- Thesis-Org Complete (1)
- The Minimum Product Bubble Point
- Digestate Proceeding
- Case study and summary of an article utilizing ultrafiltration membrane for protein separation
- Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations
- PhysioEx 9.1 Ex 1 Act 5
- mentorpaper_101766
- ESPA1
- [Qian Sui][Occurrence and Removal of Pharmaceuticals, Caffeine and DEET in Wastewater Treatment Plants of Beijing, China]
- Membrane Bio Reactor
- 10
- Pervaporation
- 0707Slovak
- 41015476
- Pretreatments to Control Membrane Fouling in Membrane Filtration of Secondary Effluents
- Problems in Heat Transfer
- IJEDR1402067.pdf
- Water Filter 5-Stage Manual
- Introduction to Heat Transfer Module
- S2_CH
- Tutorial 2 Heat Transfer Answer Bmm3513 Sem 1-12-13
- Module_Handbook_REMENA_101024_01.pdf
- CEI Extraction of Boundary Layer Characteristics From Fluent Results
- CFD Large-eddy Simulation of Film Cooling Flows.pdf
- National Science Foundation: nsf0521 7
- Unsteady Separation for Two Dimensional Flow
- 139107
- SYLLABUS-SCHEME-FOR-3rd-SEMESTER-UG-4-YEARS.pdf
- Epifanov - Boundary Layer
- Meshing_CompressibleModels.pdf
- tmp6F0E.tmp
- tmp3CAB.tmp
- tmpF6B.tmp
- tmpA077.tmp
- tmp80F6.tmp
- tmp1A96.tmp
- tmpEFCC.tmp
- tmp6BF8.tmp
- tmpF178.tmp
- tmp59C2.tmp
- tmpE7E9.tmp
- tmp88AC.tmp
- tmpF3B5.tmp
- tmpCE8C.tmp
- tmpFFE0.tmp
- tmp998.tmp
- tmpD1FE.tmp
- tmp6382.tmp
- tmpE3C0.tmp
- tmpF407.tmp
- tmp72FE.tmp
- tmp75A7.tmp
- tmp60EF.tmp
- tmpC0A.tmp
- tmp4B57.tmp
- tmp8B94.tmp
- tmp9D75.tmp
- tmpB1BE.tmp
- tmpA0D.tmp
- tmp37B8.tmp

Ma

No n

t f ey

or Pu

Di bl

st ish

rib in

ut g

io

n

**Energy and exergy analysis and modeling
**

temperature distribution in a membrane

distillation feed channel for VMD and DCM

Malik M. A. Fakron*

**This research is a comparative study between vacuum membrane distillation and direct contact
**

membrane distillation technologies. The first part focuses on an energy and exergy analysis of

vacuum membrane distillation and direct contact membrane distillation configurations. The results

of the energy analysis show the vacuum membrane distillation has lower energy losses across the

membrane compared to direct contact membrane distillation. The results of the exergy analysis

show that direct contact membrane distillation requires less work compared to vacuum membrane distillation. The second part of this research focuses on modeling of temperature distribution in feed channel for DCMD and VMD. The results of the numerical solution show that the

temperature polarization effort in VMD is smaller than in DCMD. The membrane temperature in

VMD approach constant temperature case and this reduces dissipated energy in the membrane

distillation process.

Keywords: Vacuum, Membrane distillation, Direct contact membrane distillation, Energy, Exergy, Temperature

Nomenclature

A:

COP:

CP:

D .:

Dequ.:

EN:

EX:

EX 9:

f:

K:

h:

hc:

J:

LW:

_

m:

p:

Pext :

PV FEED :

PV PERMEATE :

PP:

Q:

T:

T W ; m:

