Performance of the Pressure Assisted Forward Osmosis-MSF Hybrid Desalination Plant

An osmotically driven membrane process was proposed for seawater pretreatment in a multi-stage flashing (MSF) thermal plant. Brine reject from the MSF plant was the draw solution (DS) in the forward osmosis (FO) process in order to reduce chemical use. The purpose of FO is the removal of divalent io...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Water (Basel) 2021-05, Vol.13 (9), p.1245
Main Authors: Khanafer, Daoud, Yadav, Sudesh, Ganbat, Namuun, Altaee, Ali, Zhou, John, Hawari, Alaa H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aquatic resources
Australia
Brines
Cellulose
Cellulose triacetate
Contact angle
Desalination
Desalination plants
Energy efficiency
Equipment and supplies
Fluctuations
Flux
Heat exchangers
Heating
Maximum power
Membrane processes
Membranes
Middle East
Osmosis
Permeability
Power consumption
Pressure
Pretreatment
Saline water conversion
Saline water conversion plants
Salinity
Seawater
Thin films
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:An osmotically driven membrane process was proposed for seawater pretreatment in a multi-stage flashing (MSF) thermal plant. Brine reject from the MSF plant was the draw solution (DS) in the forward osmosis (FO) process in order to reduce chemical use. The purpose of FO is the removal of divalent ions from seawater prior the thermal desalination. In this study, seawater at 80 g/L and 45 g/L concentrations were used as the brine reject and seawater, respectively. The temperature of the brine reject was 40 °C and of seawater was 25 °C. Commercial thin-film composite (TFC) and cellulose triacetate (CTA) membranes were evaluated for the pretreatment of seawater in the FO and the pressure-assisted FO (PAFO) processes. Experimental results showed 50% more permeation flux by increasing the feed pressure from 1 to 4 bar, and permeation flux reached 16.7 L/m2h in the PAFO process with a TFC membrane compared to 8.3 L/m2h in the PAFO process with CTA membrane. TFC membrane experienced up to 15% reduction in permeation flux after cleaning with DI water while permeation flux reduction in the CTA membrane was >6%. The maximum recovery rate was 11.5% and 8.8% in the PAFO process with TFC and CTA membrane, respectively. The maximum power consumption for the pretreatment of seawater was 0.06 kWh/m3 and 0.1 kWh/m3 for the PAFO process with a TFC and CTA membrane, respectively.
ISSN:2073-4441
2073-4441
DOI:10.3390/w13091245