Comparison of membrane distillation and freeze crystallizer as alternatives for reverse osmosis concentrate treatment

Naidu, G; Zhong, X; Vigneswaran, S

Comparison of membrane distillation and freeze crystallizer as alternatives for reverse osmosis concentrate treatment

Naidu, G

Zhong, X Vigneswaran, S

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Desalination, 2018, 427 pp. 10 - 18
Issue Date:: 2018-02-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (1.07 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Naidu, G https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6406-3444	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Zhong, X	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Vigneswaran, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8117-4322	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-05-25T19:19:12Z
dc.date.issued	2018-02-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Desalination, 2018, 427 pp. 10 - 18	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0011-9164	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131274
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 Elsevier B.V. Membrane distillation (MD) and freeze crystallizer (FC) were evaluated as alternative reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) treatment options. A direct contact MD (DCMD) was capable of obtaining 60% water recovery with chemically pretreated ROC. Nevertheless, in repeated cycles, DCMD displayed a trend of reduced water recovery and declining permeate quality. At elevated concentrations, ROC caused scaling and membrane hydrophobicity reduction, indicating reduced membrane life span. On the other hand, FC in three-stage freeze/thaw approach was able to concentrate ROC by 2.3 time, achieving a 57% water recovery with no scaling issues. The fresh ice water quality (total dissolved solids) obtained from FC was within the range of 0.08–0.37 g/L. A brief techno-economic evaluation highlighted advantages and limitations of both options. The efficiency of DCMD as a compact, low thermal process for ROC treatment was compromised by membrane scaling, indicating the necessity for a scaling mitigation pretreatment. This invariably incurs an additional cost. FC was advantageous as a scaling and chemical free process. The high freezing requirement of FC could be met by coupling with refrigerant coolant from liquefied natural gas. Nevertheless, the practical industrial application of FC is inherently restricted due to complex scaling up issues.	en_US
dc.relation	http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP150101377
dc.relation.ispartof	Desalination	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.043	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Chemical Engineering	en_US
dc.title	Comparison of membrane distillation and freeze crystallizer as alternatives for reverse osmosis concentrate treatment	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	427	en_US
utslib.for	0601 Biochemistry and Cell Biology	en_US
utslib.for	03 Chemical Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	09 Engineering	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CTWW - Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater Treatment
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	427	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 Elsevier B.V. Membrane distillation (MD) and freeze crystallizer (FC) were evaluated as alternative reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) treatment options. A direct contact MD (DCMD) was capable of obtaining 60% water recovery with chemically pretreated ROC. Nevertheless, in repeated cycles, DCMD displayed a trend of reduced water recovery and declining permeate quality. At elevated concentrations, ROC caused scaling and membrane hydrophobicity reduction, indicating reduced membrane life span. On the other hand, FC in three-stage freeze/thaw approach was able to concentrate ROC by 2.3 time, achieving a 57% water recovery with no scaling issues. The fresh ice water quality (total dissolved solids) obtained from FC was within the range of 0.08–0.37 g/L. A brief techno-economic evaluation highlighted advantages and limitations of both options. The efficiency of DCMD as a compact, low thermal process for ROC treatment was compromised by membrane scaling, indicating the necessity for a scaling mitigation pretreatment. This invariably incurs an additional cost. FC was advantageous as a scaling and chemical free process. The high freezing requirement of FC could be met by coupling with refrigerant coolant from liquefied natural gas. Nevertheless, the practical industrial application of FC is inherently restricted due to complex scaling up issues.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/131274