W:

u, v:

v:

membrane area

coefficient of performance for the process

specific heat

diameter

diameter of air gap on membrane surface

energy input for feed stream or permeate

stream

exergy

final exergy

friction factor

thermal conductivity

enthalpy

heat transfer coefficient

flux in kg/m2.hr

lost work

mass flow rate

pressure

working pressure

vapor pressure at feed side

vapor pressure at permeate side

pumping power for feed stream or permeate

stream

heat transfer

temperature in Cu

temperature of membrane surface

work of expansion

are the velocity components in X, Y

specific volume

University of Calabria, Italy

*Corresponding author, email: malikfakron@mail.com

**Ñ 2015 International Desalination Association
**

Received 31 October 2014; accepted 3 December 2014

DOI 10.1179/2051645214Y.0000000031

vvFEED :

vvpermeate :

nsuction :

Ma:

Nu:

Re:

Ra:

Pr:

m:

g:

d:

dT :

**specific volume at feed side
**

specific volume at permeate side

suction velocity

Malik number

Nusslet number

Reynolds number

Rayleigh number

Prandlt number

dynamics viscosity

exergy efficiency

Thickness of hydrodynamics boundary layer

Thickness of Thermal boundary layer

Introduction

**Membrane distillation for water treatment is a thermally
**

driven process. This process has various advantages

compared to traditional distillation and pressure driven

membrane processes such as reverse osmosis (RO).

Membrane distillation technology has attracted interest

from the research community due to its simplicity and

ease of implementation, the potential for using waste

heat, and its wide range of applications. Research has

focused on the use of membrane distillation in desalination, waste water treatment, water treatment and

concentration of aqueous solutions (Phattaranawik

et al., 2003). Membrane distillation can also be used to

concentrate thermally sensitive liquid feeds, where the

removal of water is the main concern, and has been

shown to achieve high solid contents at low operating

temperatures (Criscuoli et al., 2008; Lawson and Lloyd

1996, 1997).

IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse

2014

VOL

6

NO

3-4

121

Fakron

Energy and exergy analysis and modeling temperature distribution

**Membrane distillation can be configured as; direct
**

contact membrane distillation (DCMD), air gap membrane distillation (AGMD), sweeping gas membrane

distillation (SGMD) or vacuum membrane distillation

(VMD) (Imdakm et al., 2007; Imdakm and Matsuura,

2004; Drioli, 2005). The main problem encountered

during membrane distillation is low flux, which may be

due to various reasons including, temperature polarization phenomena and low energy efficiency for membrane distillation (Ding et al., 2008; Khayet et al., 2004;

Ratkovich et al., 2009).

This paper is split into two parts. The first gives an

energy and exergy analysis of two types of membrane

distillation, DCMD and VMD. The second models the

temperature distribution along a membrane distillation

feed channel for DCMD and VMD.

**whilst on the permeate side they are given by
**

_ pout £ hpout Þ 2 ðm

_ pinlet £ hpinlet Þ

EN ¼ ðm

ð7Þ

PP ¼ ðQin £ PinÞ 2 ðQout £ PoutÞ

ð8Þ

Ma

No n

t f ey

or Pu

Di bl

st ish

rib in

ut g

io

n

**The process performance is therefore given by
**

X

·

Xpermeate

permeate

PP þ

EN

COP ¼ W

feed

Feed

**Exergy analysis of the membrane distillation
**

process

**The exergy analysis is divided into two systems, the cold
**

permeate system and the hot feed system.

**Energy analysis for membrane
**

distillation

Analysis of feed side for a DCMD cell

In the thermal analysis for membrane distillation process the process was divided into two systems; a feed

system and a permeate system. The interaction between

the feed stream system and the permeate stream system

included heat transfer and work. Figure 2 shows the

systems and heat and work were transferred across the

membrane boundary.

The exergy equations are

**The first assumption is to consider the vapor transport
**

across the membrane as the system and the effect desired

in this process is the expanding work of vapor across the

membrane, from saturated vapor at the feed side temperature, to saturated vapor at permeates side temperature (Criscuoli et al., 2008).

