

The effect of temperature on water flux through CA membrane at different concentrations of

draw solution (MgSO4.7H2O) with constant Cd+2

ions concentration 80 mg/l, flow rate of both

feed and draw solutions was 50 l/h is shown in Figure 12. The increased in temperature of

both Cd+2

metal ions feed solution and MgSO4.7H2O draw solution from 10 to 40oC lead to

reduce the viscosity of solutions and increasing the diffusion rate of water through the CA

membrane due to lower resistance against passage of flow and higher water flux, this

consistence with [20]. Increasing temperature of both feed and draw solutions will increase

the water flux through the membrane and lead to increase Cd+2

ions concentration in feed

solution as shown in Figure 13. This conclusion agrees with [21].





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Wa

ter fl

ux

, l/m

2.

h

Temperature,o C





Figure 12 Effect of temperature of feed and draw solution on water flux at different draw solution

concentration (MgSO4.7H2O).

90

120

150

180

210

240

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ccd

+2

ou

tlet,

m

g/l

Temperature,o C





Figure 13 Effect of temperature of feed and draw solution on Feed solution outlet concentration

(Cd+2

) ions at different draw solution concentration (MgSO4.7H2O).

3.7. Removal efficiency (R %) of Cellulose Acetate (CA) Membrane and Reverse

Salts Flux of MgSO4.7H2O Through the Membrane

The constant operating conditions for all experiments such as concentration of Cd+2

ions was

80 mg/l, concentration of MgSO4.7H2O was 30 g/l, flow rate of feed and draw solutions was

50 l/h and temperature 25oC. Figure 14 shows the concentration of Cd

+2 ions permeation

through CA membrane and removal efficiency (R %) of membrane with time. When Cd+2

ions feed solution concentration increased lead to formation of external concentration

polarization (ECP) and fouling of the CA membrane so the removal efficiency (R %) of

membrane decreased which reached 78.87% after 3 hrs, This conclusion correspond with the

investigation with the investigation of [22]. Figure 15 shows the reverse salt flux of

MgSO4.7H2O through CA membrane with time, it was observed that the reverse salts flux

high in the beginning of the operation which reached 31.57 g/m2.h after 0.5 hr and then

slightly decreased with proceed time which reached 23.34 g/m2.h after 3 hrs due to adverse

effect of internal concentration polarization (ICP) near the support layer membrane. These

observations are well agreed with investigation of [23, 24].



7

9

11

13

15

17

19

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Ccd

+2

in

perm

ite, m

g/l

Rem

oval E

ffic

ien

cy (

R),

%

Time, h

R%

Conc. Cd+2, mg/l

Figure 14. Effect of time on Cd+2 ions in permeation and Removal Efficiency (R %) of CA

membrane

0

10

20

30

40

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Rev

erse

Salt

Flu

x, g/m

2. h

Time, h

Figure 15 Effect of time on reverse salt flux through CA membrane

4. CONCLUSION

In this study, forward osmosis can be used to remove Cd+2

ions from contaminated

wastewater by using cellulose acetate (CA) membrane as flat sheet. Water flux permeate

increased when the concentration of MgSO4.7H2O draw solutions, temperature of both feed

and draw solution and flow rate of feed solution increased, and decreased by increasing Cd+2

ions concentration in feed solution, operating time of experiment, and flow rate of draw

solutions. Cd+2

ions concentration in feed solution outlet increased by increasing

concentration of feed and draw solution, operating time of experiment, flow rate of feed

solution, and temperature of feed and draw solutions while decreased by increasing draw

solution flow rate. Reverse salts flux of MgSO4.7H2O through the CA membrane decreased

with time. The removal efficiency (R %) of CA membrane decreased with time which reached

78.87% after 3 hrs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the Mustansiriyah university (www.uomustansiriyah.edu.iq)

Baghdad - Iraq for its support in the present work.

http://www.uomustansiriyah.edu.iq/





REFERENCES

[1] Kumar, P. S. and Kirthika, K., Kinetics and Equilibrium Studies of Zn+2

Ions Removal

from Aqueous Solutions by Use of Natural Waste, Electronic Journal of Environmental,

Agricultural and Food Chemistry: EJEAFChe, 9, 2010, pp 264- 274.

[2] Alturki, A., McDonald, J., Khan, S., Price, W., Nghiem, L., Removal of trace organic

contaminants by the forward osmosis process, Separation and Purification Technology,

103, 2013, pp 258–266.

[3] Al-Ghouti, M. A., Khraiseh, M. A. M., and Tutuji, M., Flow injection potentio metric

stripping analysis for study of adsorption of n heavy metal ions onto modified diatomite,

Journal of Chemical Engineering., 104, 2004, pp 83 -91.

[4] Kula, I., Ug˘urlu, M., Karaog˘lu, H., Celik, A., Adsorption of Cd(II) ions from aqueous

solutions using activated carbon prepared from olive stone by ZnCl2 activation, Bioresour.

Technol. 99, 2008, pp 492–501.

[5] Pang, F. M., Teng, S. P., Teng, T., T., and Mohd Omar, A. K., Heavy Metals Removal by

Hydroxide Precipitation and Coagulation-Flocculation Methods from Aqueous Solutions,

Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 44(22), 2009, pp44:1-9.

