Membrane Contactor Technology E-Book
133,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Wiley-VCH GmbH
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
An eye-opening exploration of membrane contactors from a group of industry leaders
In Membrane Contactor Technology: Water Treatment, Food Processing, Gas Separation, and Carbon Capture, an expert team of researchers delivers an up-to-date and insightful explanation of membrane contactor technology, including transport phenomena, design aspects, and diverse process applications. The book also includes explorations of membrane synthesis, process, and module design, as well as rarely discussed process modeling and simulation techniques.
The authors discuss the technical and economic aspects of this increasingly important technology and examine the geometry, flow, energy and mass transport, and design aspects of membrane contactor modules. They also cover a wide range of application opportunities for this technology, from the materials sciences to process engineering.
Membrane Contactor Technology also includes:
- A thorough introduction to the membrane contactor extraction process, including dispersion-free membrane extraction processes and supported liquid membrane processes
- Comprehensive explorations of membrane transport theory, including discussions of diffusional mass and heat transfer modeling, as well as numerical modeling
- In-depth examinations of module configuration and geometry, including design and flow configuration
- Practical discussions of modes or operation, including membrane distillation, osmotic evaporation, and forward osmosis
Perfect for process engineers, biotechnologists, water chemists, and membrane scientists, Membrane Contactor Technology also belongs in the libraries of chemical engineers, polymer chemists, and chemists working in the environmental industry.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 633
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
About the Authors
1 Introduction to Membrane Technology
1.1 Overview of Membrane Technology
1.2 Conventional Membrane Separation Processes
1.3 Molecular Weight Cutoff (MWCO)
1.4 Concentration Polarization
1.5 Membrane Fouling
1.6 Diafiltration
1.7 Historical Perspective
1.8 Concluding Remarks and Future Challenges
References
2 Introduction to Membrane Contactor Technology
2.1 Membrane Contactor Separation Processes
2.2 Conclusion and Future Trends of Membrane Contactors
References
3 Transport Theory in Membrane Contactor: Operational Principle
3.1 Diffusional Mass and Heat Transfer Modeling
3.2 Membrane Characterization Models
3.3 Transport Models in Liquid–Liquid Contactor
3.4 Transport Model in Gas–Liquid Systems
3.5 Reactive Diffusion in Liquid‐Side Boundary Layer
3.6 Mass Transfer Resistance Analysis
3.7 Correlations for Mass Transfer Coefficients
3.8 Correlations for Heat Transfer Coefficients
3.9 Interfacial Transfer Area
3.10 Axial Pressure Drop in Membrane Contactor Module
3.11 Dynamic Modeling
3.12 Transfer Units and Module Design Length
3.13 Numerical Modeling of Mass Transport in Membrane Contactor Modules
3.14 Numerical Modeling of Heat Transport in Membrane Contactor Modules
3.15 Model Solution Algorithm
3.16 Conclusions and Perspectives
3.A Membrane Transport Theory: Operational Principle
References
4 Module Design and Membrane Materials
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Membrane Module Design Configuration
4.3 Membrane Contactor Module Housing
4.4 Membrane Module Flow Configuration
4.5 Membrane Materials
4.6 Membrane and Membrane Module for Membrane Distillation (MD) and Osmotic Membrane Distillation (OMD)
4.7 Solvents Used in Membrane Synthesis
4.8 Membrane Synthesis Techniques
4.9 Conclusions
4.10 Future Perspective
References
5 Mode of Operation in Membrane Contactors
5.1 Membrane Distillation (MD)
5.2 Osmotic Membrane Distillation (OMD)
5.3 Forward Osmosis
5.4 Pressure‐Retarded Osmosis
5.5 Conclusions
References
6 Applications of Membrane Contactor Technology in Wastewater Treatment
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Common Toxic Substances in Wastewater
6.3 Environmental Risks of Wastewater
6.4 Membrane Technology for Wastewater Treatment
6.5 Membrane Contactor Technology for Removal of Organic Contaminants from Wastewater
6.6 Removal of Inorganic Contaminants from Wastewater
6.7 Polymer‐Based Adsorption Membranes
6.8 Ion‐Exchange Nanoporous Membrane
6.9 Micellar‐Enhanced Ultrafiltration Membrane
6.10 Membrane Materials for Water Treatment
6.11 Membrane Materials for Microfiltration (MF) and Ultrafiltration (UF)
6.12 Membrane Materials for Nanofiltration (NF)
6.13 Membrane Materials for Reverse Osmosis (RO)
6.14 Membrane Materials for Forward Osmosis (FO)
6.15 Challenges in Membrane Materials to Prevent Fouling
6.16 Conclusions and Perspectives
References
7 Applications of Membrane Contactors in Food Industry
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Membrane Distillation (MD) Applications in Food Industry
7.3 Application of Osmotic Membrane Distillation (OMD) in Food Industry
7.4 Coupled Operation of Osmotic Distillation and Membrane Distillation
7.5 Conclusions
7.6 Future Perspectives
References
8 Applications of Membrane Contactor Technology for Pre‐combustion Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) Capture
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Why Pre‐combustion Carbon Capture?
8.3 Membranes for Pre‐combustion Carbon Capture
8.4 Advantages and Limitations of Pre‐combustion Carbon Capture Using Membrane Technology
8.5 Applications of Pre‐combustion Carbon Capture
8.6 Current Trends and Future Prospects
8.7 Concluding and Future Directions
References
9 Application of Membrane Contactor Technology for Post‐combustion Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) Capture
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Membranes for Post‐combustion CO2 Capture
9.3 Experimental Membrane Materials for Post‐combustion CO2 Sequestration
9.4 Commercial Membranes for Post‐combustion CO2 Separation
9.5 Cost of Post‐combustion CO2 Capture in Membrane Contactors
9.6 Absorbents for Post‐combustion CO2 Separation
9.7 Conclusion and Future Perspective
References
10 Market Prospects of Membrane Contactors
10.1 Membrane Contactor Market Dynamics
10.2 Market Overview
10.3 Membrane Contactor Market by Application
10.4 Membrane Contactor Market, by Membrane
10.5 Membrane Contactor Market, by Region
10.6 Recent Developments of Membrane Contactor Companies
10.7 Future Directions
10.8 Conclusion
References
11 Conclusions and Perspective
11.1 Future Directions
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Pressure driven size‐based membrane processes for the removal of t...
Table 1.2 Comparative analysis of conventional membrane processes.
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Difference between classical membrane separation processes and mem...
Table 2.2 Advantages and disadvantages of membrane contactors.
Table 2.3 Diverse applications of membrane contactors.
Table 2.4 Types of membrane contactor systems.
Table 2.5 Recognized membrane contactor processes.
Table 2.6 Breakthrough pressure and contact angles of solid porous membranes...
Table 2.7 Differences between solid and liquid membrane contactors.