Performance of direct contact membrane distillation

Q1 ¼ A £ hc £ ðT 1 2 T membrane Þ

W¼

ð1Þ

ð12Þ

EX ¼ h 2 T SURRONDING S

ð13Þ

**This process is not isotropic as heat transfer occurs by
**

conduction to the vapor inside. As the vapor expands

from the specific volume of saturated vapor at feed vapor

pressure to the specific volume of saturated vapor at the

permeate vapor pressure, Equations (1) to (2) become

ð3Þ

_ ¼A£J

m

ð4Þ

**The energy and pumping power input on the feed side of
**

membrane are given by

_ fout £ hfout Þ

_ finlet £ hfinlet Þ 2 ðm

EN ¼ ðm

ð5Þ

PP ¼ ðQin £ PinÞ 2 ðQout £ PoutÞ

ð6Þ

1 Vapor system across membrane

IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse

EX OUT 2 EX IN

¼ LW

ð15Þ

T 5 ¼ ðT 3 þ T 4 Þ=2

ð16Þ

_ 1 ððC p ðT 1 2 T 0 ÞÞ 2 C P T 0 ln ðT 1 =T 0 ÞÞ

EX 1 ¼ m

ð17Þ

_12m

_ 3 ÞððC p ðT 2 2 T 0 ÞÞ

EX 19 ¼ ðm

2 C P T 0 ln ðT 2 =T 0 ÞÞ

ð18Þ

2 Thermal analysis for MD process

2014

VOL

6

ð14Þ

T SURROUNDING

EX þ Q 1 2

þ W SYSTEM

T SYSTEM

in

X

T SURROUNDING

EX þ Q 1 2

2

þ WS

T SYSTEM

OUT

ð2Þ

_

W ¼ ðPV FEED 2 PV PERMEATE Þ £ ðvvpermeate 2 vvFEED Þ £ m

X

X

V1

122

Q2 ¼ Awall £ hc £ ðT 1 2 T wall Þ

W MIN ¼

Pext ¼ PV Feed 2 PV PERMEATE

ð11Þ

PdV

V1

Vð2

Pext dV

ð10Þ

Vð2

**Figure 1 shows the vapor system inside the membrane
**

pores for the membrane distillation process.

Let us consider the work done by a specific volume of

a saturated vapor system at feed temperature and vapor

pressure, expanding to reach the specific volume of

permeate at permeate vapor pressure, and then start

condensation. The expansion work of the vapor system

inside the pore can be modeled by:

W ¼2

ð9Þ

NO

3-4

Energy and exergy analysis and modeling temperature distribution

Fakron

_ 2 ðððC p ðT 3 2 T 0 ÞÞ 2 C P T 0 ln ðT 3 =T 0 ÞÞÞ

EX 2 ¼ m

ð19Þ

_2þm

_ 3 ÞððC p ðT 4 2 T 0 ÞÞ

EX 29 ¼ ðm

2 C P T 0 ln ðT 4 =T 0 ÞÞ

ð20Þ

_ 3 ððC p ðT 5 2 T 0 ÞÞ 2 C P T 0 ln ðT 5 =T 0 ÞÞ

EX 3 ¼ m

ð21Þ

W min ¼ EX 19 2 EX 1 þ EX 3

ð22Þ

Ma

No n

t f ey

or Pu

Di bl

st ish

rib in

ut g

io

n

T5

LW ¼ EX 1 2 EX 19 2 W 2 Q1 1 2

T1

T0

2 EX 3

2 Q2 1 2

T1

ð23Þ

giving an exergy efficiency on the feed side of

gfeed ¼

W min

LW þ W min

ð24Þ

2.2.2 Analysis for permeate side of DCMD cell

The exergy equations are

W min ¼ EX 29 2 EX 2 2 EX 3

T1

LW ¼ EX 2 2 EX 92 þ W þ Q1 1 2

T5

þ EX 3

ð25Þ

ð26Þ

**This is the exergy giving an efficiency on the permeate
**

side of

gpermeate ¼

W min

LW þ W min

ð27Þ

**For VMD, the same equations and analysis were used
**

for the feed side but the difference in permeate because

the negative pressure in permeate side in the case VMD

permeate side.

