Cargando…
Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules
Pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) has recently received attention because of its ability to generate power via an osmotic pressure gradient between two solutions with different salinities: high- and low-salinity water sources. In this study, PRO performance, using the two pilot-scale PRO membrane modu...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7998957/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33671075 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes11030177 |
_version_ | 1783670671701704704 |
---|---|
author | Kakihana, Yuriko Jullok, Nora Shibuya, Masafumi Ikebe, Yuki Higa, Mitsuru |
author_facet | Kakihana, Yuriko Jullok, Nora Shibuya, Masafumi Ikebe, Yuki Higa, Mitsuru |
author_sort | Kakihana, Yuriko |
collection | PubMed |
description | Pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) has recently received attention because of its ability to generate power via an osmotic pressure gradient between two solutions with different salinities: high- and low-salinity water sources. In this study, PRO performance, using the two pilot-scale PRO membrane modules with different configurations—five-inch cellulose triacetate hollow-fiber membrane module (CTA-HF) and eight-inch polyamide spiral-wound membrane modules (PA-SW)—was evaluated by changing the draw solution (DS) concentration, applied hydrostatic pressure difference, and the flow rates of DS and feed solution (FS), to obtain the optimum operating conditions in PRO configuration. The maximum power density per unit membrane area of PA-SW at 0.6 M NaCl was 1.40 W/m(2) and 2.03-fold higher than that of CTA-HF, due to the higher water permeability coefficient of PA-SW. In contrast, the maximum power density per unit volume of CTA-SW at 0.6 M NaCl was 4.67 kW/m(3) and 6.87-fold higher than that of PA-SW. The value of CTA-HF increased to 13.61 kW/m(3) at 1.2 M NaCl and was 12.0-fold higher than that of PA-SW because of the higher packing density of CTA-HF. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7998957 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79989572021-03-28 Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules Kakihana, Yuriko Jullok, Nora Shibuya, Masafumi Ikebe, Yuki Higa, Mitsuru Membranes (Basel) Article Pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) has recently received attention because of its ability to generate power via an osmotic pressure gradient between two solutions with different salinities: high- and low-salinity water sources. In this study, PRO performance, using the two pilot-scale PRO membrane modules with different configurations—five-inch cellulose triacetate hollow-fiber membrane module (CTA-HF) and eight-inch polyamide spiral-wound membrane modules (PA-SW)—was evaluated by changing the draw solution (DS) concentration, applied hydrostatic pressure difference, and the flow rates of DS and feed solution (FS), to obtain the optimum operating conditions in PRO configuration. The maximum power density per unit membrane area of PA-SW at 0.6 M NaCl was 1.40 W/m(2) and 2.03-fold higher than that of CTA-HF, due to the higher water permeability coefficient of PA-SW. In contrast, the maximum power density per unit volume of CTA-SW at 0.6 M NaCl was 4.67 kW/m(3) and 6.87-fold higher than that of PA-SW. The value of CTA-HF increased to 13.61 kW/m(3) at 1.2 M NaCl and was 12.0-fold higher than that of PA-SW because of the higher packing density of CTA-HF. MDPI 2021-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7998957/ /pubmed/33671075 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes11030177 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ). |
spellingShingle | Article Kakihana, Yuriko Jullok, Nora Shibuya, Masafumi Ikebe, Yuki Higa, Mitsuru Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules |
title | Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules |
title_full | Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules |
title_short | Comparison of Pressure-Retarded Osmosis Performance between Pilot-Scale Cellulose Triacetate Hollow-Fiber and Polyamide Spiral-Wound Membrane Modules |
title_sort | comparison of pressure-retarded osmosis performance between pilot-scale cellulose triacetate hollow-fiber and polyamide spiral-wound membrane modules |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7998957/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33671075 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes11030177 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kakihanayuriko comparisonofpressureretardedosmosisperformancebetweenpilotscalecellulosetriacetatehollowfiberandpolyamidespiralwoundmembranemodules AT julloknora comparisonofpressureretardedosmosisperformancebetweenpilotscalecellulosetriacetatehollowfiberandpolyamidespiralwoundmembranemodules AT shibuyamasafumi comparisonofpressureretardedosmosisperformancebetweenpilotscalecellulosetriacetatehollowfiberandpolyamidespiralwoundmembranemodules AT ikebeyuki comparisonofpressureretardedosmosisperformancebetweenpilotscalecellulosetriacetatehollowfiberandpolyamidespiralwoundmembranemodules AT higamitsuru comparisonofpressureretardedosmosisperformancebetweenpilotscalecellulosetriacetatehollowfiberandpolyamidespiralwoundmembranemodules |