Chapter 3
Table 3.1 Surface tension of different liquids.
Table 3.2 Surface tension of different polymers.
Table 3.3 Correlations for overall
mass transfer coefficient
(
MTC
).
Table 3.4 Partition coefficient values for liquid–liquid systems.
Table 3.5 Correlations of mass transfer in shell side for hollow fiber membr...
Table 3.6 Heat transfer correlations for Nusselt number.
Table 3.7 Henry's constant of test compounds.
Table 3.8 Boundary conditions for governing equations.
Chapter 4
Table 4.1 Membrane module design characteristics and description.
Table 4.2 Types and variables of spiral wound elements.
Table 4.3 Hollow fiber properties.
Table 4.4 General comparison of membrane modules.
Table 4.5 Manufacturers of membrane modules.
Table 4.6 Applications of membrane modules.
Table 4.7 Texture properties of membrane contactor materials.
Table 4.8 Operating factors in membrane materials.
Table 4.9 Typical glassy polymers used in membrane development.
Table 4.10 Typical rubbery polymers used in membrane development.
Table 4.11 Different type of inorganic materials and their respective proper...
Table 4.12 Solvent types and their characteristics.
Table 4.13 Techniques on synthesizing polymeric membranes.
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Mass transfer correlations used in MD.
Table 5.2 Heat transfer correlations used in MD.
Table 5.3 Typical commercial membranes used in MD applications.
Table 5.4 Mass transfer coefficient for feed and stripper side in OMD.
Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Various sources of wastewater, pollutants, and their detrimental e...
Table 6.2 Summary of liquid membrane process during the extraction of organi...
Table 6.3 The maximum admissible limit set by WHO for safe drinking water [8...
Table 6.4 Fouling categories.
Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Summary of the OMD concentration of fruit juices.
Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Summary of gas separation performance for H
2
‐selective membranes....
Table 8.2 Summary of gas separation performance of CO
2
‐selective membranes....
Table 8.3 Advantages and limitations of pre‐combustion carbon capture using ...
Chapter 9
Table 9.1 Comparison of membrane contactors modules for post‐combustion CO
2
...
Table 9.2 Experimental membrane materials for post‐combustion CO
2
separation...
Table 9.3 A summary of commercial membranes utilized CO
2
separation from flu...
Table 9.4 Economic assessment of contactor‐assisted post‐combustion CO
2
sequ...
Chapter 10
Table 10.1 Some membrane contactor used for different applications.
Table 10.2 The application of the membrane for water and wastewater treatmen...
Table 10.3 The range of the membrane contactor application domain.
Table 10.4 The names of the key players in the membrane contactor markets re...
Table 10.5 The drivers, restraints, opportunities, and challenges in the mem...
Table 10.6 Market focus on application based in module manufacturer companie...
Table 10.7 The investors of the membrane contractor for water and wastewater...
Table 10.8 The service period of the companies that work for water and waste...
Table 10.9 The investors of the membrane contractor for food and beverage pr...
Table 10.10 The service period of the companies that work for food and bever...
Table 10.11 The polymer materials of membrane contactors.
Table 10.12 The polymer materials supported by the membrane contactors compa...
Table 10.13 The polymeric composite membranes used in membrane contactors.
Table 10.14 The polymeric composite membranes supported by the membrane cont...
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Typical membrane separation process.
Figure 1.2 Osmotic phenomena: (a) osmosis, (b) equilibrium, and (c) reverse ...
Figure 1.3 A basic electrodialysis system.
Figure 1.4 Membrane pervaporation process.
Figure 1.5 Membrane fouling and concentration polarization. (a) Membrane sep...
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 General schematics of membrane contactor separation process.
Figure 2.2 Schematics of solid porous membranes as mediums of membrane conta...
Figure 2.3 Schematics of liquid membrane as medium of contact. (a) Bulk liqu...
Figure 2.4 Stirred‐type Lewis cell representing facilitated transport throug...
Figure 2.5 Schematic flow sheet of a hybrid fermentation–separation process ...
Figure 2.6 Schematic diagram of temperature, pressure, and concentration pol...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 General representation of contact angle of a liquid on solid surf...
Figure 3.2 Representation of contact angle under smooth and rough surfaces....
Figure 3.3 Representation of irregular pore element in the hydrophobic membr...
Figure 3.4 Effect of membrane type, pore size, and type of organic solutions...
Figure 3.5 (a) Effect of contact angle on LEP. (b) Effect of pore length on ...
Figure 3.6 Concentration profile in liquid–liquid hydrophobic/hydrophilic sy...
Figure 3.7 Concentration profile in gas–liquid hydrophobic/hydrophilic symme...
Figure 3.8 Mass transfer in hollow fiber membrane contactor.
Figure 3.9 Schematic representation of steady‐state model approach of membra...
Figure 3.10 Equilibrium diagram between two phases: (a) equilibrium curve, (...
Figure 3.11 Analysis of mass transfer resistance for copper(II) extraction w...
Figure 3.12 Analysis of the resistance to mass transfer for the four aroma c...
Figure 3.13 Experimental setup of recycled based continuous liquid–liquid ex...
Figure 3.14 Membrane contactor module hypothetical cell formation: (a) fiber...
Figure 3.15 (a) Experimental set up gas–liquid separation process in hollow ...
Figure 3.16 Model's geometry used in CFD simulation for heat transfer in MD....
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 An illustration of a plate and frame module.
Figure 4.2 Schematic diagram of recycled‐based flat‐sheet membrane contactor...
Figure 4.3 Schematic diagram of plate and frame module.
Figure 4.4 Schematics of tubular module. (a) Front view. (b) Internal view....
Figure 4.5 Schematic drawings of cylindrical modules: (a) parallel flow, (b)...
Figure 4.6 Schematic diagram of helically wound HFMC module. (a) Hollow fibe...
Figure 4.7 Schematic diagram of a baffled rectangular module.
Figure 4.8 Schematic diagram of a crimped flat membrane module.
Figure 4.9 Schematic diagram of proposed parallel flow loose hollow fibers i...
Figure 4.10 Membrane contactor module housing. (a) Font view schematic, (b) ...
Figure 4.11 Flow patterns in membrane contactors: (a) radial cross flow, (b)...
Figure 4.12 Membrane surface morphology.
Figure 4.13 Membrane morphology.
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1 Four major MD configurations: (a) DCMD, (b) AGMD, (c) SGMD, and (...
Figure 5.2 Mass and heat transfer in MD process.
Figure 5.3 Temperature profile in AGMD.
Figure 5.4 Schematic of mass transfer in osmotic membrane distillation.
Figure 5.5 Mass transfer in FO mode.
Figure 5.6 Mass transfer in PRO mode.
Figure 5.7 Illustration of PRO process.
Figure 5.8 Comparison of (a) FO, (b) PRO, (c) equilibrium, and (d) RO proces...