[6] Hsiang, T. C., Modeing and optimization of the forward osmosis process - parameters

selection, flux prediction and process application. Ph.D. National University of Singapore,

2011.

[7] Holloway, R. W., Childress, A. E., Dennett, K. E., and Cath T. Y., Forward osmosis for

concentration of anaerobic digester centrate, Water Resource, 41, 2007, pp 4005–4014.

[8] Mohammed, A. A., Al-Alawy, A. F., Hussein, T. K., Removal of lead, copper, and nickel

ions from wastewater by forward osmosis process, Second Engineering Scientific

Conference, College of Engineering-University of Diyala, Iraq, 2015, pp 893-908.

[9] Qasim, M., Performance of forward osmosis using various membranes. M.Sc, American

University of Sharjah, 2013.

[10] Nematzadeh, M., Samimi, A., Shokrollahzadeh, S., and Behzadmehr, A., Performance of

Potassium Bicarbonate and Calcium Chloride Draw Solutions for Desalination of Saline

Water Using Forward Osmosis, Trans. Phenom. Nano Micro Scales, .3(1), 2015, pp 29-

36.

[11] Lee, S., Booa, C., Elimelech, M., Hong, S., Comparison of fouling behavior in forward

osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO), Journal of Membrane Science, 365, 2010, pp 34-

39.

[12] Hussein, T. K., Comparative study for removal of Zn+2 ions from aqueous solutions by

adsorption and forward osmosis, Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering,

18 (2), 2017, pp 125 - 138

[13] Wang, Y., Fang, Z., Zhao, S., Ng, D., Zhang, J., and Xie, Zongli Dopamine incorporating

forward osmosis membranes with enhanced selectivity and antifouling properties, Royal

Society of chemistry,.8, 2018, pp 22469–22481.

[14] Yong, J., S., Phillip, W. A., and Elimelech, M., Coupled reverse draw solute permeation

and water flux in forward osmosis with neutral draw solutes, Journal of Membrane

Science, 392-393, 2012, 9-17.

[15] Erdem , N., Karapinar , N., and Donat, R., The Removal of Heavy Metals by Natural

Zeolites, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 280, 2004, pp 309 -314.

[16] Tan, C., H., and Ng, H., Y., Modified models to predict flux behavior in forward osmosis

in consideration of external and internal concentration polarizations, Journal of Membrane

Science, 324 (1-2), 2008, pp 209-219.

[17] Hickenbottom, K., L., Hancock, N. T., Hutchings, N., R., Appleton, E., W., Beaudry, E.,

G., Xu, P., and Cath, T. Y., Forward osmosis treatment of drilling mud and fracturing

wastewater from oil and gas operations, Desalination, 312, 2013, pp 60–66.

https://www.infona.pl/contributor/[email protected]/tab/publications



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376738808006741#!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376738808006741#!



[18] Nayak, C., and Rastogi, N., K., Forward osmosis for the concentration of anthocyanin

from Garcinia indica choisy, Separation and Purification Technology, 71, 2010, pp 144-

151.

[19] Tan, C. H., and Ng, H. Y., Modified models to predict flux behavior in forward osmosis

inconsideration of external and internal concentration polarization, Journal of Membrane

Science, 324 (1), 2008, pp 209-219.

[20] McCtcheon, J. R., and Elimelech, M., Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal

concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis. Journal of membrane

science, 284, 2006, pp 237-247.

[21] Alturki, A., Removal of trace organic contaminants by integrated membrane processes for

indirect potable water reuse applications, Ph. D. University of Wollongong, 2013.

[22] Liu, X., Wu, J., Liu, C., and Wang, J., Removal of cobalt ions from aqueous solution by

forward osmosis, Separation and Purification Technology, 177, 2017, pp 8–20.

[23] Ali, H., M., Gadallah, H., Ali, S., S., Sabry, R., and Gadallah, A. G., Pilot Scale

Investigation of Forward/Reverse Osmosis Hybrid System for Seawater Desalination

Using Impaired Water from Steel Industry, International Journal of Chemical

Engineering, 2016, pp 1-9.

[24] Ali, S., S., Sabry, R., Ali, H., M., and Gadallah, H., Enhancement of nonwoven cellulose

triacetate forward-osmosis membranes by surface coating modification, International

Journal of Engineering & Technology, 6 (4), 2017, pp 124-130.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chetan_Nayak3?_sg=Q2zUdm0eIU02wCBkYZcpUYkSQn2adct2q1TvLJQjDozSw94vGevBrFZ0R-xm_xNLD4S71og.7qzoiWyYKxMBVohHporNn_ReCsI7X83qt-jCXVsVorRQtF8L7n8szL696WQu-4-bm-mkWnHnIIqkSwwcgIHJCg

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Navin_Rastogi2?_sg=Q2zUdm0eIU02wCBkYZcpUYkSQn2adct2q1TvLJQjDozSw94vGevBrFZ0R-xm_xNLD4S71og.7qzoiWyYKxMBVohHporNn_ReCsI7X83qt-jCXVsVorRQtF8L7n8szL696WQu-4-bm-mkWnHnIIqkSwwcgIHJCg

forward osmosis process for€¦ · with removal efficiency 78.87% after 3 hrs. reverse salt flux...

Documents