EX 2 ¼ 0:0; EX 29 ¼ EX 3 ;

ð28Þ

Then, W min < 0:0, g < 0:0

The experimental data (from Criscuoli et al., 2008),

calculations and analysis were based on the thermal

analysis for membrane distillation process for two systems. Between these two systems there is heat transfer,

mass transfer and work done for transfer the matter.

3 Velocity profile in membrane distillation process

**The suction velocity has an important impact on the
**

thickness of the boundary layer. Due to the increase of

the rate of deformation of the fluid elements in the

region near to the lower plate, the lower boundary layer

thickness is decreased as shown in Fig. 3

The flow regime is fully developed laminar flow in

duct with variable t velocity profile along the module

length in order to find the solution for the temperature

profile. In reality the velocity and temperature profiles

vary along the length of the membrane distillation cell

due to the changing suction velocity and membrane

temperatures (caused, in part, by non-constant friction

factors). To facilitate the modeling of the membrane

distillation process a new term (called the MALIK

number) is introduced by modification of the Weber

number for the membrane distillation case, with new

heat transfer correlations.

Dequ ¼ ½ðA 2 ðporosity*AÞÞ*4=P1=2 ð28Þ;

rn0 Dequ

Ma ¼

s

rVD

Re ¼

m

Pr ¼

ð31Þ

ð32Þ

mC p

ð31Þ; Nu ¼ a Re b Pr c Ma d

K

ð33Þ

The continuity equation is

Lu Lv

þ ¼ 0:0

Lx Ly

ð34Þ

While the momentum equation is

**Theoretical modelling for temperature
**

distribution in membrane distillation

feed channel

Lu

Lu

1 LP

L2 u L2 u

þn

u þv ¼2

þ

Lx

Ly

r Lx

Lx 2 Ly 2

**The systems to be considered in this research are flat
**

sheet DCMD modules and VMD modules. This study

concentrates on modeling of the temperature distribution in the feed channel. The feed channel is modelled

as laminar flow forced convection between two parallel

plates the length of the cell, with suction from the lower

plate (at y ¼ 0.0 in Figs. 3–6). For the analysis a uniform

suction velocity along the cell length shall be assumed,

such that the suction velocity is given by

**suction velocity ¼ ðflux areaÞ=ðdensity porosity areaÞ
**

ð29Þ

**In reality, the suction velocity along the cell length is not
**

constant, declining along the cell membrane length due

to the change in the process driving force, such that

nsuction ¼ F ðx; T m1 ; T m2 ; f ; porosityÞ

ð30Þ

!

ð35Þ

And the energy equation

LT

LT

n L2 T

u

þv

¼

Lx

Ly pr Ly 2

!

ð36Þ

The boundary conditions are

Lu

LT

¼ 0:0; v ¼ 0:0;

¼ 0:0

Ly

Ly

y ¼ 0:0; u ¼ 0:0; v ¼ cons; T W ¼ cons

y ¼ d;

ð37aÞ

**The first step puts the continuity, momentum and energy
**

equations in the dimensionless form, to use these

dimensionless parameters. The boundary-layer thickness

is then calculated, if the thickness is less than the cell

height, then takes it as the second point of boundary

conditions and if higher than cell height take the half of

the cell as the second point boundary conditions and this

IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse

2014

VOL

6

NO

3-4

123

Energy and exergy analysis and modeling temperature distribution

Ma

No n

t f ey

or Pu

Di bl

st ish

rib in

ut g

io

n

Fakron

4 Temperature profile for DCM

**mean, the suction very low and there is no significant
**

effect on the rate of deformation in the fluid boundarylayer thickness. To find the center line for velocity

component in x-direction, which is the maximum value

for the velocity in x-direction which it can be calculated

from the perturbation solution for these equations

(Schofield et al., 1987; Oosthuizen et al., 1999).

y ¼ d;

Lu

LT

¼ 0:0; v ¼ 0:0;

¼ 0:0

Ly

Ly

**This case considers the flow between two parallel plates
**

with suction to the lower plate. To solve this problem

the finite difference method applies, the finite difference

explicit scheme converts the partial differential

equations’ sets of algebraic equations then generated the

matrix of coefficients, solved by using algorithm themes

solver (Oosthuizen et al., 1999).