Figure 5.9 Mass transfer in PRO process.
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Comparison between various physicochemical techniques applied in ...
Figure 6.2 Membrane contactors in wastewater treatment.
Figure 6.3 Schematic of (a) experimental setup of membrane contactor and (b)...
Figure 6.4 Separation mechanism of bisphenol A through the SILM (M = membran...
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 (a) MD, (b) OMD, and (c) concentration profile.
Figure 7.2 Surface (a) and cross‐sectional (c) morphologies of TFC polyamide...
Figure 7.3 Effect of feed temperature on fouling layer deposition.
Figure 7.4 Water flux behavior during DCMD treatment of saline dairy wastewa...
Figure 7.5 Exponential increase in sucrose solution viscosity with an increa...
Figure 7.6 Water flux and juice concentration during OMD of apple juice.
Figure 7.7 Surface of HFMC single fiber – fresh (a) and spent (b).
Figure 7.8 Pore geometry of the membrane surface. (a) PVDF (distribution of ...
Figure 7.9 Time course of (a) evaporation flux and TSS concentration in the ...
Figure 7.10 Phenolic contents in the noni juice. (a) Concentration of phenol...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Schematic diagram of a pre‐combustion carbon capture system.
Figure 8.2 Schematic diagram of water–gas shift (WGS) reaction.
Figure 8.3 Structure of silica.
Figure 8.4 Structure of a typical MOF.
Figure 8.5 Working of a facilitated transport membrane.
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Schematic illustration of pilot‐scale post‐combustion CO
2
capture...
Figure 9.2 (A) Schematic illustration of membrane contactor employing a poro...
Figure 9.3 Comparison of cost‐effectiveness of membrane materials of which (...
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 The growth estimation of the water and wastewater treatment and ...
Figure 10.2 The share of carbon capture market for water and wastewater trea...
Figure 10.3 The growth estimation of carbon capture for water and wastewater...
Figure 10.4 Value chain of membrane contactors.
Figure 10.5 Value chain analysis of membrane contactors in the companies tha...
Figure 10.6 Value chain analysis of membrane contactors in the companies tha...
Figure 10.7 The investment analysis of the membrane contractor for water and...
Figure 10.8 The service period (in years) of companies in membrane contactor...
Figure 10.9 The investment analysis of the membrane contractor for food and ...
Figure 10.10 The service period (in years) of companies in membrane contacto...
Figure 10.11 The markets for gas separation applications used in membrane co...
Figure 10.12 The markets for carbon capture applications used in membrane co...
Figure 10.13 The investment analysis for polymeric materials of membrane con...
Figure 10.14 The market allocated to polymeric materials of membrane contact...
Figure 10.15 The investment analysis for polymeric composite membranes used ...
Figure 10.16 The market allocated to polymeric composite membranes used in m...
Figure 10.17 The membrane contactor markets based on the region (these data ...
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
About the Authors
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
iii
iv
v
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
Membrane Contactor Technology
Water Treatment, Food Processing, Gas Separation, and Carbon Capture
Edited by Mohammad Younas and Mashallah Rezakazemi
Editors
Professor Mohammad Younas
University of Engineering & Technology
Department of Chemical Engineering
No. 2 University Rd
25120 Peshawar
Pakistan
Associate Professor Mashallah Rezakazemi
Shahrood University of Technology
Chemical and Materials Engineering
Shahrood
Iran
Cover Image: © amixstudio/Getty Pixabay
All books published by WILEY‐VCH are carefully produced. Nevertheless, authors, editors, and publisher do not warrant the information contained in these books, including this book, to be free of errors. Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements, data, illustrations, procedural details or other items may inadvertently be inaccurate.
Library of Congress Card No.: applied for
British Library Cataloguing‐in‐Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at <http://dnb.d-nb.de>.
© 2022 WILEY‐VCH GmbH, Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany
All rights reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form – by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means – nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers. Registered names, trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not specifically marked as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Print ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐34861‐9
ePDF ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐83102‐9
ePub ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐83104‐3
oBook ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐83103‐6
Dedicated to my whole family, teachers, and friends whom I owe a lot.
Preface
Membrane technology has been emerging as a sustainable technology in separation science and engineering for the last two decades. Membranes have become the center point in water treatment and desalination, CO2 capture technology, and food and pharmaceutical industry. Many parts of the world are now in critical need of clean water, energy, and food security. Among the membrane technology, the membrane contactor technology is gaining increasing importance in water treatment and desalination, gas separation, and juice concentration because it is working at low or atmospheric pressure and taking other natural forces as driving forces. Membrane contactors have a bright future in diverse application areas. Tremendous work has been carried out on membrane contactor technology and is still in progress in different world regions to further improve the technology than its current status. However, if observed closely, one can realize that research and development activities have mostly focused on membrane materials synthesis and development rather than focusing on membrane contactor module design and development. It appears there is a timely need for a book that illustrates the basic theory, applications, and practices of membrane contactor technology in water treatment, gas separation, and juice concentration.
To undertake the task, we are composed of young and enthusiastic engineers and scientists to help us in drafting the contents of the book that can cover up the theory, applications, and practice of membrane contactors in a succinct but easy‐to‐understand way for a novice working in membrane contactor technology. Together, we prepared 11 chapters starting from the presentation of the membrane technology in general and the illustration of the need for membrane contactor technology, followed by the detailed description of theory and processes used in membrane contactor technology. Chapters 2, 3, and 5 cover the theoretical aspects and working principles of membrane contactors used as liquid–liquid, gas–liquid, and gas–gas contactors. Design aspects of membrane contactor were described in Chapter 4. Chapters 6–9 focused on illustrating important applications of membrane contactors in water treatment, juice concentration, and pre‐ and post‐combustion CO2 capture. Chapters 6–9 indeed cover a vast field of applications succinctly and briefly. Market aspects, conclusions, and perspective of this technology were presented at the end of the chapters.
We believe that the unique feature of this book is the presentation of theory, design, practice, and applications of membrane contactor technology very briefly in one book. This is, of course, a relative comparison, in general, with the other published books on membrane contactors. Another distinctive feature of the book is that a very strong coverage of all the separation processes using membrane contactors from micro‐ to macrolevel is presented for the reasons described above.
We are truly thankful for the strong cooperation from all the contributing authors. As a matter of fact, we still have quite many ideas that have been part of the book but have not finished due to the fact that we always bound ourselves to be very brief and to address the readers who are new to this field. Meanwhile, we are indeed delighted to have this book published for beginners in membrane contactor technology. We also wish to thank all the reviewers and chapter contributors.
