The fouling behavior of osmotically-driven forward osmosis (FO) is widely believed to be superior with respect to hydraulic pressure-driven membrane applications, based on a number of experiments reported in the literature. However, experimental confounders often exist, preventing fair comparison between the different processes, one being the deployment of non-comparable membranes. This study systematically investigates the conditions influencing organic fouling in FO and compares the behavior in FO and in a hydraulic pressure-driven process, under equivalent conditions. The same state-of-the-art polyamide FO membranes were used in the tests, which were run with real feed solutions and under varying conditions to observe the effect of initial flux, draw solution, and feed ionic composition. The results suggest that initial flux and calcium have the strongest influence on the extent of flux decline and recovery. The influence of different draw solutions in FO becomes apparent when the flux is relatively low. Analysis of the fouling indices and of the effective driving force, as well as direct observation of membranes following fouling, support the conclusion that the fouling behavior of the FO process is not necessarily better compared to an analogous hydraulic pressure-driven one, especially under relevant operational conditions and when the two processes work with similar fluxes.
Organic fouling in forward osmosis: Governing factors and a direct comparison with membrane filtration driven by hydraulic pressure / Ricceri, F.; Giagnorio, M.; Zodrow, K. R.; Tiraferri, A.. - In: JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE. - ISSN 0376-7388. - 619(2021), p. 118759.
|Titolo:||Organic fouling in forward osmosis: Governing factors and a direct comparison with membrane filtration driven by hydraulic pressure|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2021|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI):||http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2020.118759|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo in rivista|
File in questo prodotto:
|Post-print.pdf||Post-print||2. Post-print / Author's Accepted Manuscript||Embargo: 08/10/2022 Richiedi una copia|
|1-s2.0-S0376738820313351-main.pdf||Post-print editoriale||2a Post-print versione editoriale / Version of Record||Non Pubblico - Accesso privato/ristretto||Administrator Richiedi una copia|