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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kakihana, Yuriko, Jullok, Nora, Shibuya, Masafumi, Ikebe, Yuki, Higa, Mitsuru
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