July 2021Peshawar, Pakistan
Mohammad YounasMashallah Rezakezemi
About the Authors
Dr. Mohammad Younas obtained the Master (II) by research and doctorate degrees from the Université de Montpellier 2, France, during 2006–2011. He also worked in the University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands, during 2011–2012 as a part of European applied research project FP7 (DemoCLOCK). Currently, Dr. Younas is working as professor and leader of the “Membranes and Process Intensification” group in the Department of Chemical Engineering at University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan. He is also engaged with State Key Laboratory of Separation Membranes and Membrane Processes, School of Materials Science and Engineering, Tianjin Polytechnic University, Tianjin 300387, China, and the University of Toledo, OH, USA, as visiting research scholar.
His research focus is in the general area of the water–energy–food nexus, CO2 capture, gas separation, and desalination, to the service of the broad areas of learning and training. Specifically, his research in engineered and natural environmental systems involves membrane‐based processes for energy‐efficient desalination, environmental applications and implications of nanomaterials, water treatment, and juice concentration. He has coauthored in more than 70 highly cited journal publications, conference proceedings, and book chapters.
Dr. Mashallah Rezekazemi received his BSc and MSc degrees in 2009 and 2011, respectively, both in Chemical Engineering from the Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST) and his PhD from the University of Tehran (UT) in 2015. In his first appointment, Rezakazemi has been served as professor of the Faculty of Chemical and Materials Engineering at the Shahrood University of Technology since 2016. He has also received his degree promotion to associate professor in 2019.
Dr. Rezakazemi's research is in the general area of the water–energy nexus, CO2 capture, gas separation, and desalination, to the service of the broad areas of learning and training. Specifically, his research in engineered and natural environmental systems involves (i) membrane‐based processes for energy‐efficient desalination, CO2 capture, gas separation, and wastewater reuse; (ii) sustainable production of gas stream, water, and energy generation with the engineered membrane; (iii) environmental applications and implications of nanomaterials; and (iv) water and sanitation in developing countries.
He has coauthored in more than 100 highly cited journal publications, conference articles, and book chapters. He has received major awards and grants from various funding agencies in recognition of his research. Notable among these is the Khwarizmi Youth Award from the Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IROST) in 2012 and Outstanding Young Researcher Award in Chemical Engineering from Academy of Sciences of Iran. He is being named as top 1 most Highly Cited Researcher by Web of Science (ESI).
1Introduction to Membrane Technology
Mohammad Younas1 and Mashallah Rezakazemi2
1University of Engineering and Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Peshawar, 25120, Pakistan
2Shahrood University of Technology, Faculty of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Shahrood, Iran
1.1 Overview of Membrane Technology
Membrane technology is a general term used for a range of different separation processes. Membrane separation processes have been proven to be well‐established technologies in a wide range of water, energy, food, and environmental applications throughout the production, purification, and formulation of useful products [1–4]. Thus, the membrane separation processes have become the leading separation technology over the past two decades. The membrane is defined as a selective thin layer of a semipermeable material that acts as a selective barrier and separates undesired species from a feed solution based on their sizes or affinity by exerting a potential gradient, such as pressure, temperature, electrical, or concentration difference (Figure 1.1). Separation is accomplished if one species of a mixture moves through the membrane faster than another species in the mixture. The main advantage of membrane technology, which differentiates it from traditional separation, purification, and formulation processes, is that it produces stable products without adding chemicals with a relatively low energy consumption with a remarkable potential for an environmental impact. Other benefits include modular and easy to scale‐up, well‐arranged, compact, and straightforward process in concept and operation, decreased capital and operational cost of technology applications using membrane, and environment friendly.
In general, membranes are classified based on their average pore size, driving force, morphology, and materials. The pore size of the membrane material or surface is a paramount factor in its first differentiation. Nevertheless, membrane materials can be organic and inorganic. All of the membrane separation processes are effective methods of treating the feed mixture, e.g. water, gas, and food that hardly is treated using conventional separation methods.
Figure 1.1 Typical membrane separation process.
1.2 Conventional Membrane Separation Processes
1.2.1 Microfiltration (MF)
Microfiltration (MF) is the first classification of membrane separation techniques based on pore size. The MF membrane was first developed to analyze the bacteria in the water. In the 1960s, the first commercial MF membrane was also developed in biological and pharmaceutical applications. Since then, MF membranes have been widely applied in wastewater treatment and juice technology to remove microorganisms, clarify cider and other juices, and sterilize beer and wine. The separation mechanism in MF membranes is governed by the sieving effect or size exclusion technique. Thus, the species are separated according to their size. Large pores of MF remove suspended solids, while even proteins can pass through the MF membrane easily. The MF membranes can also be used to separate sand, clays, algae, and some bacteria from aqueous feed streams. They are recommended to separate species with a diameter larger than 0.1 μm. The applied pressure in MF is low (usually <2 bar), while this is the lowest applied pressure in other pressure‐driven membrane separation processes [5,6].
1.2.2 Ultrafiltration (UF)
Ultrafiltration (UF) is also included in size exclusion‐based pressure‐driven membrane separation processes. The pore size of UF membranes is around 0.01 μm. These membranes can prevent species in the molecular weight range of 300–500 000 Da to pass through. UF rejects protein and suspended solids. However, dissolved substances could not be removed by UF unless they are first pretreated in an adsorption column like with activated carbon or coagulated with alum or iron salts. Similarly, UF membranes cannot retain the mono‐ and disaccharides, salts, amino acids, organics, inorganic acids, or sodium hydroxide. They exhibit small osmotic pressure differentials due to their inability to reject salts, as compared with reverse osmosis (RO). UF processes operate at 2–10 bars. Separation efficiency will further be augmented if the difference in the sizes of the species is high enough. UF is considered nowadays to be the dominant part of membrane separation processes due to its diverse applications in water, energy, food, and the environment. UF processes are considered the most used membrane separation process next to dialysis and MF [7].
1.2.3 Nanofiltration (NF)
Nanofiltration (NF) is another pressure‐driven membrane process between RO and UF pore size of around 0.001 μm. NF membranes remove most organic molecules, viruses, and a range of salts. These membranes are often applied to soften the hard water by removing divalent ions. NF membranes possess a negative charge on the surface. It demonstrates the anion repulsion, which mainly causes the species rejection. Low rejection is witnessed for salts with monovalent anion and nonionized organics with a molecular weight below 150. However, high rejection can be observed for salts with di‐ and multivalent anions and organics with a molecular weight above 300. NF is advantageous over RO in different aspects, such as being operated at low pressure, giving high permeate flux, retention of multivalent salt and organic solutes, and having low investment and operation and maintenance costs.
NF membrane is more suitable for ions with more than one negative charge in single charged ions pass, such as sulfate or phosphate. However, NF membranes also reject uncharged and positively charged ions according to the molecule's size and shape. For example, the same rejection of calcium chloride and sodium chloride can be observed while the rejection of sodium sulfate is the same for magnesium sulfate. Instead, the rejection of di‐ and multivalent anions is high compared with that for monovalent ions. The species rejection decreases with increasing concentration. The Donnan exclusion model can explain this phenomenon. The higher the species concentration, the more cations available to shield the negative charges on the membrane surface, making it easier for the anions to pass through the membrane pores. On the other hand, the charge density of ions also plays an important role in its rejection. For example, the sulfate ion has a higher charge density than the chloride ion and is almost completely repelled by the NF membrane even in a high ionic strength solution such as seawater [8].