**Method of solution: finite difference explicit
**

scheme discretization

ð37bÞ

y ¼ 0:0; u ¼ 0:0; v ¼ cons; T W ¼ cons:

ð37cÞ

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

u

x

; X ¼ ; V ¼ u Re L =ucc ;

ucc

L

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Y ¼ y Re =L; P ¼ ðP 2 P1 Þ=ru 2cc ;

LU LV

þ

¼ 0:0

h ¼ ðT 2 T 1 Þ=ðT W 2 T 1 Þ;

LX LY

U¼

ð37dÞ

U

LU

LU

dp L2 U

þV

¼2 þ

LX

LY

dx LY

ð38Þ

U

Lh

Lh

1 L2 h

þV

¼

LX

LY

Pr LY 2

ð39Þ

IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse

2014

VOL

6

ð40Þ

**U i;jþ1 þ U i;j21 2 2U i;j
**

L2 U

¼

LY 2

i;j

DY 2

ð41Þ

U i;j 2 U i21;j

LU

¼

LX

i;j

DX

ð42Þ

**As shown in Figure 7.
**

Substituted in the momentum equation to get the algebraic equation:

Aj U i;j þ Bj U i;jþ1 þ C j U i;j21 ¼ Dj

5 Temperature profile for VMD

124

U i;jþ1 2 U i;j21

LU

¼

LY

i;j

2DY

NO

3-4

ð43Þ

Energy and exergy analysis and modeling temperature distribution

Ma

No n

t f ey

or Pu

Di bl

st ish

rib in

ut g

io

n

Fakron

**Temperature profile for DCMD
**

Temperature profile for VMD

6 Temperature profile for DCM & VMD

7 Finite difference scheme for flow field

Aj ¼

Bj ¼

U i21;j

DX

V i21;j

2DY

2

þ

DY 2

1

2

DY 2

ð44Þ

V i21;j

1

Cj ¼ 2

2

2DY

DY 2

Dn ¼

U 2i21;j

DX

!

2

dp

dx

ð45Þ

ð46Þ

U i;1 ¼ 0:0

A2 U i;2 þ B2 U i;3 þ C 2 U i;1 ¼ D2 ;

A3 U i;3 þ B3 U i;4 þ C 3 U i;2 ¼ D3

ð47Þ

ð48Þ

ð49Þ

AN21 U i;N21 þ BN21 U i;N þ C N21 U i;N22 ¼ DN21

ð50Þ

U i;N ¼ U 1

ð51Þ

32 U 3 2 0 3

i:1

7 6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6 C 2 A2 B2 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::0 76

7 6

7

6

76

7

7

6

6

6

76

7

7

6

6

76

7 6

7

60

76

7

7

6

6

76

7 6

7

6

76

7

7

6

6:

76

7

6

7 ð52Þ

6

76

7¼6

7

6

76

7

6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6:

76

7

6

7

6

76

7

6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6 0:::::::::::::C

7

6

7

6

7

6

N21 AN21 BN21 76

7 6

7

4

54

5 4

5

U i;N

U1

0::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1

2

1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::0

QU U i;j ¼ RU

IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse

ð53Þ

2014

VOL

6

NO

3-4

125

Fakron

Energy and exergy analysis and modeling temperature distribution

Then

**Where Qu is a tridiagonal matrix this equation can be
**

solved using the standard traditional matrix solver

algorithm, which is often termed the Thomas algorithm

(Oosthuizen et al., 1999)

A1

D1

Bi

; c1 ¼

; ai ¼

;

C1

A1

Ai 2 ai21 C i

Di 2 C i ci21

ci ¼

Ai 2 C i ai21

ð54Þ

Then X n ¼ cn ð54Þ;