1.2.4 Reverse Osmosis (RO)
RO demonstrates, in principle, the least possible pore structure among the membranes. Water is the only species that can pass through the RO membrane; essentially, all dissolved and suspended species are rejected. RO membranes have a pore size of around 0.0001 μm. The permeate is essentially the pure water because RO also removes most healthy minerals such as calcium, zinc, magnesium, etc. that are present in the water and are useful in a certain quantity for drinking water especially for people with inadequate diets and people living in hot climates. The water can be made healthy bypassing the RO water through calcium and magnesium beds. RO removes monovalent ions to desalinate the saline water. Both NF and RO are also termed as dense membrane separation processes because separation relies to some extent on physicochemical interactions between the permeate (species) and the membrane material. In wastewater treatment and reclamation, RO systems are typically used as the last step for removing total organic carbon (TOC). RO has been proven to remove dissolved species effectively, microbes, and neutral base compounds [9,10].
To understand the working principle of RO, it is helpful to understand first osmosis. Osmosis refers to the migration of water from a weaker solution to the stronger solution when a semipermeable membrane separates two salt solutions of different concentrations. The migration of salts continues until the two solutions reach the same concentrations, achieving the osmotic equilibrium. The semipermeable membrane allows the water species to pass through naturally, but not the salt. In RO, the two solutions are still separated by a semipermeable membrane, but the pressure is applied to reverse the water's natural flow. This forces the water species to move from the more concentrated solution to the weaker. Thus, the solute aggregate on one side of the semipermeable membrane and the pure water pass through the membrane on the other side. The concept of osmosis and RO is described schematically in Figure 1.2 where (a) and (b) illustrate the process of osmosis and (c) represents the RO. If a certain pressure (ΔP) applied to the concentrated solution equals the osmotic pressure difference between the two solutions (Δπ), the system reaches the osmotic equilibrium, and water flow stops. If the applied pressure exceeds osmotic pressure (ΔP > Δπ), water flows from the concentrated solution to the dilute solution. A summary of pressure‐driven processes is outlined in Tables 1.1 and 1.2.
1.2.5 Electrodialysis (ED)
Electrodialysis (ED) refers to an electrically driven membrane separation process in which charged ions are separated from a feed solution through selectively ion‐permeable membranes. In an ED process configuration, cationic and anionic membranes are alternately arranged between an anode and a cathode plate. By applying an electrical potential, the ions migrate toward the anode and cathode, and consequently, the water molecule is deionized. A typical ED cell consists of electrodes and ion‐permeable membranes, as shown in Figure 1.3. When an electric field across the membranes is applied, the cations move toward the cathode, and the anions migrate toward the anode. The cations pass through the cation‐selective membrane, while anions pass through the anion‐selective membrane. Thus, the feed became diluted in one side and concentrated in the electrolyte on the other side. Best performance in ED membranes could be achieved by selecting the highly permselective, physically strong, and low electrical resistance membranes [5].
Figure 1.2 Osmotic phenomena: (a) osmosis, (b) equilibrium, and (c) reverse osmosis.
Table 1.1 Pressure driven size‐based membrane processes for the removal of typical pollutants.
Membrane separation process
Feed component
Microfiltration (MF)
Ultrafiltration (UF)
Nanofiltration (NF)
Reverse osmosis (RO)
Water
Monovalent ions
Multivalent ions
Dissolved substances
Viruses
Bacteria, protozoa
Suspended solids
1.2.6 Pervaporation (PV)
Pervaporation (PV) is a membrane separation process used to recover more volatile components in liquid mixture through a dense membrane. The PV is governed by a partial pressure difference across the membrane as the driving force by applying a vacuum at the permeate side [11–14]. The solution–diffusion model generally describes the transport of species across nonporous membranes in PV. Because of the negative pressure on permeate side, the osmotic pressure is not a limiting factor, as is the case for RO. The partial pressure difference at feed and permeate sides causes the more volatile liquid to vaporize within the membrane. The vapor passes through the membrane and finally condenses at the permeate side (Figure 1.4). PV is characterized by the imposition of a barrier layer between two phases. Mass transfer occurs selectively across the membrane from one side to the other side of the membrane. The unique phenomenon of PV is the phase change required of the one phase (feed) diffusing across the membrane [17–19]. Since different species present in the feed mixture permeate through the membrane at different rates, a low concentration component in the feed mixture can be highly enriched in the permeate. Thus, the membrane's selectivity becomes the defining factor in the relative flow of the different species. PV has gained more attention from the chemical industry in the past decade due to the effective separation process for recovering volatile components in liquid mixtures. It is currently considered more effective for dehydration of liquid hydrocarbons to yield high‐purity organics, most notably ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, and ethylene glycol. PV, due to its simplicity and easy installation, is used as an integrated process with distillation [20,21].
Table 1.2 Comparative analysis of conventional membrane processes.
Microfiltration (MF)
Ultrafiltration (UF)
Nanofiltration (NF)
Reverse osmosis (RO)
Electrodialysis (ED)
Membrane pervaporation (MPV)
F/P
L/L
L/L, G/L
L/L
L/L
L/L
L/G
Membrane material
Polymeric
Polymeric/ceramic
Polymeric/ceramic/mixed matrix
Polymeric
Polymeric
Polymeric; polyvinyl alcohol composites, silicones, cellulose acetates
Membrane structure
Symmetrical/asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
Asymmetrical
Membrane morphology/thickness
Porous
Porous
Porous/dense
Dense
Dense
Dense
Support layer
10–150 μm
150–250 μm
150 μm
150 μm
Thin film
1 μm
1 μm
1 μm
1 μm
Pore size
0.05–10 μm
0.001–0.05 μm
0.5–2 nm
<0.002 μm
MW < 200 Da
Nonporous
Driving force
Δ
P
Δ
P
, activity difference, concentration difference, temperature difference
Δ
P
Δ
P
Δ
E
Δ
P
vacuum, chemical potential gradient
Separation principle
Sieving mechanism
Sieving mechanism
Donnan exclusion/solution–diffusion/capillary flow
Solution–diffusion
Solution–diffusion/ion migration
Donnan exclusion/solution–diffusion
Operating pressure
<2 bar
2–5 bar
5–15 bar
15–100 bar
Electrical potential
Partial pressure difference
Membrane module type
Tubular, hollow fiber
Plate and frame, spiral wound, tubular, hollow fiber
Plate and frame, spiral wound, tubular
Plate and frame, spiral wound, tubular
Plate and frame, spiral wound, tubular, hollow fiber
MWCO
300–500 000 Da
200–1000 Da
<500 Da
Applications
Separation of macromolecular to cellular size particles (bacteria, fat, proteins, whey industry)
Fruit juice clarification and concentration, milk separation, food, beverage, and dairy, biotechnology, medical applications
Water softening, removal of color, hardness, TOC, sulfate from water, concentration of organics with molecular weight of 300–1000 in the food and pharmaceutical
SWRO, BWRO desalination
Separation of ions mostly in desalination of water
Dehydration of liquid organic, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, ethylene glycol
Permeate flux
150 l/m
2
/h
43 I/m
2
/h/bar
Solute rejection (type)
Particles, clay, bacteria
Macromolecules, proteins, polysaccharides, sugars, biomolecules, polymers, colloidal particles
HMWC, mono‐, di‐, and oligosaccharides, polyvalent ions (−ive), MgSO
4
, glucose, sucrose
HMWC, LMWC, sodium chloride, glucose, amino acids
Solute rejection (%)
>90%
Up to 100%
>90%
Issues and problems
Membrane fouling and concentration polarization
F/P, feed/permeate; TMP, transmembrane pressure difference; HMWC, high‐molecular‐weight compounds; LMWC, low‐molecular‐weight compounds; SWRO, seawater reverse osmosis; BWRO, brackish water reverse osmosis; MWCO: molecular weight cutoff.
Figure 1.3 A basic electrodialysis system.
1.3 Molecular Weight Cutoff (MWCO)
Molecular weight cutoff (MWCO) is a useful tool for characterizing filtration membranes. In early development, UF membranes were used to purify macromolecules in bioseparation processes such as to retain the proteins. Since their molecular weight characterizes macromolecules, the membranes are also characterized by whether the macromolecules up to certain molecular weights are retained. It depends on the size of the pore of the membranes. MWCO is indicated in Dalton that refers to the MWCO of species or solute with 90% rejection. MWCO 500 describes that the molecules with molecular weight (MW) above 500 are rejected, and those with below 500 are passed through the membrane. The MWCO of any membrane can be altered from the chemistry of the solute with membrane interaction, their molecular orientation and configuration, and the operating conditions [22].
Figure 1.4 Membrane pervaporation process.
Source: Based on Winzeler and Belfort [15] and Shirazi et al. [16].
1.4 Concentration Polarization
Concentration polarization in membrane filtration is one of the significant problems that hinders the solvent flux and solute rejection. Concentration polarization is an important feature in membrane separation processes. Species rejected by the membrane accumulate at the membrane surface. This accumulation of species on the surface of the membrane is called concentration polarization. It produces a concentration gradient in the zone where the species accumulate. There remains a balance between species brought to the membrane surface by convective flow of the solvent and back‐diffuses to the bulk. At times, however, the balance in species concentration at the membrane surface diminishes. It reaches its solubility limit, which is lower than that predicted by the fluid hydrodynamics of the system.
Consequently, the membrane effectively experiences a higher feed side concentration at its interface, resulting in reduced flux and reduced apparent solute rejection. Often the severity of concentration polarization can be controlled by operating conditions, module geometry, and fluid hydrodynamics. Concentration polarization practices to a smaller increase in transmembrane solvent flux with the rise in operating feed pressure until a gel layer is formed at the membrane's surface. It can also be lessened by increasing the fluid share at the surface of the membrane or producing the turbulence by introducing the channel spacers in the modules. Thus, the transmembrane solvent flux shows no further increase with the pressure and is termed as limiting flux [15,23].
1.5 Membrane Fouling
Fouling refers to the deposition of solute or any other species in feed on the membrane surface or inside the membrane pores. For example, if the balance in species concentration at the surface due to convective flow and feed bulk concentration reaches the point where species precipitates or forms a thixotropic gel, the situation is termed as fouling. The formed gel layer causes an additional mass transfer resistance in conjunction with the membrane itself. In such cases, increased applied feed pressure may not improve the transmembrane flux; rather it will increase or densify the gel layer [24].
Figure 1.5 Membrane fouling and concentration polarization. (a) Membrane separation process. (b) Concentration polarization. (c) Gel/cake layer. (d) Pore blocking/plugging. (e) Pore adsorption.
Fouling may be caused by the pore geometry/tortuosity or species–pore wall interactions. Consequently, the pores are blocked entirely or be marginally reduced in diameter, causing a decline in transmembrane flux while the rejection may be either constant or may increase. Proper and scheduled membrane/module cleaning may reverse the fouling; however, irreversible fouling may also occur over time, permanently deteriorating the membrane surface and pores. In such cases, the membrane's replacement becomes indispensable to regain the actual transmembrane flux and the species rejection. Although both concentration polarization and fouling reduce transmembrane solvent flux, they have opposite effects on species rejection. For example, concentration polarization is a function of operating parameters like pressure, temperature, feed concentration, and velocity but is independent of time. In contrast to that, fouling is partially dependent on operating parameters, particularly feed concentration, but is also time dependent. These phenomena have been described schematically in Figure 1.5 [15,16].
In UF, feed‐side mass transfer resistance and resistance due to the gel/cake layer formation on the membrane surface because of fouling play an essential role in transmembrane flux and species rejection. Usually, the proper membrane process and material selection are chosen to decrease the fouling tendencies of the membrane surface. The base polymer surface chemistry can be modified to increase hydrophilicity of the membrane with the contacting fluid to increase the flux and reduce the fouling in most aqueous applications. Fouling, scaling, or chemical interaction greatly affects the NF and RO systems while MF and UF are mildly affected in their effective operation. Thus, extensive pretreatment is occasionally made mandatory before NF and RO to avoid conditions leading to fouling, scaling, or chemical interaction [16,23].
1.6 Diafiltration
In some cases, during filtration, recovery of species may be hindered due to reduced flux, high feed viscosity, solubility limits of nonpermeating solutes, etc. For such cases, the concentrate is diluted by solvent (water) during continuous filtration until satisfactory recovery of the permeable species, which is termed diafiltration.
1.7 Historical Perspective
The history of membrane separation technology dates back to 1748 when the French Abbe Nollet published his observations on osmotic phenomena [25]. The study of UF has been closely associated with that of dialysis. Dialysis experiments through artificial membranes of collodion were recorded by Fick [26]. Similar observations on dialysis were made by Hoppe‐Seyler [27] and Schumacher [5]. The pioneering study UF process was reported by Schmidt [28], who investigated the filtration of a solution of protein or gum Arabic through an animal membrane.