ð55Þ

ð70Þ

hi ¼ ci 2 ai hIþ1

ð71Þ

**The Thomas algorithm was used in a case study:
**

y ¼ 0:0; u ¼ 0:0; v ¼ cons; T W ¼ cons

ð72Þ

Ma

No n

t f ey

or Pu

Di bl

st ish

rib in

ut g

io

n

a1 ¼

hn ¼ cn

X i ¼ ci 2 ai X Iþ1

**For the energy equation:
**

ðhi;j 2 hi21;j Þ

Lh

¼ U i21;j

U

LX

DX

hi;jþ1 2 hi;j21

Lh

¼ V i21;j

V

LY i;j

2DY

**The treatment of the flow in MD process as flow
**

between two parallel plates with suction at the lower

plate considers the first part which is straight from the

membrane surface to d and the second part start from

the upper surface of the channel minus d, the case is fully

developed. The membrane distillation cell consists of a

membrane surface area of 40 cm2, a membrane width of

4 cm, a membrane length of 10 cm, a channel width of

4 cm and a channel height of 0.5 cm.

Case study for DCMD:

ð56Þ

ð57Þ

L2 h

ðhi;jþ1 þ hi;j21 2 2hi;j Þ

¼

2

LY

DY 2

ð58Þ

J ¼ 25:8 L=hr:m 2 ; T fin ¼ 60C 0 ; T fout ¼ 59:4C 0 ;

**T din ¼ 17:4C 0 ; T dout ¼ 18C 0 ; Qf ¼ 230 L=hr;
**

Qd ¼ 200 L=hr

**Substitute into the energy equation to convert the energy
**

equation into a set of algebraic equations:

E j hi;j þ F j hi;jþ1 þ G j hi;j21 ¼ H j

U i21;j

2

þ

Ej ¼

DX

Pr DY 2

V i21;j

1

Fj ¼

2

DY

Pr DY 2

ð59Þ

E 3 hi;3 þ F 3 hi;4 þ G 3 hi;2 ¼ H 3

V i21;j

1

Fj ¼ 2

2

DY

Pr DY 2

U i21;j hi21;j

Hj ¼

DX

ð62Þ

Case study for VMD:

J ¼ 43:7kg=hr:m 2 ;T fin ¼ 59:3C 0 ;

Vacuum pressure ¼ 60mbar:

T fout ¼ 58:7C 0 ;Qf ¼ 200L=hr;

ð60Þ

ð61Þ

Results and discussion

**Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the temperature distribution in
**

DCMD where the temperature at the membrane surface is

around 53uC, the temperature at the center line of the flow

regime fluctuated between 53uC and 59uC. The cell wall

temperature was founded at 37.5uC in VMD and the

membrane surface temperature fluctuated between 56uC to

55uC as shown in Fig. 5. The temperature at the center line

of the flow regime fluctuated between 59uC to 58uC (Fig. 5).

Fig. 6 shows the effect of temperature polarization

phenomena, this was found in direct contact membrane

distillation configurations greater than the vacuum

membrane distillation configuration. This is due to the

temperature gradient in the membrane surface because

the thermal boundary layer is thicker in direct contact

membrane distillation configuration than vacuum membrane distillation configuration and due to the characteristics of the permeate stream. Further information is

provided in Tables 1 and 2.

ð63Þ

ð64Þ

hi;1 ¼ hw ; E 2 hi;2 þ F 2 hi;3 þ G 2 hi;1 ¼ H 2

ð65Þ

**E N21 hi;N21 þ F N21 hi;N þ G N21 hi;N22 ¼ H N21
**

2

3 2

3

hw

2

3 hi;1

7 6

7

1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::0 6

6

7 6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6 G2 E 2 F 2

76

7 6

7

6

76

7 6

7

60

76

7 6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6:

76

7 6

7

6

76

7¼6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6:

76

7 6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6

76

7 6

7

6 0:::::::::::::G N21 E N21 F N21 76

7 6

7

4

56

7 6

7

6

7 6

7

4

5

4

5

0::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1

hi;N

hi;N

ð66Þ

QT hi;j ¼ RT

ð68Þ

ð67Þ

**Table 1 Thermal analysis data for direct contact membrane
**

distillation (Criscuoli et al., 2008)

Membrane area

Feed temperature

Permeate temperature

Water flux

Feed vapor pressure

Permeate vapor pressure

Permeate saturated vapor

Feed saturated vapor

Mass flow rate

Work

Total energy consumption

Energy efficiency

Exergy efficiency for feed stream

Exergy efficiency for permeate stream

**Where the QT is a tridiagonal matrix this equation
**

solved by the standard traditional matrix solver algorithm which is often termed the Thomas algorithm

(Imdakm et al., 2007; Oosthuizen et al., 1999).

A1

D1

Bi

; c1 ¼

; ai ¼

;

C1

A1

Ai 2 ai21 C i

Di 2 C i ci21

ci ¼

Ai 2 C i ai21

a1 ¼

126

IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse

ð69Þ

2014

VOL

6

NO

3-4

40

59

13.4

25.4

19040.7

1598.94

82.7981

8.00932

2.82222E-05

36.81441996

360.3

10.21771301

25.87899082

7.917178774

cm2

C0

C0

kg/m2hr

Pa

Pa

m3/kg

m3/kg

kg/sec

Watt

Watt

%

%

%

Fakron

**Table 2 Thermal analysis data for vacuum membrane
**

distillation process (Criscuoli et al., 2008)

40

59

19040.7

8.00932

1000

129.183

48.8

2484.38

389.5

118.5329231

22.61178511

18.02284908

0.0

cm2

C0

Pa

m3/kg

Pa

m3/kg

kg/m2hr

kJ/kg

Watt

Watt

%

%

%

**distillation configuration has higher exergy efficiency
**

than the vacuum membrane distillation configurations, these results suggest that enhancement in the

permeate side will increase the overall efficiency of the

process.

References

Ma

No n

t f ey

or Pu

Di bl

st ish

rib in

ut g

io

n

Membrane area

Feed temperature

Feed vapor pressure

Feed saturated vapor

Vacuum pressure

Saturated vapor to permeate

Water flux

Specific enthalpy of vaporization

Energy consumption

Work

Energy performance

Exergy efficiency for feed stream

Exergy efficiency for permeate stream

Energy and exergy analysis and modeling temperature distribution

Conclusions

**heat loss due to conduction across the membrane
**

N The

in direct contact membrane distillation configurations

N

N

N

N

**are higher than the vacuum membrane distillation
**

configuration.

The temperature polarization phenomena is appears

to have greater effect in direct contact membrane

distillation configuration then vacuum membrane

distillation configuration.

The development optimum membrane materials and

optimum membrane morphology for enforcement the

flux and reduce the heat losses across the membrane.

This membrane makes the membrane distillation

process affordable as desalination process.

Different types of geometry membrane surface to

produce voracities to enforcement mass transfer in

the boundary-layer.

The exergy analysis of feed side shows that the direct

contact membrane distillation configuration has a

higher exergy efficiency than the vacuum membrane

distillation configuration and the exergy analysis for

permeate side shows the direct contact membrane

**Criscuoli, A., Carnevale, M. C. and Drioli, E. 2008. Evaluation of
**

energy requirements in membrane distillation, Chem. Eng.

Process., 47, (7), pp. 1098–1105.

Ding, Z., Liu, L., Yu, J., Ma, R. and Yang, Z. 2008. Concentrating the

extract of traditional Chinese medicine by direct contact

membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci., 310, pp. 539–549.

Drioli, E. 2005. Membrane distillation and related operations – a

review, J. Separation Pur. Rev., 34, pp. 35–86.

Imdakm, A. O., Khayet, M. and Matsuura, T. 2007. A Monte Carlo

simulation model for vacuum membrane distillation process,

J. Membr. Sci., 306, (1–2), pp. 341–348.

Imdakm, A. O. and Matsuura, T. 2004. A Monte Carlo simulation

model for membrane distillation processes: direct contact (MD),

J. Membr. Sci., 237, (1–2), pp. 51–59.

Khayet, M., Velazquez, A. and Mengual, J. I. 2004. Modelling mass

transport through a porous partition: effect of pore size

distribution, J. Non Equilibr. Thermodyn., 29, (3), pp. 279–299.

Lawson, K. W. and Lloyd, D. R. 1996. Membrane distillation I module

design and performance evaluation using vacuum membrane

distillation, J. Membr. Sci., 120, pp. 111–121.

Lawson, K. W. and Lloyd, D. R. 1997. Membrane distillation,

J. Membr. Sci., 124, pp. 1–25.

Oosthuizen, P. H. and Naylor, D. 1999. Introduction to convective heat

transfer analysis, McGraw-Hill.

Phattaranawik, J., Jiraratananon, R. and Fane, A. G. 2003. Heat

transport and membrane distillation coefficients in direct

contact membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci., 212, (1–2), pp.

177–193.

Ratkovich, N., Chan, C. C. V., Berube, P. R. and Nopens, I. 2009.

Experimental study and CFD modelling of a two-phase slug

flow for an airlift tubular membrane, Chem. Eng. Sci., 64,

pp. 3576–35845.

Schofield, R. W., Fane, A. G. and Fell, C. J. D. 1987. Heat and masstransfer in membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci., 33, (3),

pp. 299–313.

IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse

2014

VOL

6

NO

3-4

127

- Thesis-Org Complete (1)Uploaded byProf C.S.Purushothaman
- The Minimum Product Bubble PointUploaded byMWJornitz
- Digestate ProceedingUploaded byVirginija Skorupskaite
- Case study and summary of an article utilizing ultrafiltration membrane for protein separationUploaded bynisbahmumtaz
- Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing OperationsUploaded byLuis Gustavo Barascout
- PhysioEx 9.1 Ex 1 Act 5Uploaded byJuan Alemán
- mentorpaper_101766Uploaded byhjxy
- ESPA1Uploaded byjosemvazquez
- [Qian Sui][Occurrence and Removal of Pharmaceuticals, Caffeine and DEET in Wastewater Treatment Plants of Beijing, China]Uploaded byNoxx150
- Membrane Bio ReactorUploaded byNguyen Minh Tuan
- 10Uploaded byNatdanai Limprasert
- PervaporationUploaded byWasique Khan
- 0707SlovakUploaded bySomaia Al-Akras
- 41015476Uploaded byvk100
- Pretreatments to Control Membrane Fouling in Membrane Filtration of Secondary EffluentsUploaded byNguyen Van Dzung
- Problems in Heat TransferUploaded byPSKUMAR2012
- IJEDR1402067.pdfUploaded byAdrian Griffin
- Water Filter 5-Stage ManualUploaded byLim Soonhoe
- Introduction to Heat Transfer ModuleUploaded byRolando Sixto Basurco Carpio
- S2_CHUploaded bySunil Giri
- Tutorial 2 Heat Transfer Answer Bmm3513 Sem 1-12-13Uploaded bySuhadahafiza Shafiee
- Module_Handbook_REMENA_101024_01.pdfUploaded byBernardo Andrés Gilardoni
- CEI Extraction of Boundary Layer Characteristics From Fluent ResultsUploaded bypopoda
- CFD Large-eddy Simulation of Film Cooling Flows.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- National Science Foundation: nsf0521 7Uploaded byNSF
- Unsteady Separation for Two Dimensional FlowUploaded byflangiarolo
- 139107Uploaded bySurendar Vejayan
- SYLLABUS-SCHEME-FOR-3rd-SEMESTER-UG-4-YEARS.pdfUploaded byrahul
- Epifanov - Boundary LayerUploaded byjoereis
- Meshing_CompressibleModels.pdfUploaded byMol Mol

- tmp6F0E.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp3CAB.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpF6B.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpA077.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp80F6.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp1A96.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpEFCC.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp6BF8.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpF178.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp59C2.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpE7E9.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp88AC.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpF3B5.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpCE8C.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpFFE0.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp998.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpD1FE.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp6382.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpE3C0.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpF407.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp72FE.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp75A7.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp60EF.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpC0A.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp4B57.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp8B94.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp9D75.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpB1BE.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmpA0D.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- tmp37B8.tmpUploaded byFrontiers