In the third decade of twentieth century, membranes were regarded as mechanical sieves, and permeability was considered as the sole dependent on particle and pore dimensions. The concept of semipermeability of the membrane and the theory of partial solubility was also introduced in this decade, which describes membrane's permeability as solvent dissolving in the membrane from one side to the other. For the first time, the membrane was used in seawater desalination to produce sources for freshwater, put forth by Hassler [29]. Later, Reid and Breton introduced the RO membranes when they developed the cellulose diacetate film showing salt rejection up to 96% [30]. However, the breakthrough was achieved when Loeb and Sourirajan developed a cellulose diacetate asymmetric membrane and successfully tested for high flux and salt rejection.
DuPont developed a hollow fiber capillary membrane from aromatic polyamide. However, in 1985, Cadotte prepared high‐performance membranes using in situ interfacial polycondensation between poly/monomeric amine and poly/monomeric functional acid halide [31,32]. This opened a new era for the researchers to explore the polyamide films by crosslinking, which gave high permeate flux that cellulose acetate (CA) membranes [9].
FilmTec introduced the two‐layer design membrane modules for water desalination at the industrial scale, which is still dominating the desalination industry. Undoubtedly, the membrane material and the modules have been improved over the years, but the basic concept adopted by FilmTec is still widely accepted. Desalination Systems, Inc. (DSI) introduced three‐layer composite membranes for NF and RO. In the twenty‐first century, membrane separation processes such as UF, NF, and RO emerged as reliable technology in water, food, environment, and food.
1.8 Concluding Remarks and Future Challenges
Membrane technology has become an important entity of our daily life routine work. Membranes have a potential in the future. Water scarcity and water stress, carbon capture, food security, energy constraints, environmental regulations, and nanotechnology are key drivers to boost the membrane technology further. However, the development in membrane technology would rise exponentially if “engineering aspects” in all membrane separation processes with key attention to “industrialists” and “entrepreneurs” are correctly addressed. Membranes perform the specific task for which they are designed. Each type of membrane filtration, e.g. MF, UF, NF, and RO, has its own role depending upon the pores' size, driving force, operating conditions, membrane material properties, and physicochemical interaction with feed components. However, if a specific membrane was chosen for the particular application and process, it performs well and achieves the required objectives. Two facts should be kept firmly in mind before deciding any membrane process: “Membranes do not lie.” The statement describes that membranes do exactly what they can do under the given circumstances. For example, if the membrane material is not compatible with the feed solution or cannot withstand the operating parameters, the membrane will not perform to expectations. In such cases, this will not be the deficiency of the membrane. The other fact is: “Membranes are designed to reject dissolved solids.” This means that if the feed mixture contains substantial and diverse undesired components like suspended solids, then the membrane systems will perform very poorly. So for each membrane separation process, the feed characteristics have also been described, and their protocol should be obeyed. Otherwise, pretreatment of feed should be ensured that the feed solution is free of species that may precipitate or degrade the membrane pores and surface due to their aggregation during the process.
In the twenty‐first century, the world is facing more severe challenges than ever toward sustainable development in terms of water quality and sources in developed and developing countries, meeting increasing energy demands, securing the food shortages, and controlling the adverse effects of global warming. Therefore, the demand for the use of novel membranes, innovative processes, and compact modular designs to address these issues in various applications will continue to increase. The conventional membrane separation processes have already emerged as a promising technology in different water food and environment sector applications. Still, there remained a gap to develop the membrane technology to be driven by higher productivity, lower cost of production, and increased development speed. It was learned that several membrane characteristics could determine a membrane's suitability for a specific separation application. These include (i) porosity, (ii) morphology, (iii) surface properties, (iv) mechanical strength, (v) chemical resistance, (vi) selectivity, and (vii) driving force. These characteristics depend on the proper choice of membrane material and the synthesis technique. Further to that, module design is also essential to a great extent to achieve these properties. These characteristics are interrelated; for example, a highly porous membrane structure can be maintained only if the polymer has adequate mechanical strength or the membrane should be operated at low or atmospheric pressure. Surface properties and pore morphology are linked to fouling properties, flux through the membrane, and solute separation. There is a need to reduce or even remove the gas between scientists and industrialists. For example, scientists and engineers' major challenges are as follows: (i) membrane designs should be manufacturer specific, and (ii) application‐specific membranes should be developed targeting the specific industry. Membrane system costs and applications are currently materially limited, whereas membrane performance is measured as solvent flux and selectivity which are the limiting factors for scientists and engineers. However, for an efficient and economically feasible industrial application, membranes need to keep their whole lifetime integrity. Unfortunately, the integrity and flux or selectivity is often in the opposite trend. Less integrity will lessen the membrane life and thus is meant for higher replacement costs of the membrane. It is also noted that membrane technology has its own disadvantages. For example, high pressure as a driving force causes high energy consumption and pollution to the environment and uses a range of chemical solvent that could be very harmful to the environment. Thus, the future development of membrane technology and its applications could conform with the sustainable development goals (SDG). Theoretically, 0.7 kWh/m3 should be the minimum energy required to convert seawater to pure water [33]. Membrane separation technology is currently considered among the best available technologies (BAT) in the nexus of many processes and applications like food, water, energy, and the environment. However, with the current choice of materials, modules, and technology, the energy consumption still stands between 2 and 5 kWh/m3[34]. Thus, the research is focused on increasing the separation efficiency, reducing energy consumption, and making it more environment friendly and fouling resistant. The gap between scientists and industrialists should be removed. Such objectives could be achieved by adopting the membrane contactor technology and switching over to concentration difference as a driving force instead of using pressure difference as the driving force. The successful design and operation of membrane systems lie in a deeper understanding of principles, engineering, and practical aspects such as interfacial phenomena, rheology, material science, and module design of membrane separation processes. The research and development (“R&D”) efforts should be focused rather on “engineering applications” such as water, energy, food, and the environment. This would also lead to clear the approach that any membrane module will result in the expected separation.
References
1
Sheikh, M., Pazirofteh, M., Dehghani, M. et al. (2020). Application of ZnO nanostructures in ceramic and polymeric membranes for water and wastewater technologies: a review.
Chemical Engineering Journal
391: 123475.
2
Mirqasemi, M.S., Homayoonfal, M., and Rezakazemi, M. (2020). Zeolitic imidazolate framework membranes for gas and water purification.
Environmental Chemistry Letters
18 (1): 1–52.
3
Rezakazemi, M., Sadrzadeh, M., and Matsuura, T. (2018). Thermally stable polymers for advanced high‐performance gas separation membranes.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
66: 1–41.
4
Rezakazemi, M., Dashti, A., Riasat Harami, H. et al. (2018). Fouling‐resistant membranes for water reuse.
Environmental Chemistry Letters
16 (3): 715–763.
5
Lonsdale, H.K. (1982). The growth of membrane technology.
Journal of Membrane Science
10 (2–3): 81–181.
6
Fane, A.T., Wang, R., and Jia, Y. (2011). Membrane technology: past, present and future. In:
Membrane and Desalination Technologies
(eds. L.K. Wang, J.P. Chen, Y.‐T. Hung and N.K. Shammas), 1–45. Springer.
7
Zeman, L.J. and Zydney, A. (2017).
Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration: Principles and Applications
. CRC Press.
8
Jye, L.W. and Ismail, A.F. (2016).
Nanofiltration Membranes: Synthesis, Characterization, and Applications
. CRC Press.
9
Uemura, T. and Henmi, M. (2008). Thin‐film composite membranes for reverse osmosis. In:
Advanced Membrane Technology and Applications
(eds. N.N. Li, A.G. Fane, W.S.W. Ho and T. Matsuura), 1–19. Wiley.
10
Amjad, Z. (1993).
Reverse Osmosis: Membrane Technology, Water Chemistry, and Industrial Applications
. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
11
Rezakazemi, M., Sadrzadeh, M., and Mohammadi, T. (2018). Separation via pervaporation techniques through polymeric membranes. In:
Transport Properties of Polymeric Membranes
, Chapter 13 (eds. S. Thomas, R. Wilson, S.C. George, et al.), 243–263. Elsevier.
12
Rezakazemi, M., Marjani, A., and Shirazian, S. (2018). Organic solvent removal by pervaporation membrane technology: experimental and simulation.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
25 (20): 19818–19825.
13
Rezakazemi, M., Shahidi, K., and Mohammadi, T. (2015). Synthetic PDMS composite membranes for pervaporation dehydration of ethanol.
Desalination and Water Treatment
54 (6): 1542–1549.
14
Shahverdi, M., Baheri, B., Rezakazemi, M. et al. (2012). Pervaporation study of ethylene glycol dehydration through synthesized (PVA–4A)/polypropylene mixed matrix composite membranes.
Polymer Engineering & Science
53 (7): 1487–1493.
15
Winzeler, H.B. and Belfort, G. (1993). Enhanced performance for pressure‐driven membrane processes: the argument for fluid instabilities.
Journal of Membrane Science
80 (1): 35–47.
16
Shirazi, S., Lin, C.‐J., and Chen, D. (2010). Inorganic fouling of pressure‐driven membrane processes – a critical review.
Desalination
250 (1): 236–248.
17
Rezakazemi, M., Iravaninia, M., Shirazian, S. et al. (2012). Transient computational fluid dynamics modeling of pervaporation separation of aromatic/aliphatic hydrocarbon mixtures using polymer composite membrane.
Polymer Engineering & Science
53 (7): 1494–1501.
18
Rezakazemi, M., Shahverdi, M., Shirazian, S. et al. (2011). CFD simulation of water removal from water/ethylene glycol mixtures by pervaporation.
Chemical Engineering Journal
168 (1): 60–67.
19
Rezakazemi, M., Razavi, S., Mohammadi, T. et al. (2011). Simulation and determination of optimum conditions of pervaporative dehydration of isopropanol process using synthesized PVA–APTEOS/TEOS nanocomposite membranes by means of expert systems.
Journal of Membrane Science
379 (1): 224–232.
20
Crespo, J. and Brazinha, C. (2015). Fundamentals of pervaporation. In:
Pervaporation, Vapour Permeation and Membrane Distillation
(eds. A. Basile, A. Figoli and M. Khayet), 3–17. Elsevier.
21
Figoli, A., Santoro, S., Galiano, F. et al. (2015). Pervaporation membranes: preparation, characterization, and application. In:
Pervaporation, Vapour Permeation and Membrane Distillation
(eds. A. Basile, A. Figoli and M. Khayet), 19–63. Elsevier.
22
Meireles, M., Bessieres, A., Rogissart, I. et al. (1995). An appropriate molecular size parameter for porous membranes calibration.
Journal of Membrane Science
103 (1–2): 105–115.
23
Cui, Z., Jiang, Y., and Field, R. (2010). Fundamentals of pressure‐driven membrane separation processes. In:
Membrane Technology
(eds. Z.F. Cui and H.S. Muralidhara), 1–18. Elsevier.
24
Vilker, V.L., Colton, C.K., and Smith, K.A. (1981). et al, The osmotic pressure of concentrated protein solutions: effect of concentration and pH in saline solutions of bovine serum albumin.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
79 (2): 548–566.
25
Van Lente, H. and Rip, A. (1998). The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality.
Social Studies of Science
28 (2): 221–254.
26
Fick, A. (1855). Uber diffusion.
Annalen der Physik
94: 59–86.
27
Ferry, R.J. (1923). Studies in the chemistry of hemoglobin I. The preparation of hemoglobin.
Journal of Biological Chemistry
57 (3): 819–828.
28
Ferry, J.D. (1936). Ultrafilter membranes and ultrafiltration.
Chemical Reviews
18 (3): 373–455.
29
Glater, J. (1998). The early history of reverse osmosis membrane development.
Desalination
117 (1–3): 297–309.
30
Reid, C. and Breton, E.J. (1959). Water and ion flow across cellulosic membranes.
Journal of Applied Polymer Science
1 (2): 133–143.
31
Shenvi, S.S., Isloor, A.M., and Ismail, A.F. (2015). A review on RO membrane technology: developments and challenges.
Desalination
368: 10–26.
32
Cadotte, J.E. (1985). Evolution of composite reverse osmosis membranes.
ACS symposium series
269: 273–294.
33
Schiffler, M. (2004). Perspectives and challenges for desalination in the 21st century.
Desalination
165: 1–9.
34
Judd, S.J. (2017). Membrane technology costs and me.
Water Research
122: 1–9.
2Introduction to Membrane Contactor Technology
Mohammad Younas1 and Mashallah Rezakazemi2
1 University of Engineering and Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Peshawar, 25012, Pakistan
2 Shahrood University of Technology, Faculty of Chemical and Materials Engineering, Shahrood, Iran
2.1 Membrane Contactor Separation Processes
2.1.1 Membrane Contactors
A membrane is defined as a semipermeable material that acts as a barrier between two phases. If one component in the mixture passes from one stage to the other phase through the membrane, a separation is accomplished. The classical membrane separation techniques discussed in Chapter 1 are usually termed as pressure‐driven operations, which work on the feed–retentate–permeate system. Membrane contactors differ from classical membrane separation processes because in these processes, membrane only provides the surface of contact for the two phases and does not give selectivity to the separation processes. The applied pressure is no more the driving force. Instead, the pressure difference is used to stabilize the membrane and prevent both phases from mixing or disperse with each other. Membrane contactors are defined as the devices in which the semipermeable membrane provides only the surface of contact for the two phases and allows both phases to contact and permits the transfer of selected specie at the mouths of membrane pores to pass through from one phase to the other in cross‐flow direction. These two phases are generally termed as feed phase and receiving phase. A simple schematics of membrane contactors is shown in Figure 2.1.
Thus, the feed and receiving phases are in contact only through the membrane pores. As in comparison with the other membrane processes such as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO
