Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Membrane-based liquid desiccant air dehumidification: A comprehensive T

review on materials, components, systems and performances
Xiaoli Liua, Ming Qua,∗, Xiaobing Liub, Lingshi Wangb
a
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA
b
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Membrane-based liquid desiccant air dehumidification (MLDAD) is a separation process driven by the vapor
Membrane pressure difference. Different from the conventional liquid desiccant air dehumidification, MLDAD uses semi-
Liquid desiccant permeable membranes to separate the processing air and desiccant liquid so that only water vapor molecules in
Air dehumidifier the air side can transfer through the membrane and be absorbed by the solution. In this process, the vapor is
Module design
removed from the air stream, and the carryover of solution droplets in the air is also able to be eliminated. This
Dehumidification system
Performance comparison
review addresses the characteristics of liquid desiccants and membranes, the design of MLDAD modules and
systems, the performance assessment and comparison of the dehumidification and regeneration module, as well
as the system-level energy analysis. State-of-the-art research results are presented, and the future needs for this
promising technology are discussed.

1. Introduction
From 1950 to 2017, the energy consumption in the United States
tripled from 32 to 97.7 quadrillion BTUs [1], and it is projected to a
continuous rising in the future [2]. Among the near 100 quadrillion
BTUs, about 38% was consumed by the building sector consisting of
residential and commercial buildings [1]. Near 54% of the energy
consumed by residential buildings and 34% of the energy consumed by
commercial buildings in the U.S. was for space heating, ventilation and
air conditioning (HVAC) [3,4]. Thus, the energy consumed by HVAC
counted for 17% of the total U.S. energy consumption. Most of the
energy consumed at the buildings are natural gas and electricity, of
which 63% is generated via burning fossil fuels [1]. The combustion of
fossil fuels generates greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which
causes global warming, sea level rising, acid rain, and other environ-
mental deterioration issues [5]. However, energy consumptions and the
associated carbon emissions would continuously increase to meet the
growing demand for healthy and comfortable indoor environment [6],
resulting more serious energy and environmental problems.
On the other hand, people spend about 87% of their life in enclosed
buildings [7], so indoor environment quality (IEQ) has a direct influ-
ence on people's productivity and health. The humidity of the space is
one of the significant parameters in IEQ. It needs to be well controlled.
Otherwise, the high humidity can inhibit the evaporation of sweat,
resulting in discomfort and productivity decline [8]. Also, the high level
of moisture provides a significant breeding ground for the growth of
bacteria and fungi in buildings, affecting people's health [9,10]. To
maintain indoor thermal comfort and reduce the likelihood for micro-
bial growth, ASHRAE standards notes that the HVAC system must be
able to keep a humidity ratio below 0.012 and the relative humidity
between 30% and 60% in occupied spaces [11,12]. Therefore, it is
concluded that improving the effectiveness and efficiency of humidity
control is critical to maintaining a healthy and productive indoor en-
vironment in buildings while reducing energy consumptions.
The conventional air dehumidification methods include moisture-
condensing method, desiccant-wheel method, and liquid-desiccant
method. Among them, the moisture-condensing method, the majority,
removes the moisture in the air through the condensation, which is
achieved by reducing the air temperature below its dew point tem-
perature (overcooling) and then the cold and dry air is reheated to an
acceptable supply temperature [13]. However, this approach inevitably
causes energy waste due to overcooling and reheating, and bacteria and
mold growth on the cooling coils due to condensate water [14].
The desiccant-wheel method uses solid desiccants such as silica gels,
zeolites, and others to directly adsorb water vapor from the air into the
small pores inside the desiccant medium. Based on this principle, the
desiccant-wheel system can regulate air temperature and humidity se-
parately [15,16]. Thus, the desiccant-wheel system has an extensive

∗
Corresponding author. Civil Engineering Building, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2051, USA.
E-mail address: mqu@purdue.edu (M. Qu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.018
Received 11 January 2019; Received in revised form 5 April 2019; Accepted 7 April 2019
Available online 14 May 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
X. Liu, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

Nomenclature sol Solution flow

salt Salt in liquid desiccant
Symbol Description w Water

C Concentration Abbreviations Description

Cr Solution to air heat capacity ratio
H Operating factor COP Coefficient of performance
m Mass flow rate ECOP Electricity coefficient of performance
m Solution to air flow ratio EVP Equilibrium vapor pressure
NTU Number of transfer units HVAC Heating, ventilation and air conditioning
T Temperature ILD Ionic liquid desiccant
v Velocity LDAD Liquid desiccant air dehumidification
w Humidity ratio MFR Moisture flux rate
Xsol Mass ratio of water to salt MFRPE Polyethylene
ε Effectiveness MLDAD Membrane-based liquid desiccant air dehumidification
MRR Moisture removal rate
Subscripts Description PP Polypropylene
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
air Air flow PVDF Polyvinylidene fluoride
lat Latent TCOP Thermal coefficient of performance
sen Sensible VDR Vapor diffusion resistance

control capacity, and the overcooling and reheating in conventional air
conditioning systems are eliminated. These not only save electricity but
also reduce the size of the system if waste energy and solar energy can
be used. According to the literature [17–19], the solid desiccant re-
generation temperature was around 60–150 °C. However, the re-
generation temperature of the solid desiccant can be relatively higher
for sufficient and faster dehumidification.
The liquid desiccant method uses liquid desiccant such as glycol,
halide salts [including lithium chloride (LiCl), lithium bromide (LiBr),
magnesium chloride (MgCl2), and calcium chloride (CaCl2)] to absorb
water vapor in the air. These desiccants, when at high concentrations,
have a lower vapor pressure at the surface of the solution than that in
the air, which results in a net mass transfer of water molecules from the
air side to the liquid desiccant side [20]. The liquid desiccant air de-
humidification (LDAD) technology requires a lower regeneration tem-
perature than that required by the solid desiccants used in the de-
siccant-wheels, allowing the possibility for utilizing low-grade energy
(i.e., condensation heat, and waste heat from factories) or renewable
energy (i.e., solar energy) [6,21,22]. The LDAD system can also in-
tegrate with a third heat transfer fluid to provide internal cooling/
heating to improve the dehumidification and regeneration perfor-
mance. However, the conventional open-tower liquid desiccant sys-
tems, at which the airflow directly contacts to the liquid desiccant, have
a very small market share due to the issue of carryover of the liquid
desiccant and the resulting corrosions of HVAC ductwork and other
components [23–26]. In addition, liquid desiccant is exposed to the
ambient environment in the conventional open-tower design. It is thus
subject to any pollution in the ambient environment, which not only
reduces the dehumidification performance but also increases the op-
eration and maintenance costs.
Recently, the membrane-based liquid desiccant air dehumidification
(MLDAD) has been developed to address the above challenges. The
MLDAD employs a membrane to separate the air and liquid desiccant
fluids. This membrane allows only water vapor to pass through but
prevents liquid from penetrating. In this way, the desiccant droplets
cannot enter into the air stream to cause the corrosion of HVAC com-
ponents and the quality deterioration of the supply air. This technology
has attracted more and more attention from researchers worldwide
nowadays. Fig. 1 is the summary of the number of publication related to
MLDAD over 22 years since 1996.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, an MLDAD system mainly consists of one
dehumidifier module, one regenerator module, two air streams, and
one closed solution loop. The hot and humid air passes through the
dehumidifier and becomes drier after some of the vapor in the air is
absorbed by the concentrated liquid desiccant. The warm and diluted
liquid desiccant leaves the dehumidifier and is re-concentrated at the
regenerator, where a stream of hot air flows through to absorb the
vapor releasing from this diluted liquid desiccant. The re-concentrated
liquid desiccant goes back to the dehumidifier to form a cycle. In the
MLDAD system, the dehumidifier is made of air channels and solution
channels which are separated by membranes. The regenerator in ex-
isting MLDAD is still the same as the dehumidifier module but working
under different conditions. However, other regeneration methods in-
clude membrane distillation [27,28], electrodialysis [29], ultrasound
technologies [30–32], etc. could be implemented into this system.
Potentially, the membrane-based dehumidification system has a
superior performance in energy, economy, and environment [33,34].
Nevertheless, the corrosion of pipes and components in the solution
loop is still unavoidable in a MLDAD module using salt solutions. New
liquid desiccants such as ionic liquid and weak acid have been in-
vestigated as a substitute for conventional desiccant solutions to pre-
vent corrosion. Whether these systems can avoid the carryover and
corrosion problems, while maintaining high dehumidification perfor-
mance, remains to be studied.
The objective of this paper is to review the state-of-the-art on the
MLDAD for researchers to create a complete understanding of MLDAD
and especially guide the experimental set-up. To achieve the goal, In
Fig. 1. The number of publications related to MLDAD since 1996. Data were
obtained from Scopus on February 13, 2019.

445
X. Liu, et al.
Fig. 2. A schematic diagram of the MLDAD system mainly consisting a membrane-based dehumidifier, a membrane-based regenerator, and the liquid desiccant loop.
Section 2, the two major materials in the MLDAD module – the mem-
brane and the liquid desiccant are studied. Then, Section 3 presents the
details of the module design for both dehumidifier and regenerator. In
Section 4, the existing MLDAD system configurations and the re-
commended system setup are discussed. Later, detailed assessments and
comparisons of the dehumidification performance of existing MLDADs
are provided in Section 5, along with the analysis of internal cooling,
regeneration performance and system energy efficiency. The challenges
in MLDAD system are presented in Section 6, and the conclusions and
research needs to advance the MLDAD technology are discussed in the
final section.
2. Materials used in MLDAD
In this section, the characteristics and properties of various liquid
desiccants and membranes used in existing MLDAD systems are re-
viewed and summarized in following sub-sections.
2.1. Liquid desiccants
Liquid desiccants are substances in liquid form with a high affinity
to water vapor so that they can absorb water vapor in the air (i.e.,
dehumidifying air). Tri-ethylene glycol (TEG), a mixture of organic li-
quids, is the earliest liquid desiccant used for air dehumidification. The
high viscosity and high volatility of TEG adversely affect the stability of
the dehumidification system and the quality of the air being dehumi-
dified [6,20]. Later, halide salts have been identified to replace TEG
because of their better thermodynamic properties and low volatility.
The aqueous solutions of halide salts such as LiBr, LiCl, CaCl2, and
MgCl2 become the most widely used liquid desiccants [20,35]. The
equilibrium vapor pressures (EVP) of saturated LiBr and LiCl solutions
are equal to that of air with a relative humidity of about 15% and 6% at
the same temperature, respectively. The EVPs of saturated CaCl2 and
MgCl2 solutions are higher and equal to air with about 40% relative
humidity. Afshin compared these four liquid desiccants which were
used to remove the vapor of the air stream from 50% to 30% relative
humidity, in terms of cost and dehumidification performance and found
that their sensible/latent effectiveness had little difference (while the
required concentrations of various liquid desiccant solutions were dif-
ferent in order to maintain the same EVP), but the price and the sta-
bility were different [36]. Although MgCl2 and CaCl2 are less expensive
than LiCl and LiBr, the MgCl2 solution is easier to crystallize [35].
Therefore, the mixtures of these halide salts are studied to reduce the
cost while maintaining a good dehumidification performance. Al-Far-
ayedhi et al. [37] used a mixture of CaCl2 and LiBr with a mass ratio of
1:1 in a gauze-type liquid desiccant air dehumidifier and found that the
mixed solution led to better mass transfer than the CaCl2 solution alone.
Yao et al. [38] investigate the mixtures of LiCl-CaCl2 solutions for better
characteristics and lower cost and predicted EVP under different tem-
peratures and concentrations.
However, conventional salt solutions are corrosive to metals, and it
is a severe drawback to the reliability and longevity of dehumidification
446
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
systems that use conventional salt solutions. Also, conventional salt
solutions are easy to crystallize when they are saturated, which could
degrade dehumidification performance and result in serious main-
tenance issues (e.g., blockage a the circulation pump). Therefore, re-
searchers are looking for less-corrosive and less-volatile liquid de-
siccants. A new type of desiccants is the weak acid, such as potassium
formate (HCO2K), potassium acetate (CH3CO2K), sodium formate
(HCO2Na), or sodium acetate (CH3CO2Na) [39–42]. Compared with
halide salts solutions, these weak acids have lower crystallization
temperature and density, less toxicity and corrosivity, and higher so-
lubility [20]. Potassium acetate has the ability to dry air to 25% relative
humidity with a higher viscosity than halide salts, resulting in large
pumping energy consumption. Potassium formate can dehumidify air
below 30% relative humidity with a lower viscosity than halide salts
[6]. Although the dehumidification ability of these weak acids is
weaker than LiCl and LiBr solutions, their costs are lower.
Another promising alternative is ionic liquid desiccants (ILDs). ILDs
are synthesized salts in the liquid phase. ILDs have an extremely low
vapor pressure, no corrosion to metals, and no crystallization problems
[43]. The dehumidification potential of ILD has been studied in the past
[43,44]. Qu et al. tested 13 different ILDs and identified that [EMIM]
[OAc] has the maximum adsorption and desorption capabilities among
the 13 ILDs [43]. Also, Qu et al. developed a series of correlations for
calculating the thermos-physical properties of [EMIM][OAc] aqueous
solutions. Fig. 3 shows the equilibrium vapor pressures (EVPs) of sev-
eral ILD aqueous solutions along with that of a few other liquid de-
siccants. The blue region indicates the typical operating conditions (i.e.,
the partial vapor pressure of air) in the dehumidification process. This
figure shows that the needed concentrations (mass fraction of desiccant
in the aqueous solution of the desiccant) of different liquid desiccants to
work under the typical operating conditions vary widely. For achieving
the same EVP, the mass fraction of [EMIM][OAc] is higher than that of
Fig. 3. Equilibrium vapor pressures of aqueous solutions of various liquid de-
siccants at 20 °C.
X. Liu, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

halide salts but less than other liquid desiccants (e.g., KCOOH and Table 2
TEG). Summary of liquid desiccant used in recent researches.
EVP is the most critical characteristic of a liquid desiccant because it Research Solution type Concentration (%) Temperature (°C)
directly determines the capacity of the dehumidification [35]. EVP of a
liquid desiccant equals the partial water vapor pressure of the air above Isetti, 1997 [54] LiCl 42 20, 31
Bergero, 2001 [55] 45.8 29
the desiccant surface, which can be calculated based on the relative
Bergero, 2011 [56] 36.5 14.6
humidity of the air and the saturated water vapor pressure at that air Moghaddam, 2013 34.6 24
temperature. It is a dependent of the temperature, concentration (in- [57]
dicated by the mass fraction of salt in an aqueous solution), and pres- Huang, 2014 [58] 35.0 25
sure of a liquid desiccant. A liquid desiccant with higher concentration Zhang, 2014 [59] 29.5 21.6
Abdel-Salam, 2016 32.5 24.2–25.3
and lower temperature has a lower EVP so that the more water vapor
[60]
can transport from air to the liquid desiccant due to a larger vapor Lin, 2018 [61] 35 25
pressure difference between the air and the liquid desiccant. EVP values Bai, 2018 [62] 39 25
shown in Fig. 3 are calculated curve-fitted correlations derived from Annadurai, 2018 [63] 35 20
28
experimental data [39,45–49]. The most commonly used empirical
Bettahalli, 2016 [64] CaCl2 43% 35
correlation is the Cisternas-Lam equation, which evaluates the moisture Chen and Bai, 2016 33, 36, 39 20
absorption capacity of different inorganic compounds [50]. Later, [65,66]
Conde has developed formulations for EVP and other the thermal Hout, 2017 [67] 38 16.4
properties of LiCl and CaCl2 [51]. Erb and Ahmadi, MgCl2 31.8 24
2009 [70–72]
In addition to EVP, other characteristics and properties of liquid
Mahmud, 2009 32.5 27
desiccants can also affect the performance and cost of an MLDAD and [73,74]
thus should also be accounted for when selecting a liquid desiccant, Fakharnezhad, 2016 TEG 99.5 –
including crystallization temperature, specific heat, viscosity, density, [75]
and price. Petukhov, 2016 [76] 99.5 –
Isetti, 1997 [54] Ca(NO3)2 56 28, 38
Crystallization temperature is an intrinsic property of a liquid Meggers, 2017 Alkoxylated – –
desiccant. A liquid desiccant starts to crystallize (i.e., the formation of [77,78] siloxane
salt hydrates) when it is cooled below the crystallization temperature at Chen, 2018 [79] KCOOH 36, 49, 62 28–34
the atmospheric pressure. Crystallization must be avoided in the Liu, 2018 [80] [EMIM][OAc] 70–90 25
MLDAD systems because the salt hydrates can accumulate and even-
tually block the solution pump, pipe, etc. and contaminate the mem-
concentrations, and temperatures. For the LiCl solution, the heat of
brane. Severe crystallization can cause significant maintenance issue
dilution varies from 150 to 300 (kJ/kg H2O) with the concentration
and performance deterioration [52]. Therefore, it is desirable to select a
changes from 35% to 45%. For [EMIM][OAc] solution, the heat of di-
liquid desiccant with a suitable concentration and a low crystallization
lution varies from 200 to 800 (kJ/kg H2O) with the mole concentration
temperature.
changes from 0.2 to 1 [53]. The heat of dilution is contributed to the
Specific heat reflects the temperature rise of a liquid desiccant
temperature increase in both the air and the solution. Therefore, the
while absorbing heat. In a dehumidification system, the heat comes
sensible effectiveness of a MLDAD will be largely influenced.
from the air, the condensation of water vapor, and the absorption of the
Table 1 shows the saturated concentration and equilibrium relative
water vapor in the liquid desiccant. For a liquid desiccant with low
humidity of the saturated liquid desiccants at 20 °C, the cost of anhy-
specific heat, its temperature will increase quickly when absorbing heat
drous salts per metric ton, density, viscosity and specific heat of some
during the dehumidification process, which leads to a sharp increase in
commonly used liquid desiccants such as the glycol, halide salt solution,
the EVP and degrades dehumidification performance. Therefore, a li-
weak acid, and ionic-liquid. Table 2 summarized the desiccant solutions
quid desiccant with a higher specific heat should be selected for
used in MLDAD systems in the published researches. As can be seen in
MLDAD.
this table, the selection of liquid desiccants varies at different experi-
Viscosity and density of the liquid desiccant affect the electricity
ments. LiCl aqueous solution is the most popular liquid desiccant. The
consumption for circulating the liquid desiccants through a MLDAD
typically used concentration of LiCl ranges from about 35% to 45.8%
system. A liquid desiccant with low density and low viscosity can be
[54–63]. The typically used concentration of the aqueous solution of
circulated more efficiently and thus saves pumping energy.
CaCl2, another commonly used liquid desiccant, ranges from 33% to
Heat of dilution is the energy released when the solution absorbs
43% [64–67]. The ideal characteristics of a liquid desiccant include low
1 kg water (kJ/kg H2O). It depends on different solutions,

Table 1
Cost and properties at 20 °C for commonly used liquid desiccants.
Liquid Saturated RHa (%) Costb (USD/ Densityc (kg/ Viscosityc Viscosity at Specific heatc Heat of dilution Ref.
desiccant concentration MT) m3) (mPa s) EVP = 1 kPa (mPa s) (J/kg K) (kJ/kg H2O)

TEG 1 ∼0 1103 1100 49 30 2150 – [49]

LiCl 0.45 11.31 7400–8418 1275 9 4 2700 150-300 (35–45 wt [20,53,68]
%)
LiBr 0.63 6.37 3660–3316 1750 18 2.5 1750 – [20]
CaCl2 0.43 ∼30 284–291 1400 22 8 2400 – [20]
MgCl2 0.35 33.07 721 1220 14.5 ∼14.5 2500 – [20,68,69]
KCOOH 0.72 23.11 288 1525 20 5.5 2400 – [68]
[EMIM][OAc] 1 ∼0 814000 1105 90 2.8 1900 200-800 [43,53]
(70–100 wt%)

a
Equilibrium relative humidity.
b
Cost of anhydrous salts.
c
Properties of a solution at a saturated concentration.

447
X. Liu, et al.
EVP, no crystallization, low regeneration temperature, low viscosity,
low price, non-corrosive, non-flammable, non-toxic, and stable.
2.2. Membrane
The membrane is a selective layer allowing only some specific
components of a mixture in the feed side to pass through but stop
others. Membrane-based dehumidification uses a semi-permeable
membrane to separate the process air in the feed side from the liquid
desiccant in the permeate side. Water vapor can pass through the
membrane, and the direction and transfer rate of water vapor are de-
termined by the differential pressure of water vapor between the two
sides of the membrane (Fig. 4). Membrane materials can be classified as
organic (polymeric), inorganic (mental/ceramic/zeolite), mixed matrix
membrane (hybrid), and liquid membranes. The polymer membranes
such as polypropylene (PP), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), poly-
vinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and polyethylene (PE) films, are the most
widely used material in water vapor separation (e.g., air dehumidifi-
cation) as shown in Table 3, because they have a low price, easy re-
producibility, and robustness [23]. The zeolite membrane is produced
from a growth solution and porous support sheet using in-situ and
seeded methods. The mixed matrix membrane hybrids the polymer
membrane and zeolite membrane, which is reproducible in a more
accessible and cheaper process. It also has better transport properties,
and higher thermal and chemical stabilities [81–84]. The liquid mem-
brane is designed to immobilize a liquid phase within a porous support
membrane through capillary forces, which improve the permeability
and selectivity [85–92].
2.2.1. Important properties of a membrane
Membranes have many kinds of classification and characteristics.
Different characteristics of membranes are suitable for different appli-
cations. It is critical to understand the main properties of the membrane
because they guide the selection of the membrane. This section de-
scribes the physical properties and performance of membranes as well
as their application in air-to-liquid membrane contactors.
Pore size usually refers to the mean diameter of pores inside a
membrane. According to the pore size, membranes can be classified as
the dense/nonporous membrane with the pore size less than 0.1 nm or
without pores, and the porous membrane with the pore size at about
0.1 μm [23,93]. Porous membranes are hydrophobic, and they are
mainly used in the air-to-liquid system [93]. Bigger pore size is bene-
ficial to increase permeability, but it also brings the risk of liquid pe-
netration. Therefore, the optimal size of the pore is obtained by the
equilibrium between the permeability and the liquid penetration pres-
sure.
Porosity is the ratio of pore volume to the total membrane volume
[94,95]. A higher porosity value leads to a better permeate perfor-
mance. The porosity of the membrane used in MLDAD generally ranges
from 0.35 to 0.65, but there is an exception using a membrane with a
porosity of 0.7–0.85 (Table 3).
Tortuosity is the degree of deviation between pore shape and cy-
lindrical shape [95]. A higher tortuosity value leads to a lower
permeate flux. The tortuosity also correlates with porosity [96].
Thermal conductivity indicates the ability of materials to conduct
heat. In fact, polymers used in MLDAD have a very similar thermal
conductivity. The thermal conductivities of these polymer membranes
are around 0.11–0.27 W/(mK) at 23 °C [97–100]. It is worth men-
tioning that the influence of membrane thermal conductivity on the
effectiveness of the MLDAD system is minimal and negligible
[93,101–103].
Permeability is a physical property of a material (similar to the
thermal conductivity of a material). It is the thickness of membrane
times the amount of water vapor permeated through the membrane in a
unit of time through a unit of surface area of the membrane. A mem-
brane with high permeability to the water vapor allows the water vapor
448
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
to pass more rapidly than other materials with low permeability but the
same thickness. Therefore, it enables the same vapor separation rate
with less surface area. The permeability can be measured via a wet/dry
cup method according to ASTM E96 standard [104–107]. For a porous
membrane, the permeability is usually determined by membrane
thickness, pore size, porosity, and tortuosity. For a dense membrane,
permeability is commonly the product of solubility and diffusivity. The
reciprocal of permeability is the vapor diffusion resistance (VDR). VDR
can be tested by the dynamic moisture permeation cell method
[108–110]. In this method, the driven force is expressed as the differ-
ence of vapor concentration (kg/m3) at two sides of the membrane so
that the unit of VDR is second per meter.
Selectivity is the ratio of the permeability of water vapor to that of
the other components in the humid air. It indicates the purity level of
the separated component. Larger pore sizes lead to a smaller selectivity
so that the purity of permeate is reduced [93]. The water selectivity in
recently used membranes for air dehumidification ranges from 178 to
16,300 [23]. In the liquid-to-air application, high water selectivity is
preferred to prevent leakage and carryover of liquid desiccants.
2.2.2. Membrane materials applied to MLDAD
The membranes used for the air-to-liquid system are mainly hy-
drophobic porous membranes since porous membranes have less vapor
resistance compared with dense membranes. However, the perme-
ability of the porous membrane could degrade over time if the dust in
the air blocks the pores of the membrane. Some groups studied on the
application of dense membrane and found that the dehumidification
capacity of the dense membrane behaves better at a more humid en-
vironment [78]. The material, thickness, pore size, porosity, VDR,
permeability and thermal conductivity of membranes used in existing
MLDAD units are listed in Table 3.
3. MLDAD component design
In this section, classifications, configurations, sizes, and flow pat-
terns of various membrane-based components are described below. The
differences between the flat-plate module and the hollow-fiber module,
the cross-flow and the counter-cross flow configurations, and with or
without the internal-cooling technology, are investigated.
3.1. Membrane-based heat and mass exchanger
3.1.1. Flat-plate module
The membrane-based flat-plate heat and mass exchanger (HMX)
module in air dehumidification is similar to the flat plate heat ex-
changer but using semi-permeable membranes instead of metals to se-
parate two streams [5]. The schematic diagram of a flat-plate HMX is
shown in Fig. 5. The layered air channels and solution channels are
separated by parallel membranes. The flat-plate HMX is used in most
existing MLDAD studies because it has a simple structure, easy sealing,
cleaning and replacing [94]. However, due to the pressure of the so-
lution side is significantly higher than that of the air side, structural
support (e.g., a plastic grid) for the membranes would be needed to
reduce deformation of membranes under large differential pressure
Fig. 4. A schematic diagram of membrane-based air dehumidifier.
X. Liu, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

Table 3
Properties for membrane used in liquid-to-air membrane contactor.
Research Material Thickness(μm) Pore size(μm) Porosity(−) VDR(s/m) Permeability(kg/msPa) Conductivity(W/mK)

Bergero, 2001 [55] PP 200 0.4 0.4–0.45 – – 0.334

Hemingson, 2005 [70] – 2–15 0.45 215–329 –
Erb, 2009 [70–72] 500 <1 – 345a –
Mahmud, 2009 [73,74] 224 <1 – 158 –
Fakharnezhad, 2016 [75] 50 0.2 – – –
Petukhov, 2017 [76] 35 0.2 0.45 – –
Bergero, 2011 [56] PP + PTFE 100 + 70 – – – 6.65–7.35E-11 –
Huang, 2014 [58] PVDF + silica gel 150 0.24a 0.35–0.45a – – –
Zhang, 2011 [111] PVDF (porous)+ PVAL 150 0.15 0.65 – – 0.36
Zhang, 2012 [112] PVDF 100 0.15a 0.65a – – 0.17
Zhang, 2014 [59] PVDF + PVAL 200 0.15a 0.65a – – –
Bettahalli, 2016 [64] PVDF – 0.39 – – – –
Fakharnezhad, 2016 [75] Hydrophilic PVDF 300 0.1 – – – –
Hout, 2017 [67] PVDF 110 – 0.8 – – 0.0608
Lin, 2018 [61] PVDF + silica gel 100 – – – – –
Annadurai, 2018 [63] PVDF 220 0.2 – – – –
Isetti, 1997 [54] PE 170 16 – – 4.73E-12a 0.04
Moghaddam, 2013 [57] GE ePTFE QL822™ 265 – – 56 – 0.065
Abdel-Salam, 2016 [60], GE membrane 300 – – 38 – –
Meggers, 2017 [77,78] Highly selective Pebax 1074 nonporous membrane
Chen, 2018 [79] – 100 0.2 0.6 – – 0.17
Liu, 2018 [80] Xergy membrane 25 – – – – –

a
Guess value.

the inside of the shell. The number of membrane tubes can vary from
200 [114] to 12,000 [115] in one module [5]. The hollow-fiber module
does not require additional supporting grid because the membrane
tubes have more strength than the membrane plates. In addition, the
hollow-fiber module has a high packing density, which is the total
surface area per unit volume of the module. A typical hollow-fiber
module can have a packing density of 30,000 m2/m3 [116], which is
much higher than that of a typical flat-plate module. Packing density is
a critical parameter affecting the heat and mass transfer performance of
an HMX — the higher the packing density, the better the heat and mass
transfer performance [33]. Besides, a high packing density also leads to
a smaller equipment size [117,118]. One drawback of the hollow-fiber
module is that the liquid desiccant is not evenly distributed among the
membrane tubes. This uneven distribution will reduce heat and mass
Fig. 5. A schematic diagram of a flat-plate membrane-based liquid desiccant air
transfer performance [119]. The hollow-fiber module could be blocked
dehumidifier.
by particulates in the liquid desiccant due to the small fiber diameter
[120]. Also, the complexity of installing internal-cooling system
across the membrane [5]. assemblies have limited the industrial application of hollow fiber
modules.

3.1.2. Hollow-fiber module

3.1.2.1. The typical hollow-fiber module. The hollow-fiber module is
similar to the shell-tube heat exchanger but replacing the metal tubes
with small diameter thin membrane tubes [5]. The first hollow-fiber
membrane module in air dehumidification is designed by Bergero [55].
A typical schematic of the module is shown in Fig. 6 [113,114]. It
separates the air and the liquid desiccant by tube-shaped membranes.
One stream flows inside the membrane tubes while the other stream
flows in the annulus between the outside of the membrane tubes and
3.1.2.2. The triple-bore hollow fiber module. A novel triple-bore hollow-
fiber membrane contactor was designed by Bettahalli et al. (2016) [64]
to dehumidify the air. The dehumidifier was made of a single hollow
fiber with three holes inside as shown in Fig. 7. The fiber had a
diameter of about 2.4 mm, and a length of about 580 mm. The diameter
of each hole was about 0.3 mm. The solution flowed into three internal
channels of the fiber. This design has a higher heat and mass transfer
area, and higher mechanical stability compared with single-bore hollow

Fig. 6. A schematic diagram of a hollow-fiber membrane-based liquid desiccant air dehumidifier (reproduced by referring to Refs. [113,114]).

449
X. Liu, et al.
Fig. 7. The schematic of a triple-bore hollow-fiber membrane contactor (re-
produced by referring to Ref. [64]).
fibers. It helps to lower the size of the HMX but increase the cost and the
complexity of reproduction.
Meggers et al. (2017) developed another type of hollow fiber
module as shown in Fig. 8a [77,78]. A high water-permeability non-
porous Pebax membrane was used in this design. The liquid desiccant
was a mixture of alkoxy siloxane. It was strong hygroscopic and non-
corrosive to metal materials. The air flowed inside the plastic shell, and
its flow direction is opposite to the solution. The outside diameter of the
module was 1.5 mm. Researchers suggested that 10 cm was the optimal
length for the tube to keep a relatively high absorption speed. Also, the
researchers combined many single modules, as shown in Fig. 8b, in
order to increase the capacity of a single module.
3.2. Flow pattern
There are several different flow patterns for a two-fluid exchanger,
including co-current flow, counter flow, cross flow, and counter-cross
flow, as shown in Fig. 9. It is well known that the heat and mass ex-
change efficiency of counter-flow is better than that of cross flow, and
the co-current is the worst type. However, counter-flow is not easy to
apply due to the difficulties in separating and sealing the two streams of
fluids at the entrance and exit. Counter-cross flow is usually used in
HMXs, in which one stream enters from the upper right corner of the
exchanger and leave from the lower left corner, forming an ‘S’ shaped
track line; and the other stream flows left to the right horizontally.
3.2.1. Existing designs of MLDAD module
3.2.1.1. Cross-flow flat-plate MLDAD module. Fig. 10a shows a cross-
flow flat-plate MLDAD module designed by Erb [70]. The length of each
air channel and solution channel were 600 mm and 300 mm,
respectively. The module consisted of ten liquid channels and ten air
channels. The thickness of an air channel, a solution channel, and the
unit were 4.9 mm, 1.7 mm, and 100 mm, respectively. Ten sheets of
membrane used were PP polymer made by Propore™. The membrane is
attached to the frame with special glue to seal the seams. Metal plates
are also placed at both ends of the solution channel to provide further
support. Meanwhile, near the air side, fiberglass support screens were
added adjacent to the membrane in order to reduce the membrane
deflection. The solution flowed from bottom to top, and the air flowed
horizontally. Fig. 10b shows another cross-flow flat-plate MLDAD
module designed by Chen et al. [65], with a dimension (length,
width, and height) of 410 mm, 230 mm, 210 mm. The numbers of air
channels and solution channels were both 21. The thicknesses of the air
and solution channels were 7.73 mm and 4.3 mm, respectively. In this
module, wavy polyethylene sheets were used to support the air
channels. The solution passed from top to bottom, while the air
passed horizontally. Heat and mass transfer took place in the semi-
permeable membranes. Three gauze layers were paved on the top of the
dehumidifier unit to ensure even solution distribution.
3.2.1.2. The counter-cross-flow flat-plate MLDAD module. A counter-
cross flow flat-plate MLDAD module had been investigated by
Mahmud as shown in Fig. 11 [66]. The length, height, and width of
450
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
the module were about 1800 mm, 200 mm, and 55 mm, respectively.
The module had 11 air channels and 10 liquid panels. The thickness of
the air and liquid channels were 3.18 mm and 1.5 mm separately. The
solution flowed in from the left-bottom corner of the unit to the upper-
right corner, while the air flowed from the right to the left. Thus, the
two streams formed a short-distance cross-flow and a long-distance
counter-flow configuration. The experiment results show that this flow
pattern had a better dehumidification performance than the cross-flow
flat-plate MLDAD module shown in Fig. 10a.
3.2.1.3. Counter-cross-flow hollow fiber MLDAD module. A membrane-
based counter-cross flow hollow fiber humidifier was developed by
Zhang [111]. The schematic of the counter-cross-flow module was
shown in Fig. 12. This membrane-based hollow fiber was made of two
layers: a skin layer made by a 40 μm dense polyvinyl alcohol film, and a
110 μm porous layer made of PVDF film, as indicated in Fig. 12. Thus,
the porous layer was able to provide mechanical strength, and the dense
layer selectively let the vapor permeate across the membrane but stop
the liquid from entering. The tube had an outer diameter of 1.5 mm and
an inner diameter of 1.2 mm. The water flowed through the inner tube.
The fiber bundle was randomly packaged with a packing density of
750 m2/m3. The total number of fibers was 200. The shell of the unit
had a length of 300 mm and a diameter of 40 mm. Liquid desiccant
entered from the right side to the left side, while the air entered from
the upper left corner to the lower right corner. Thus, it formed a
counter-cross flow.
3.2.1.4. Cross-flow hollow fiber MLDAD module. The schematic of a
cross-flow hollow fiber module was shown in Fig. 13 [112]. The shape
of the shell was cubic instead of cylindrical. The dimensions of the test
module were 350 mm long, 90 mm wide, and 200 mm high. The
membrane fibers used in this module was the same as that shown in
Fig. 12. The total number of the membrane fibers was 2900. The
horizontal or vertical distance between two adjacent fibers is 1.66 mm.
The packing density of this module is 759 m2/m3. The membrane fibers
can be aligned or staggered as shown in Fig. 14 [121]. The former has
less pressure drop while the later has a higher convection heat and mass
transfer. According to modeling studying, the fiber bundle arrangement
does not significantly affect performance. Thus, the aligned
arrangement was recommended because of its smaller pressure drop
and simpler configuration.
3.3. Internal cooling
In the process of liquid desiccant air dehumidification, the tem-
perature difference and the vapor pressure difference between air and
liquid desiccant are the drives for the heat and mass transfer. When the
desiccant absorbs water vapor, the heat of condensation and absorption
will increase the temperature of the liquid desiccant. As the liquid de-
siccant temperature becomes higher, its EVP increases, resulting in the
deterioration of the dehumidification performance. To enlarge the
water absorption capacity of liquid desiccant, internal cooling is ne-
cessary to keep liquid desiccant at a nearly constant temperature during
the dehumidification process.
Fig. 8. The schematic of a single hollow-fiber membrane contactor, and (b) its
patented system.
X. Liu, et al.
Fig. 9. A schematic of flow patterns for air and liquid desiccant in a heat and mass exchanger.
3.3.1. Existing designs of internal cooling
The three-fluid internally-cooled membrane contactor was first to
be developed by Conde in 2008, used in an open absorption system for
cooling and air conditioning. Then in 2013, Isetti et al. used the three-
fluid membrane contactor as an improved evaporator [122]. In this
design, solution channels and refrigerant channels were placed in par-
allel and separated by the plates, and the air flowed inside capillary
lumina installed inside the solution channel. The experiment concluded
that the three-fluid membrane contactor could provide a more compact
device with smaller size and improve the energy efficiency of the
system. Later, more and more scholars try to combine internal cooling
technology into the MLDAD system.
3.3.1.1. Three-fluid closed-loop internally-cooled MLDAD module. Abdel-
Salam (2016) designed a three-fluid internally-cooled MLDAD module,
which included a cooling water loop, a desiccant loop, and an air
stream [60]. The liquid desiccant and air were separated by a semi-
permeable membrane as shown in Fig. 15a. The membrane was
composed of two layers: a hydrophobic layer to transfer water vapor
only but prevent transportation of liquid water, and a hydrophilic layer
to support the membrane structure. Cooling water tubes were inside the
solution channel to regulate the temperature of the liquid desiccant, as
shown in Fig. 15b. The flow pattern between the liquid desiccant and
the air was a counter-cross flow; while the flow pattern between the
liquid desiccant and the cooling water was a counter-flow. The length
and height of the module were 470 mm and 100 mm, respectively. The
widths of the air and solution channels were 5 mm, and 4.2 mm,
respectively. The total numbers of the air and solution channels were
2 and 1. Seven cooling water tubes were in the middle of the solution
channel. The material of the cooling water tube was Titanium, which
had high thermal conductivity and was resistant to corrosion. Each
cooling water tube had a length, the inner diameter, the outer diameter
of 660 mm, 2.362 mm, and 3.175 mm, respectively.
3.3.1.2. Three-fluid adjacent internally-cooled MLDAD module. Later,
Annadurai et al. (2018) [63] designed an adjacent internally-cooled
MLDAD module (Fig. 16) and compared its performance with the
conventional two-fluid MLDAD module without any internal-cooling.
The length and height of the unit were about 1100 mm and 550 mm,
Fig. 10. The schematics of cross-flow flat-plate MLDAD modules designed by (a) Erb and (b) Chen et al. (reproduced by referring to Refs. [65,70]).
451
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
Fig. 11. The schematic of a counter-cross flow LAMEE (reproduced by referring
to Ref. [66]).
respectively. It had three channels: an air channel, a solution channel,
and a cooling water channel. On the one side, liquid desiccant and
cooling water were separated by a 1.2 mm plate. Flow guides were used
to distribute the desiccant flow evenly. On the other side, the PVDF
membrane with a thickness of 0.22 mm was used to separate the
desiccant from the air. The membrane was connected to the metal mesh
of the module by using double-sided foam tape, and metal screws were
used for avoiding the deformation of the membrane.
3.3.1.3. Four-fluid internally-cooled MLDAD module. Huang et al.
(2016–2018) [123–125] studied the heat and mass transfer and
performance in an adjacent internally-cooled membrane-based liquid
desiccant dehumidifier (AIMLDD) where cooling water was placed
adjacent to the solution. This design was first proposed by Woods et al.
in a desiccant-enhanced evaporative air conditioner system in 2013
[126,127]. The AIMLDD consisted of four fluids including the
processing air, the solution, the falling water film, and the sweep air,
as shown in Fig. 17. The air and the liquid desiccant flowed inside the
air and solution channels, which were separated by the membrane. The
falling water film and the sweep air flowed through the cooling
channels, which were formed by two plastic plates, and placed
adjacent to the solution channel. The sensible heat of the solution
was transferred to the water film. As the air blew over the surface of the
water film, water evaporated to take away the sensible heat. This
module had a length of 100 mm and a width of 100 mm. The thickness
of the feed air channel and the cooling channel were both 2 mm, and
the thickness of the solution channel was 1 mm. Later, Huang proposed
other internally-cooled membrane-based liquid desiccant dehumidifiers
X. Liu, et al.
Fig. 12. The schematic of a counter-cross flow hollow fiber MLDAD module (reproduced by referring to Ref. [111]).
(IMLDDs), which had cooling water tubes inside the solution channel.
These IMLDDs had different shapes of the channel or cooling tubes
including a counter-flow module with straight cooling tubes [128], a
counter-cross flow module with Z-shaped cooling tubes [129], a
hexagonal parallel-plate membrane channel with the nearly counter
flow and Z-shaped cooling tubes [130]. Compared with the IMLDD
module, the AIMLDD had a smaller pressure drop of the cooling water.
Thus, it led to less pumping energy consumption. The performance of
this AIMLDD module was compared with the IMLDDs, and the results
were presented in Section 5.
3.4. Summary and comparison of existing MLDAD modules
The characteristics of the dehumidification/humidification modules
used in existing membrane-based liquid desiccant systems are sum-
marized in Table 4. For the flat-plate modules, the length of the air
channel ranges between 200 and 400 mm, except for a few cases, where
the length is smaller than 100 mm or larger than 1000 mm. It is also
common to make the length of the solution channel to 1/2 of the length
of the air channel. The numbers of both the air channels and solution
channels usually range from 10 to 15 approximately. The heights (or
the thickness) of a single solution channel and an air channel are
commonly less than 2 mm and 5 mm, respectively. For the hollow-fiber
modules, the length of fibers usually ranges within 300–600 mm, and
the diameter of the fiber is around 1 mm in most designs. The number
of fibers is from 200 to 5000 in different cases. Most packing density is
around 500–800 m2/m3. However, the packing density can be as high
as 2000–3000 m2/m3.
4. MLDAD system design
A MLDAD system usually consists of one dehumidifier, one re-
generator, two air streams, and one solution loop as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Because the water vapor pressure difference between the air and the
liquid desiccant is small, and it is not easy to maintain a balance be-
tween the dehumidification and regeneration process. This system is
not stable and does not have a high performance. To achieve a better
dehumidification performance, more complicated MLDAD system de-
signs that include extra components, such as solution reservoirs, solu-
tion exchangers, cooling and heating devices, have been developed. In
Fig. 13. The schematic of a cross-flow hollow fiber MLDAD module (reproduced by referring to Ref. [112]).
452
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
Fig. 14. The arrangement of hollow fibers: (a) aligned and (b) staggered ar-
rangements.
the following figures, the cold and warm colors represent high-tem-
perature or low-temperature solutions, respectively. And the solid and
dash lines represent concentrated or diluted solutions, respectively.
This section presents various existing designs of MLDAD systems. The
selection and arrangement of heat exchangers, solution storage tanks,
and operating conditions of the existing MLDAD systems are introduced
in the following sub-sections.
4.1. Experimental apparatus for single dehumidifier/regenerator
A simplified absorption air-handling system, which used liquid de-
siccants and a hydrophobic porous PE membrane to dehumidify the air,
was studied by Isetti in 1997 [54]. As shown in Fig. 18, this system was
comprised of a closed solution loop and an open-air passage. The so-
lution loop contained a membrane-based HMX, a reservoir for liquid
desiccant, a solution pump, a thermoelectric heat exchanger to control
the solution temperature, and a regulating valve to control the solution
flow rate. The air was blown to the surface of the membrane-based
HMX, and the air temperature and velocity were maintained by an
array of electrical resistance and a mixing vane. The air flow rate was
about 2.7 m/s. The LiCl aqueous solution with a concentration of 42%
(weight) and the Ca(NO3)2 aqueous solution with a concentration of
56% (weight) were used as liquid desiccants in different tests. Test
results (Table 5) indicated that the system could dehumidify and hu-
midify the air. The thermoelectric heat exchanger in the solution loop
increased the dehumidification/regeneration capacity by enlarging the
vapor pressure difference between the air and the solution through
cooling (for dehumidification) or heating (for humidification) the
X. Liu, et al.
Fig. 15. The structure of a counter-cross-flow internally-cooled MLDAD module (reproduced by referring to Ref. [60]).
solution. This system was simple, but the mass transfer area was lim-
ited. Since the liquid desiccant was not regenerated in the system, it was
continuously diluted during the test, and the dehumidification perfor-
mance deteriorated with time.
Moghaddam (2013) investigated a small-size single-panel liquid-to-
air membrane energy exchanger (LAMEE) [57]. Fig. 19 is a schematic of
this system. The system consisted of a supply air system and an open
solution loop. An air compressor sent dry air to the LAMEE with the
desired velocity. A humidifier regulated the air humidity to the stan-
dard-recommended value when it flowed through. A tube-and-shell
heat exchanger was located at the downstream of the humidifier to
simulate the outdoor air temperature. Finally, the processing air with a
constant temperature and humidity run across the LAMEE, exchanging
energy with the liquid desiccant. The concentrated solution was
pumped from a solution storage tank and passed through a heater and
the LAMEE. The diluted solution coming out of LAMEE flowed into
another storage tank. The liquid storage tank was large enough to
maintain sustained output. The two-tank configuration can avoid the
mixture of weak and strong solutions and maintain a constant inlet
solution concentration at the dehumidifier.
4.2. Run-around membrane-based energy exchange (RAMEE) system
The RAMEE system consisted of two LAMEEs (one as a dehumidifier
and the other as regenerator), two separate air streams with fans, and a
solution loop with two storage tanks and pumps, as shown in Fig. 20.
This system could exchange heat and moisture between outdoor air and
exhaust air through the solution loop. In the RAMEE system, the liquid
desiccant was stored in and used from two reservoirs directly without
Fig. 16. (a) The structure of a counter-cross-flow adjacent internally-cooled MLDAD, (b) X-X cross-section diagram and (c) Y-Y cross section diagram (reproduced by
referring to Ref. [63]).
453
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
any heat exchanger to control the temperature of the liquid desiccant.
Thus, this system has very limited dehumidification capacity. Also, the
concentration of the solution needs to be kept at a low value. Other-
wise, the exhaust air, which is at the room temperature, was not able to
regenerate the solution. The main purpose of this system is to transfer
energy between two air streams instead of dehumidifying the air.
Huang et al. [58] developed a dehumidification system similar to
the RAMEE system. As shown in Fig. 21, this system included two air
streams and one solution loop. The air side control in this system was
for setting up test conditions, and it was not needed in a real RAMEE
system. The solution loop connected one dehumidifier, one regenerator,
two heat exchangers, and one solution storage tank located upstream of
the dehumidifier (or downstream the cooling water bath). The humidity
and temperature of the two air streams were controlled to provide the
desired test conditions. There were four processes in this system: de-
humidification, heating, regeneration, and cooling. The main difference
between this system and a RAMEE system was the number of the ex-
changers and reservoirs. The two heat exchangers here were necessary
because the hot water helped to improve the temperature of the diluted
solution in the regenerator and the cooling water helped to reduce the
temperature of strong solution in the dehumdifier, which furtherly in-
creased the EVP so that the driven force for mass transfer became
bigger. Therefore, the dehumidification capacity and effectiveness of
this system could be better than RAMEE. However, this system had
difficulty to balance between the dehumidification and regeneration
processes because there was only one solution tank. The solution must
be at a relatively high concentration. Otherwise, the diluted solution
would mix into the solution tank and thus degrade the dehumidification
performance of the system.
X. Liu, et al.
Fig. 17. (a) The structure of a cross-flow adjacent internally-cooled MLDAD and (b) details of channel configuration (reproduced by referring to Refs.
[124,126,131]).
Fig. 18. Schematic of a single dehumidifier (reproduced by referring to Ref.
[54]).
Bai designed a liquid-to-air membrane dehumidification system as
shown in Fig. 22 [66]. The difference of the test set up between this one
and the one from Huang's research was the number of solution tank and
the solution heat exchanger. In Bai's system, the solutions from the
strong solution tank and the weak solution tank exchanged heat at the
solution heat exchanger. This step is equivalent to precooling the strong
solution and preheating the weak solution. In this way, the energy
consumption of cooling and heating in the additional heater and cooler
can be reduced, respectively. Besides, the advantage of using two sto-
rage tanks is to facilitate system regulation and control. As the outdoor
environment changes at any time, the difficulty of a dehumidification
system lies in how to control the system to maintain its good dehumi-
dification capacity, as well as how to choose the regenerate schedule.
Undoubtedly, adding two solution reservoirs are necessary because the
balance between the dehumidifier and the regenerator is challenging to
control, and the regenerator should match the weather situation as well
Fig. 19. The system schematic of a single panel LAMEE (reproduced by referring to Ref. [57]).
454
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
as the indoor latent load which is hard to predict. So, two reservoirs can
help control the flow of the diluted solution and the concentrated so-
lution separately.
To reduce the energy consumption of the conventional liquid de-
siccant dehumidification systems, a heat pump was utilized as the
primary heating or cooling sources instead of using an independent
heater or cooler. Zhang (2014) incorporated the heat pump system with
an MLDAD system as shown in Fig. 23. This liquid desiccant system was
composed of a membrane-based dehumidifier, a membrane-based re-
generator, a solution container, a solution heat exchanger, and an extra
cooler. Both dehumidifier and regenerator were cross-flow hollow fiber
modules. The heat pump system consisted of a compressor, an eva-
porator, a condenser, and an expansion valve. The refrigerant used in
the heat pump is R134a. The air streams were the same as the RAMEE
system. The concentrated solution was pre-cooled by a water-cooled
heat exchanger and a solution heat exchanger, transferring heat to the
cooling water (25 °C) and the diluted cooling solution, respectively.
Then, it flowed through an evaporator so that it could be further cooled.
After that, the cold solution was pumped into the dehumidifier module,
absorbing water vapor and heat from the outdoor air, becoming diluted
and storing in a container. The cold and diluted solution from the
container flowed through the solution heat exchanger for pre-heating
and was further heated by the condenser before it flowed into the re-
generation module. The system employed an air-source heat pump as
heating and cooling sources, which was more energy-efficient than
electrical heating, and was simpler than the open cooling tower system.
Since the heat produced by the heat pump is larger than the cooling
energy it generated, additional cooling was needed to keep the system
 X. Liu, et al.

Table 4
Summary of configurations of existing MLDAD modules.
Research Module Flow Pattern Channels Remark

At the solution side At the air side

Numbera Lengthb (mm) Width/ Heightd (mm) Number Length (mm) Width/ Height (mm)
diameterc diameter
(mm) (mm)

Isetti, 1997 [54] Flat-plate Co-current 1 300 50 5 A blower forces air over the liquid desiccant. Fig. 19.
Erb, 2009 [70–72] Cross 10 300 600 1.7 10 600 300 4.9 Fig. 10a. Metal screen + Fiberglass screen
Bergero, 2011 [56] 15 340 1.2 16 174 2.5 -
Chen and Bai, 2016 [65,66] 21 230 4.3 21 410 7.73 Fig. 10b Air channel barrier: PE sheet/’
Lin, 2018 [61] 1 1000 1000 2 2 1000 1000 2 -
Bai, 2018 [62] 22 230 4.3 23 410 7.7 -
Mahmud, 2009 [73,74] Counter-cross 11 1800 280 1.5 10 1800 280 3.18 Fig. 11. Solution: bottom to top.
Moghaddam, 2013 [57] 2 490 0.8 1 490 5 Channel inlet width: 0.54 cm
Huang, 2014 [58] 1 200 100 2 1 200 100 2 Channel inlet width: 4 cm
Abdel-Salam, 2016 [60] 1 470 100 4.2 2 470 100 5 Fig. 15. Internally-cooled.
Water tube: L x D=660 mm x 2.362 mm
Huang, 2018 [124] 1 100 100 1 1 100 100 2 Fig. 17. Internally-cooled.
Water channel:

455
L x W x H: 100 mm x 100 mm x 2 mm
Annadurai, 2018 [63] 1 1100 550 5 1 1100 550 5 Fig. 16. Internally-cooled.
Double-sided foam tape and metal screws
were used to avoid membrane deflection.
Hout, 2017 [67] Open air 1 1000 10 200 Ambient air Liquid desiccant membrane ceiling
system
Fakharnezha, 2016 [75] Hollow Co-current 200 320 0.8 - 1 320 50 - -
fiber 1200 360 0.275 - 1 360 25 - -
Bergero, 2001 [55] Cross 800 450 0.6 - A blower forces an air stream over the liquid desiccant Packing density =593 m2/m3.
channel.
Zhang, 2012 [112] 2900 350 1.3 - 1 350 Height: 200 mm Fig. 12. Packing density =759 m2/m3.
Width: 90 mm
Zhang 2014 [59] - 380 1.1 - 1 380 - - Fig. 13.
Chen, 2018 [79] 5000 500 1.4 - 1 200 - - Packing density =832 m2/m3.
Zhang, 2011 [111] Counter 200 300 1.2 - 1 300 40 - Packing density=750 m2/m3.
Petukhov, 2017 [76] 1200 500 0.24 - 1 500 - - -
Bettahalli, 2016 [64] Open air 3 580 3 - Ambient air Fig. 7.
Meggers, 2017 [77,78] system 1 - 1.4 - 1 3.5 - Fig. 8.

a
Number of channels.
b
Length refers to the distance along the direction of fluid flow.
c
Width for flat-plate module, and diameter for hollow-fiber module.
d
Height refers to the distance between two layers of the membrane.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
X. Liu, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

Table 5
Dehumidification performances of MLDADs.
Research Flow Operating condition Performance
pattern
Air side Liquid side NTU/Cr* MMR Latent
(g/h) effectiveness
Temperature Humidity Flow rate Temperature Concentration Flow rate

Isetti, 1997 [54] Co- 20 °C 5.2 g/kg 2.7 m/s 20 °C 42% LiCl 3.42 kg/h – 51 –
current
Bergero, 2001 Cross 25 °C 10.5 g/kg 30–80 29 °C 42% LiCl 25, 41 kg/h – 180–380 0.52–0.65
[55] m3/h
Moghaddam, Counter- 35 °C 17.3 g/kg – 24 °C 34.6% LiCl – NTU = 3 – 0.54–0.84
2013 [57] cross 24 °C 25% LiCl – Cr* = 1–7 – 0.23–0.75
24 °C 30% LiCl – – 0.37–0.78
24 °C 35.8% MgCl2 – – 0.5–0.86
Bettahalli, 2017 – 30 °C 70% fan/ – 43% CaCl2 1–5 ml/min – 0.06 g/m2hPa –
[64] chiller off
30 °C 70% fan off/ – 43% CaCl2 5 ml/min – 0.22 g/m2hPa –
chiller on
2
30 °C 70% fan/ – 43% CaCl2 5 ml/min – 0.25 g/m hPa –
chiller on
Huang, 2014 Counter- 30 °C 19 g/kg 0.4–1.2 25 °C C: 35% LiCl v: 3–6 kg/h – 5–8.6 0.4–0.8
[58] cross kg/h
Chen&Bai, 2016 Cross- 30 °C 18 g/kg – 20 °C 39% CaCl2 36–108 kg/h NTU = 4–12 Cr* – 0.3–0.45
[65,66] flow = 1.55
NTU = 4–12 Cr* – 0.4–0.65
= 3.1
NTU = 6 – 0.31–0.44
Cr* = 1.6–10.9
Bai, 2018 [62] Cross- 30 °C 70% 438 kg/h 20 °C 39% LiCl 438–1750 kg/h NTU=2 – 0.46–0.51
flow Cr* = 3–12.5
NTU = 4 – 0.65–0.75
Cr* = 3–12.5
NTU = 8 – 0.82–0.93
Cr* = 3–12.5
Annadurai, 2018 Counter- 36 °C 25 g/kg 5 kg/h 20 °C 35% LiCl 5 kg/h – 18000 0.2
[63] cross 28 °C 35% LiCl 15 kg/h – 32400 0.32
water: 15 °C water: 5 kg/h
Chen, 2018 [79] Cross- 35–40 °C 60–70% 0.65–0.7 29 °C 62% KCO2H 3 L/h – 745–1390 0.4–0.43
flow m/s
35 °C 60% 0.65 m/s 28.5 °C 49% KCO2H 3 L/h – 691 0.387
35 °C 60% 0.65 m/s 28.1 °C 36% KCO2H 3 L/h – 651 0.356
Huang, 2014 Cross- 35 °C 65% 240 kg/h 28 °C 40% LiCl 250 L/h – 1320 0.335
[58] flow water: 25 °C
Fakharnezhad, Cross- – 6 l/h – – 98–99.9% TEG 0.54 l/h – – Module 1:
2016 [75] flow 0.7–0.8
Module 2:
0.8–0.95
Abdel-Salam, Counter- 34.9–35.3 °C 17–18.7 g/kg – 24.2–25.3 °C 32.5% LiCl – NTU = 1.8 30–20 0.66–0.45
2016 [60] cross water: Cr* = 1.8
10–24.6 °C

Fig. 20. The schematic of a RAMEE system (reproduced by referring to Ref. [70]).

456
X. Liu, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

Fig. 21. The schematic of a membrane-based liquid desiccant dehumidification system (reproduced by referring to Ref. [58]).

Fig. 22. The schematic of a membrane-based liquid desiccant dehumidification system (reproduced by referring to Ref. [66]).

running at a steady state condition. Then, Zhang [143] developed a
two-stage heat pump driven and hollow fiber MLDAD system to further
reduce the solution temperature increase due to the heat of absorption,
as shown in Fig. 24. In this system, the air was pre-cooled and pre-
dehumidified at the first-stage dehumidifier and evaporator, and then
were cooled and dehumidified at the second stage. They stated that the
optimal ratio of the first stage dehumidification area to the second stage
dehumidification area was 1.4, and the optimal ratio of the first stage
regeneration area to the second stage regeneration area was 1.286. The
optimal ratio of regeneration to dehumidification area was 1.33.
In 2018, Racha et al. [133] investigated on the liquid desiccant
cooled ceiling (LDMCC) for dehumidifying the indoor air, and the

Fig. 23. The schematic of a heat pump driven MLDAD system (reproduced by referring to Ref. [59]).

457
X. Liu, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

Fig. 24. The schematic of a two-stage heat pump driven MLDAD system (figure from referring to Ref. [132]).

displacement ventilation (DV) system for providing fresh air and opti-
mizing air distribution. In their system, the exhaust gas near the ceiling
was mixed with fresh air and cooled to 20 °C without any dehumidifi-
cation. The liquid desiccant used in LDMCC was 38 wt% CaCl2 with a
temperature of 13 °C and a velocity of 0.5 kg/s. Using these operating
conditions, a case study of typical office space in Beirut climate was
conducted. It was found that mixed air supply could reduce indoor
humidity by 8.72% and maintain indoor air quality. Compared with the
traditional system, the hybrid system can save 24% energy, and the
COP of the system is 3.5.
4.3. System improvements
Fig. 25 presented an improved configuration of a liquid desiccant
dehumidification system developed by Dr. Grossman [134]. This system
integrated several improvements in the liquid desiccant system, which

Fig. 25. The schematic diagram of an energy-efficient LDAD system from referring to Ref. [134].

458
X. Liu, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466

could also be used in the MLDAD systems. First, the system had two MRR =
mair
large tanks for the dehumidifier and the regenerator so that the dehu- Wair , in Wair , out (5)
midification module could keep draw concentrated solution from the
reservoir without regenerating it for a relatively long time. Second, the
5.1.2. Effectiveness at solution side
bypass of the solution passage allowed the solution in the tank to be
However, the strong solution enters into the dehumidifier becoming
cooled and sent directly to the dehumidifier and then collected into the
the diluted solution, which must be thoroughly reconcentrate in the
tank again. The regeneration module had the same function. The bypass
regenerator to remove the excess water vapor carried in the process air.
enabled separated operation of dehumidifier and regenerator. There-
At this time, the property of the solution side appears to be more im-
fore, it is more likely to stagger the peak load period or use intermittent
portant [14]. Therefore, the concept of the solution side effectiveness is
energy sources such as solar thermal energy to regenerate the liquid
proposed. The formulas for calculating the effectiveness of the solution
desiccant. Third, another bypass of the system allowed a small amount
side is shown as Eqs. (6)–(8) [136]. Studies have shown that the dif-
of the diluted solution and the strong solution to exchange heat in the
ference between the potential effectiveness of the air side and the so-
solution exchanger, so that the energy of the liquid desiccant can be
lution side can be neglected. Thus, the latent effectiveness of the air side
restored. It was able to reduce the energy consumption for cooling and
can also be used to evaluate the latent effectiveness of the LAMEE so-
heating the liquid desiccant.
lution side.

5. Performance and energy analysis msalt hfg (Xsol, out Xsol, in )

sol, lat =
mmin hfg (Wair , in Wsol, in ) (6)
In this section, air-side effectiveness, solution-side effectiveness,
(mcp )sol (Tsol, out Tsol, in) msalt hfg (Xsol, out Xsol, in )
system-effectiveness, and other performance indicators are defined and sol, sen =
discussed respectively. For each experiment, the performances of the (mcp )min (Tair , in Tsol, in ) (7)
module or system, as well as the impacts of each parameter on the
(mcp )sol (Tsol, out Tsol, in )
performance, are summarized and compared. Also, the energy analysis sol, tot =
of the membrane-based liquid desiccant system is presented in this (mcp )air (Tair , in Tsol, in) mair hfg (Wair , in Wsol, in ) (8)
section.
mass of water
Xsol =
mass of salt (9)
5.1. Performance indicators
msol
msalt =
5.1.1. Effectiveness at air side 1 + Xsol (10)
The most frequently used indicators for evaluating the performance
Moisture removal rate (MRR) can also be used to evaluate the
of a dehumidifier include the latent ( lat ), sensible ( sen ), and total ( tot )
amount of moisture being removed from the diluted liquid desiccant
effectiveness, which are expressed with Eqs. (1)–(3), respectively. The
solution. The MRR for solution side is calculated by Eq. (11). In addi-
effectiveness is the ratio between the actual heat/mass/enthalpy
tion, the solution side moisture flux rate (MFR) is defined in Eq. (12)
transfer rate and maximum potential. The performance of the dehu-
[137]. MFR is the ratio between MRR and membrane overall mass
midifier has been widely assessed by the air side effectiveness.
transfer conductance (Umem A). It is a more general performance in-
Wair , in Wair , out dicator compared with MRR because MFR only depends on inlet con-
lat = ditions rather than the size of the regenerator.
Wair , in W in (1)
msalt
For the two-fluid module, the W in is the solution inlet equilibrium MRR =
Xsol, in Xsol, out (11)
humidity. For the three-fluid module, the W in is the refrigerant
equivalent humidity calculated at inlet desiccant solution concentration MRR
and inlet refrigerant temperature [135]. MFR =
Umem A (12)
Tair , in Tair , out
sen =
Tair , in T in (2) 5.1.3. Coefficient of performance
The coefficient of performance (COP) is an indicator showing the
For the two-fluid module, the T in is the solution inlet temperature.
ratio of useful cooling to the work required. A higher COP equals to
For the three-fluid module, the T in is the refrigerant temperature [135].
lower energy consumption and lower cost. The calculation of the
sen+ lat H * system COP is presented below.
=
tot
1 + H* (3) The numerator of COP is composed of cooling capacity, which is
defined as the difference in enthalpy between the inlet and outlet air
where, H is the ratio of the enthalpy difference to the sensible heat stream. The cooling capacity (CC ) is the cooling generated by the
difference between inlet air and inlet liquid desiccant; and W is the MLDAD system, as shown in Eq. (13) where h is the enthalpy of the air
humidity ratio which refers to the moisture content in the air (i.e., kg of (kJ/kg).
water vapor in each kg of dry air). For liquid desiccant, W represents its
equilibrium humidity ratio, which can be calculated with Eq. (4). Pair CC = mair (hair , deh, in hair , deh, out ) (13)
and Pv, sol are absolute air pressure and the equilibrium vapor pressure of The MLDAD system overall coefficient of performance (COP) is the
the liquid desiccant (Pa ), respectively. ratio of the cooling capacity of the system to the total energy con-
Pv, sol sumption (Wtotal ) of the system. For the system as shown in Fig. 23, the
Wsol, in = 0.62198 total energy consumption is a sum of the power consumed by the
Pair Pv, sol (4)
compressor, the fan and the pump [59,138,139].
Besides, the moisture removal rate (MRR) is also an important in-
CC
dicator which represents the weight of water vapor removed in the air COP =
Wtotal (14)
per seconds (kg/s), as shown in Eq. (5), where (mair ) is the mass flow
rate of air. The electrical coefficient of performance (ECOP) is the ratio of the

459
X. Liu, et al.
cooling capacity of the system to the total electrical energy consump-
tion (Wel ) of the MLDAD system [59,138,139].
CC
ECOP =
Wel
The thermal coefficient of performance (TCOP) is the ratio of the
cooling capacity of the system and the total thermal energy consump-
tion (Wth )of the MLDAD system [59,138,139].
CC
TCOP =
Wth
5.2. Performance of the dehumidification process
The flow pattern, operating conditions of both the air and the liquid
desiccant, such as temperature, water vapor content, and flow rate, can
impact the dehumidification performance, as indicated by the perfor-
mance data listed in Table 5. The details of the solution used, the
membrane properties, as well as the design of the module are sum-
marized in Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively. These results show that the
latent effectiveness of an MLDAD module [calculated with Eq. (1)]
generally is between 0.4 and 0.65 for dehumidification mode. NTU and
Cr* (or m*) are the most important parameters for dehumidification
performance once the property of the membrane is fixed. Cr* is the heat
capacity ratio, which is the ratio of solution heat capacity (mass flow
multiplied by specific heat) to air heat capacity. And m* is defined as
the mass flow ratio of solution to air. NTU here is the number of heat
transfer unit, which is dependent on overall heat transfer coefficient
(U), transfer area (A) and minimum capacity (Cmin ). It can be calculated
by UA/ Cmin . Most experiments studied the relationship between NTU
and latent effectiveness. It was found that increasing NTU and Cr* (or
m*) could improve the latent effectiveness. Table 5 listed the selected
range of NTU in some researches for parametric studies. Moreover, by
analogy to heat transfer, the number of mass transfer unit, NTUm, is
defined as the ratio of mass transfer coefficient multiplying area to the
capacity. NTUm could be directly used to calculate the latent effec-
tiveness through e-NTU method [140]. A larger NTUm leads to a higher
latent effectiveness.
5.2.1. Effects of flow patterns
In 2010, Mahmud designed and tested the performance of a RAMEE
system, which was composed of two counter-cross-flow LAMEEs, as
shown in Fig. 11 [73]. The effectiveness of the system was compared
with a cross-flow RAMEE system (Erb, 2009 [70], Fig. 10a). The test
results (Fig. 26) showed that the counter-cross-flow RAMEE effective-
ness was found to be 10%–20% higher than those of the cross-flow
RAMEE system. The design of the two systems, the size of the module
and the thickness of the membrane were very different, but some
parameters have been modified to make them comparable.
In 2014, Huang tested the performance of a counter-cross (quasi-
Fig. 26. Experiment results and numerical solutions of the overall sensible effectiveness for counter-cross flow and cross-flow RAMEE systems in (a) summer and (b)
winter conditions (figure from Ref. [73]).
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
cross) flow membrane contactor (QCFMC) [58]. The test results showed
that the solution side pressure drop of the QCFMC increased about
0.15–4.84 times compared with a cross-flow membrane contactor
(CFMC), and the cooling and dehumidification effectiveness decreased
(15)
about 5–29% and 2–13%, respectively. Huang suggested that the un-
derperformance of the counter flow design was caused by the sig-
nificant increase in the solution temperature in the vortex producing
areas. In addition, the counter-cross flow design requires a larger size of
the dehumidifier, especially the length of the air side channel to reduce
the impact of the vortex on heat and mass transfer. Huang thus con-
(16)
cluded that it was not necessary to change the flow pattern of a
membrane contactor from cross flow to counter-cross (quasi-cross).
Since the flow pattern affects not only the performance (i.e., efficiency
and pressure drop) but also the size of an MLDAD, further study is
needed to optimize the flow pattern for achieving maximum perfor-
mance.
5.2.2. Effects of internal cooling
In 2008, Conde et al. [141] first designed the three-fluid membrane
contactor as a dehumidifier consisting of air, solution and cooling water
channels placed in parallel. The latent effectiveness of this contactor
was around 72–90% with 40 wt% LiCl and an air inlet temperature of
24.5–34.1, relative humidity of 39.3–51.4, and a cooling water inlet
temperature of 15.9–24.4 °C, at m* = 0.2.
In 2016, Abdel-Salam et al. [142] studied the influence of phase
change energy on dehumidification and found that phase change en-
ergy had a considerable influence on the solution temperature in
LAMEE, and the amount of phase change energy released into the de-
siccant solution increased with the increase of inlet air humidity.
Thereafter, Abdel-Salam et al. (2016) [60] designed and tested LAMEE
in three fluids in dehumidification and cooling mode (Tair = 35 °C,
Wair = 17–18.7 g/kg, Tsol = 25 °C, Csol = 32.5%, Tw = 10–25 °C, and
NTU = 1.8) (Fig. 16). And then compared the performance between
internally-cooled LAMEE and two-fluid LAMEE. The test results showed
that, with the same design and operating parameters, the sensible, la-
tent, and total effectiveness, as well as MRR of three-fluid LAMEE were
enlarged by 39% (43%–82%), 20% (39%–59%), 25% (40–65%), and
53% (19–29 g/h), respectively, when the water temperature was se-
lected to maintain a constant solution temperature. And the perfor-
mance of the internally-cooled LAMEE depended on the inlet tem-
perature and mass flow rate of the cooling water.
At the same period, Huang et al. (2016) [123–125] studied the
AIMLDD (Fig. 17) where cooling tubes were placed adjacent to the
solution channel. Experimental and numerical results showed that with
the increase of solution flow rate, AIMLDD had fewer advantages over
the module without internal cooling. The influence of the cooling water
flow rate on the dehumidification performance of AIMLDD was small,
but the influence of water temperature was large. When the cooling
water kept a relatively low solution temperature, the performance of
AIMLDD was greatly improved. However, more energy consumption
460
X. Liu, et al.
was required to cool the water to achieve continuous internal cooling of
the MLDAD process. Therefore, it was recommended to set the water
temperature around 20 °C, which is slightly lower than the solution
inlet temperature. Then, Huang et al. (2018) [124] compared the per-
formance differences between AIMLDD and IMLDD. The test results
showed that the performance (latent effectiveness) of the AIMLDD was
about 3.3–9.1% higher than that of the IMLDD. In addition, the cooling
energy provided for AIMLDD was less than IMLDD. Moreover, Huang
et al. designed a quasi-counter flow [129] and hexagonal counter-flow
[130] membrane modules, and studied their laminar flow and heat
transfer. However, the research on the dehumidification performance of
these modules has not been presented.
Later, Annadurai [63] carried out an experimental study to compare
the performance of the adiabatic and the adjacent internally-cooled
membrane-based dehumidifiers, as shown in Fig. 17. The results illu-
strated that the moisture removal rate and the latent effectiveness of the
internally-cooled MLDAD are 50–60% higher than the adiabatic one. It
is clear that internal cooling is an effective way to improve dehumidi-
fication performance. However, internal cooling may need extra energy
consumption.
5.2.3. Summary and comparison
Table 5 summarizes the measured or calculated performance of the
reviewed MLDAD systems, including the operating conditions, NTU
values, MRR, air-side effectiveness, and system effectiveness. The op-
erating inlet temperature of air and solution were around 30–35 °C and
20–25 °C for dehumidification and cooling, respectively. The humidity
ratio of inlet air ranged from 9 g/kg to 18 g/kg. The flow rates of air
and solution in different tests were not the same. The most frequently
used NTU value was about 3–4, and the Cr* (or m*) value ranged from
1 to 12. The latent effectiveness of dehumidifiers generally ranged from
0.3 to 0.95 depending on operating condition, the design of HMT
module, type and concentration of liquid desiccant, and system con-
figuration (dimensions of the system, the number of membranes, the
thickness of each channel, etc.).
The impacts of various parameters of the reviewed MLDAD systems
on different performance indicators (for the dehumidification and
cooling mode only) are presented in Table 6. Following conclusions can
be drawn if the extreme conditions of the parameters are ignored (i.e.,
only the changes around generally used conditions are accounted for).
(1) Air velocity, temperature, humidity and solution concentration all
affect system performance. However, the solution side conditions
such as solution concentration, mass flow rate do not play a sig-
nificant role in the dehumidification effectiveness. For internally-
cooled MLDAD modules, lowering the temperature of cooling water
(Tw ) and increasing the flow rate of cooling water (m w ) can improve
the performance. But the flow rate of sweep air (msa ) has very
limited impacts.
(2) NTU and Cr* (or m*) are two of the most important parameters that
affect the effectiveness of a system, especially the latent effective-
ness. NTU and Cr* (or m*) should be set at a reasonable range
because a small value will result in low effectiveness and an ex-
tremely high value will cause energy waste.
Table 6
A summary of case studies for a dehumidifier.
Parameters NTU↑ mair ↑ msol ↑ msalt ↑
lat ↑↑ ↓↓ ↑↔ ↑↔
sen ↑↑ ↓↓ ↑↔ ↑↔
MRR ↑ ↑ ↑↔ ↑↔
COP ↑ – ↑ –
ECOP ↑ – ↑ –
TCOP ↑ – ↑ –
* ↑ represents the increase in a parameter; ↓ represents the decrease in a parameter; ↔ represents limited influence on the parameter.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
5.3. Performance of the regeneration process
In MLDAD systems, the design and performance of the regenerator
are as important as the dehumidifier. It is the key to ensure that the
dehumidification cycle can be carried on steadily and continuously. In
the existing researches of MLDAD system, the regenerator has the same
design of the dehumidifier but working under different operating con-
ditions. The performance of the regenerator in MLDAD highly depends
upon the system configuration and operating conditions.
Based on the experiment and numerical model, Ge et al. (2014)
[143] studied the effects of flow rate, temperature, humidity, con-
centration on heat and mass transfer performance. The performance
indicators used were airside effectiveness. In the experiment, the air
had a temperature of 30 °C and a relative humidity of 50%, and the
solution had a temperature of 55 °C and a concentration of 32%, re-
spectively. The experimental results showed that the latent effective-
ness was 35.8–62.5%, with NTU ranging from 5 to 7 and Cr* (solution
to air capacity ratio) ranging from 2 to 6. The effectiveness was lower
than the theoretical value. This might be due to the influence of solu-
tion crystallization on mass transfer during the regeneration.
Moghaddam et al. (2014) [136] questioned the use of airside ef-
fectiveness for regeneration effectiveness calculation because the
change of salt solution instead of air should be focused on during the
regeneration process. Therefore, they proposed the expression of solu-
tion side effectiveness. The performance of the LAMEE was tested under
air dehumidification and regeneration conditions at NTU = 5 and Cr
* = 2, 4, 6. The results showed a limited difference in effectiveness
between the air side and the solution side. Thus, the air side effec-
tiveness could be used to evaluate the solution side effectiveness of
LAMEE. For the regenerator, the maximum solution side sensible, la-
tent, and total effectiveness were 84%, 46%, and 57% at Cr* = 6, with
an inlet solution temperature of 55 °C and humidity of 41 g/kg. It was
also observed that the effectiveness of regenerator was lower than that
of the dehumidifier.
In 2018, Bai et al. [137] carried out a comprehensive parameter
analysis of a single regenerator which was the same as the device shown
in Fig. 10b. The test system was similar to the small-scale single module
system shown in Fig. 22. Solution side effectiveness was obtained from
Moghaddam. The experimental results showed that the latent effec-
tiveness was 28.9–79.2% when NTU ranged from 2 to 10 and m*
ranged from 1 to 3. The results from the above literature [136,137,143]
all concluded that NTU and m* had the most significant impact on
regeneration performance and they interacted. The MRR of a re-
generator could be improved by increasing the solution temperature
while the effectiveness of the regenerator was reduced. And more
cooling energy was needed to cool down the warmer strong liquid de-
siccant before it went into the dehumidifier. The impact of the air
temperature on the regenerator performance was very small. But in-
creasing the solution flow rate helped to improve latent effectiveness
while increasing the air flow rate and humidity decreased the latent
effectiveness. However, in contrast to the fact that the solution con-
centration has little effect on the latent effectiveness of a dehumidifier,
higher concentration of the solution contributes to a slight increase in
the latent effectiveness of a regenerator.
mw ↑ m* ↑ Tair ↑ Wair ↑ Tsol ↑ Csol ↑ Tw ↑
↑ ↑↑ ↑↔ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓
– – ↑ ↑ ↓ – –
– – ↑ ↑ ↓ – –
– – ↑ ↑ ↓ – –
461
X. Liu, et al.
Because the effectiveness of the two-fluid regenerator is generally
low, Abdel-Salam et al. proposed and studied the performance of the
three-fluid LAMEE under heating and humidification conditions
(Tair = 17.5 °C, Wair = 0.8–0.9 g/kg, Tsol = 25 °C, Csol = 32.5%,
Tw = 25 °C, and NTU = 2) [144] and regeneration conditions
(Tair = 30 °C, Wair = 12.4–15 g/kg, Tsol = 40 °C, Csol = 30%,
Tw = 42.3–65.7 °C, and NTU = 2) [145], respectively. The three-fluid
LAMEE had latent effectiveness ranging from 55% to 80% when Cr*
varying from 1 to 6 under the heating and humidification mode, and
latent effectiveness from 25% to 38% when Cr* changing from 2 to 5
under the regeneration mode. The effectiveness increased by about 40%
compared with the two-fluid LAMEE in both cases.
5.4. Energy analysis of the system
Bergero et al. (2010-2011) [56,146] developed a hybrid air condi-
tioner that integrated vapor-compression inversed cycle and MLDAD
system. The advantage of this system was that the refrigeration device
could operate at a higher evaporation temperature than the conven-
tional system since no overcooling was needed. The evaporator and the
condenser were used to cool and heat the solution, respectively. And a
solution reservoir and a solution heat exchanger were used for keeping
the stable capacity and solution precooling or preheating. The outdoor
air was mixed with the return air and directly went through the de-
humidifier to adjust the temperature and humidity. The return air
passed through the regenerator for solution regeneration. Through the
system modeling in Simulink, it was found that under the design con-
ditions (outdoor temperature of 32 °C and humidity of 70%, indoor
temperature of 25 °C and humidity of 50%, and supply air temperature
of 15 °C), the COP of the refrigeration device in the hybrid air con-
ditioning system and the traditional air conditioning system were 5.6
and 3.3, respectively. With the increasing latent load, the percentage of
energy saving increased and may exceed 60%.
Zhang et al. (2013) [59] combined the hollow fiber MLDAD system
with the heat pump cycle, as shown in Fig. 23. The diagram of this
hybrid system was similar to the one Bergero designed but had different
MLDAD module and an extra solution cooler. The fresh air (T = 35 °C
and RH = 65%) and the return air (T = 28 °C and RH = 50%) were sent
to the dehumidifier and regenerator without mixing. In this research,
COP was defined as the enthalpy change of the air and the power
consumed by the compressor, fan, and pump. EER was defined as the
ratio of the evaporator's cooling power and the condenser's heating
power to the compressor's power consumption. The experimental and
modeling results showed that the increase in air temperature, humidity
and flow rate increased system COP, while the increase of desiccant
flow rate increased EER but decreased COP. Under the design condi-
tions, the EER of the heat pump was greater than 3.75, and the system
COP ranged from 0.4 to 0.9.
It was found that the release of absorbing heat in the dehumidifi-
cation process raised the solution temperature, thus reducing the de-
humidification capacity. Instead of using three-fluid modules, Zhang
et al. (2016) [132] developed a new type of two-stage hollow fiber
MLDAD system driven by the heat pump to limit the solution tem-
perature (Fig. 24). Through the two-stage dehumidification process, the
air was pre-cooled and pre-dehumidified at the first-stage dehumidifier
and evaporator, and then be cooled and dehumidified at the second
stage. Therefore, the isothermal process was subject to the change of
the isenthalpic process. And lower solution concentration and con-
densation temperature were obtained in the two-stage system. Thus,
COP increased by about 20% compared with the single-stage system
under typical hot and humid conditions in southern China.
In 2017, Chen et al. [139] evaluated the performance of MLDAD
cooling system through experiments. The boiler was used as the solu-
tion heater before entering the regenerator, and the evaporative cooling
device provided the cooling water to cool the solution before entering
the dehumidifier. Solutions from the strong and weak solution
462
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
reservoirs were transferred heat through a heat exchanger and then
flowed to the dehumidifier and the regenerator, respectively. Supply air
passed through the dehumidifier and evaporative cooling device. The
inlet air temperature of the dehumidifier was 28–40 °C, and the relative
humidity was 65%–95%. At the operating conditions of the study, the
system obtained a COP of 0.7 and dehumidification effectiveness of
30%.
In addition, Ge et al. (2017) [147] compared the performance of the
MLDAD module and packed-bed LDAD module, with the same volume
and operating conditions. The study indicated that the latent and total
effectiveness of the MLDAD module were 13% and 20% higher than
that of the packed bed, respectively, under the same atmospheric
pressure drop. Conversely, the latent effectiveness of the conventional
packed-bed structured module was about 16% larger than the MLDAD
module with the same area of heat and mass transfer.
6. Challenges of MLDAD
Except for the challenges aforementioned related to liquid desiccant
and system performance, the challenges of the membranes in MLDAD
needs to be carefully reviewed. This section discusses those challenges
of membranes including fouling (due to crystallization), deformation of
the membrane, and maldistribution of the solution, etc. And their im-
pacts on performance are presented.
6.1. Crystallization and membrane fouling
Membrane fouling should be avoided. Otherwise, it reduces vapor
flux through membrane and increases operating costs significantly
[148]. The fouling mechanism of the membrane is related to the
complex interaction of solution, fluid motion and film surface proper-
ties. Fouling in the MLDAD can be divided into four categories: aerosol
fouling, organic fouling, crystallization fouling, and biological fouling
[149]. The source of aerosol fouling is usually the pollutants of the air
side in MLDAD, while the source of fouling at the solution side is mostly
due to the crystallization of salt. The crystallization fouling is domi-
nated fouling in MLDAD. Adesola et al. (2017-2018) [150,151] devel-
oped a non-invasive method to detect crystalline fouling in the mem-
brane. The method can be used for online monitoring and timely
identification of fouling formation. It was found that crystallized
fouling reduced the water transfer rate through the membrane by up to
60%.
6.2. Membrane deflection and flow maldistribution
The membrane is an extremely thin and flexible material, so it is
easy to deform, rupture, or leak. The deformation of the membrane
greatly affects the flow distribution inside the MLDAD module.
Furthermore, the flow distribution plays a critical role in the module
performance. To prevent membrane deflection, the support grid and the
membrane with a high modulus of elasticity were suggested to be
employed in the air channel [144]. Huang et al. (2016) [152] studied
the effect of the height of membrane deformation on heat transfer in the
flat membrane channel from the model perspective and indicated that
for water and LiCl channels, the higher the deformation height, the
lower the Nu number. While for the air channel, with the increase of the
deformation height, Nu number first increased and then decreased. For
a hollow-fiber MLDAD module, Zhang et al. (2018) [153] studied the
effect of hollow fiber bundle deformation on fluid flow and heat
transfer. It was emphasized that the deformation of the fiber bundle
would lead to an increase in flow resistance. It was suggested that the
hollow fiber should be kept straight, and its mechanical strength should
be improved. Moreover, Huang et al. (2018) [154] studied laminar flow
and heat transfer in MLDAD with liquid-side cooling tubes. The results
showed that when Reynolds number is less than 68.5, the mean Nussel
number of the random distribution is larger than that of the
X. Liu, et al.
conventional distribution, and vice versa.
Additionally, the channel design of the MLDAD module also can
cause the maldistribution of both steams significantly. For a flat-plate
MLDAD module, Zhang (2009) [155–157] simulated the influence of
non-uniform flow and pointed out that when the plate spacing was
greater than 2 mm, the sensible and latent effectiveness of the module
would decrease by 10%–20%. So, it suggested having a smaller height
of the channel. Later, Abdel-Salam et al. (2015) [158] used a numerical
model to investigate the impacts of the air and solution channel
thickness on the performance of LAMEE. The study manifested that
when there was no uneven flow distribution, the latent effectiveness of
the MLDAD module increased with the decrease of the air and solution
channel thickness. And the optimal air and solution channel thickness
for a flat-plate LAMEE were about 5–6 mm and 1–2 mm, respectively.
On the other hand, the effectiveness of the LAMEE was reduced sig-
nificantly by changes in the air channel thickness caused by membrane
deformation and fabrication tolerance [158]. For a hollow-fiber
MLDAD module, Li et al. (2014) [119] and Zhang et al. (2012) [159]
analyzed the influence of non-uniform flow distribution on the perfor-
mance of heat and mass transfer, and concluded that the lower the
packing fraction of the membrane component, the more non-uniform
the flow distribution inside the shell, and the more significant the re-
duction of heat and mass transfer effectiveness of the module. There-
fore, it was suggested to have a packing fraction higher than 0.3.
However, the same packing fraction may cause a different distribution
of fibers in the shell. The uneven distribution of fibers can also influence
the dehumidification performance of the module. He and Zhang (2019)
[160] found that the pressure drop and heat and mass transfer coeffi-
cient of the module were related to the topological characteristics of the
void space between the fibers. In particular, the topological char-
acteristics of the large lumen in the fibers showed significant effects.
Two typical cavities, incised cavity and isolated cavity, were identified.
The former could significantly degrade performance while the latter
had little effect.
7. Conclusions and recommendations for future studies
This paper reviews an emerging dehumidification technology that
uses liquid desiccants to absorb water vapor from the air through
membranes instead of direct contacting between air and the liquid
desiccant. An extensive critical review is presented, including the
characteristics of various membranes and liquid desiccants used for
MLDAD systems, the design of HMXs, configurations of MLDAD sys-
tems, and the resulting performance of dehumidification and re-
generation, as well as the energy analysis.
MLDAD technology has some advantages over conventional dehu-
midification technologies. It enables separated sensible and latent
cooling so that the sensible cooling efficiency can be improved, and the
wasteful reheating can be avoided. MLDAD can also eliminate corro-
sions resulting from carryover of liquid desiccants, which is the major
drawback of conventional liquid desiccant dehumidification systems
using open tower configurations. Previous studies indicate that MLDAD
system can achieve up to latent effectiveness of 0.95. The performance,
size, and cost of an MLDAD are affected by many factors, including the
selection of membranes and liquid desiccants, the design of the HMX,
and the configuration of the MLDAD systems. Further studies are
needed to optimize the design of MLDAD systems to maximize latent
effectiveness and energy efficiency, minimize initial and operating
costs, and improve controllability and longevity. Following future stu-
dies are recommended:
• Develop membranes customized for MLDAD applications, which
have high permeance for water vapor transport and are durable
under a wide range of temperatures and pressures.
•
Develop or identify new materials for liquid desiccant, which should
be inexpensive and non-toxic, does not crystallize, and can be
463
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
regenerated with low-temperature heat sources (e.g., condensing
heat of an air-conditioner or solar thermal energy).
• Optimize the design of the HMXs used in MLDAD systems. Although
the HMX module using hollow-fiber membranes has a greater filling
density and better performance than the flat-plate type HMX
module, their structures need to be improved to prevent perfor-
mance degradation resulting from uneven distribution of liquid
desiccant and blockage of the hollow fibers. In addition, the flow
pattern between the air and the liquid desiccant, as well as the in-
ternal cooling, should be optimized to improve performance while
reducing the size and cost of the MLDAD system. Besides, innovative
configurations of MLDAD systems are needed to improve the con-
trollability of dehumidification and the energy efficiency of the
entire MLDAD system.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Emerging Technologies Program of
the Buildings Technology Office at the US Department of Energy; Xergy,
a small business technology inventor.
References
[1] EIA U. Monthly energy review. April 2018 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/
monthly/archive/00351804.pdf.
[2] EIA U. Annual energy outlook 2018. 2018 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
[3] EIA U. Residential energy consumption survey 2017. 2015 https://www.eia.gov/
consumption/residential/data/2015/.
[4] EIA U. Commercial buildings energy consumption survey: energy usage summary
2012. 2012 https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/.
[5] Abdel-Salam MRH, Ge G, Fauchoux M, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. State-of-the-art in
liquid-to-air membrane energy exchangers (LAMEEs): a comprehensive review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:700–28 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.
07.022.
[6] Rafique MM, Gandhidasan P, Bahaidarah HMS. Liquid desiccant materials and
dehumidifiers – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:179–95 http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.061.
[7] Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, Robinson JP, Tsang AM, Switzer P, et al. The
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing ex-
posure to environmental pollutants. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2001;11:231
http://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165.
[8] Wenger CB. The regulation of body temperature. Med Physiol 1995. 527–50
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3e63/8f5cafc420172da4b5f9ca3a211ceaaecc6f.
pdf.
[9] Dannemiller KC, Weschler CJ, Peccia J. Fungal and bacterial growth in floor dust at
elevated relative humidity levels. Indoor Air 2017;27:354–63 http://doi.org/10.
1111/ina.12313.
[10] Frankel M, Bekö G, Timm M, Gustavsen S, Hansen EW, Madsen AM. Seasonal
variation of indoor microbial exposures and their relations to temperature, relative
humidity and air exchange rates. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012. AEM-02069
http://doi.org/doi.org/10.1128/aem.02069-12.
[11] ASHRAE S. Standard 55-2013. Thermal environmental conditions for human oc-
cupancy vol. 12. 2013 https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/
standard-55-thermal-environmental-conditions-for-human-occupancy.
[12] ASHRAE S. Standard 62.1-2016. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality.
2016 https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standards-62-1-
62-2.
[13] Zhang LZZ. Mass diffusion in a hydrophobic membrane humidification/dehumi-
dification process: the effects of membrane characteristics. Separ Sci Technol
2006;41:1565–82 http://doi.org/10.1080/01496390600634723.
[14] Xiao F, Ge G, Niu X. Control performance of a dedicated outdoor air system
adopting liquid desiccant dehumidification. Appl Energy 2011;88:143–9 http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.06.019.
[15] Ge G, Xiao F, Xu X. Model-based optimal control of a dedicated outdoor air-chilled
ceiling system using liquid desiccant and membrane-based total heat recovery.
Appl Energy 2011;88:4180–90 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.045.
[16] Qi R, Lu L, Yang H. Investigation on air-conditioning load profile and energy
consumption of desiccant cooling system for commercial buildings in Hong Kong.
Energy Build 2012;49:509–18 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.02.051.
[17] Parmar H, Hindoliya DA. Performance of solid desiccant-based evaporative
cooling system under the climatic zones of India. Int J Low Carbon Technol
2012;8:52–7 http://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctr051.
[18] Katejanekarn T, Kumar S. Performance of a solar-regenerated liquid desiccant
ventilation pre-conditioning system. Energy Build 2008;40:1252–67 http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.11.005.
[19] Goodarzia G, Thirukonda N, Heidari S, Akbarzadeh A, Date A. Performance eva-
luation of solid desiccant wheel regenerated by waste heat or renewable energy.
Energy Procedia 2017;110:434–9 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.165.
[20] Giampieri A, Ma Z, Smallbone A, Roskilly AP. Thermodynamics and economics of
X. Liu, et al.
liquid desiccants for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning–An overview. Appl
Energy 2018;220:455–79 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.112.
[21] Abdel-Salam AH, Simonson CJ. Annual evaluation of energy, environmental and
economic performances of a membrane liquid desiccant air conditioning system
with/without ERV. Appl Energy 2014;116:134–48 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2013.11.047.
[22] Qi R, Lu L, Huang Y. Parameter analysis and optimization of the energy and
economic performance of solar-assisted liquid desiccant cooling system under
different climate conditions. Energy Convers Manag 2015;106:1387–95 http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.10.064.
[23] Qu M, Abdelaziz O, Gao Z, Yin H. Isothermal membrane-based air dehumidifica-
tion: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:4060–9 http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.067.
[24] Burns PR, Mitchell JW, Beckman WA. Solar hybrid desiccant cooling systems in
supermarket applications. Intersol Eighty Five; 1986. p. 700–6 http://doi.org/10.
1016/b978-0-08-033177-5.50140-x.
[25] Jain S, Tripathi S, Das RS. Experimental performance of a liquid desiccant dehu-
midification system under tropical climates. Energy Convers Manag
2011;52:2461–6 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.12.052.
[26] Lowenstein A, Slayzak S, Kozubal E. A zero carryover liquid-desiccant air condi-
tioner for solar applications. ASME 2006 int. Sol. Energy conf., American Society
of Mechanical Engineers 2006:397–407 www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a-zero-
carryover-liquid-desiccant-air-conditioner-lowenstein-slayzak/
8c7b5f46c7f7c4276b72ea7858125e7ca624c733.
[27] Al-Farayedhi AA, Gandhidasan P, Younus Ahmed S. Regeneration of liquid de-
siccants using membrane technology. Energy Convers Manag 1999;40:1405–11
http://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-8904(99)00036-9.
[28] Rattner AS, Nagavarapu AK, Garimella S, Fuller TF. Modeling of a flat plate
membrane-distillation system for liquid desiccant regeneration in air-conditioning
applications. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2011;54:3650–60 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2011.02.064.
[29] Guo Y, Ma Z, Al-Jubainawi A, Cooper P, Nghiem LD. Using electrodialysis for
regeneration of aqueous lithium chloride solution in liquid desiccant air con-
ditioning systems. Energy Build 2016;116:285–95 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2016.01.014.
[30] Li W, Pan Y, Yao Y, Dong M. Modeling and parametric study of the ultrasonic
atomization regeneration of desiccant solution. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2018;127:687–702 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.07.001.
[31] Yao Y, Zhang W, Liu S. Feasibility study on power ultrasound for regeneration of
silica gel—a potential desiccant used in air-conditioning system. Appl Energy
2009;86:2394–400 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.001.
[32] Yao Y, Yang K, Liu S. Study on the performance of silica gel dehumidification
system with ultrasonic-assisted regeneration. Energy 2014;66:799–809 http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.061.
[33] Huang S-M, Zhang L-Z. Researches and trends in membrane-based liquid desiccant
air dehumidification. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:425–40 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.005.
[34] Yang B, Yuan W, Gao F, Guo B. A review of membrane-based air dehumidification.
Indoor Built Environ 2015;24:11–26 http://doi.org/10.1177/1420326x13500294.
[35] Mei L, Dai YJ. A technical review on use of liquid-desiccant dehumidification for
air-conditioning application. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:662–89 http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.10.006.
[36] Afshin M. Selection of the liquid desiccant in a run-around membrane energy
exchanger. University of Saskatchewan; 2010 http://hdl.handle.net/10388/etd-
05262010-175310.
[37] Al-Farayedhi AA, Gandhidasan P, Al-Mutairi MA. Evaluation of heat and mass
transfer coefficients in a gauze-type structured packing air dehumidifier operating
with liquid desiccant. Int J Refrig 2002;25:330–9 http://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-
7007(01)00016-0.
[38] Yao Y, Yu Y, Zhu Z. Experimental investigations on surface vapor pressure models
for LiCl–CaCl2 desiccant solutions. Sol Energy 2016;126:1–13 http://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solener.2015.12.046.
[39] Longo GA, Gasparella A. Experimental measurement of thermophysical properties
of H2O/KCOOH (potassium formate) desiccant. Int J Refrig 2016;62:106–13
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0140700715002984,
Accessed date: 10 January 2019.
[40] Elmer T, Worall M, Wu S, Riffat S. Experimental evaluation of a liquid desiccant air
conditioning system for tri-generation/waste-heat-driven applications. Int J Low
Carbon Technol 2017;12:110–25 http://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctw012.
[41] Misha S, Mat S, Ruslan MH, Sopian K. Review of solid/liquid desiccant in the
drying applications and its regeneration methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:4686–707 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.041.
[42] Longo GA, Gasparella A. Experimental and theoretical analysis of heat and mass
transfer in a packed column dehumidifier/regenerator with liquid desiccant. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 2005;48:5240–54 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.
2005.07.011.
[43] Qu M, Abdelaziz O, Sun X-G, Yin H. Aqueous solution of [EMIM][OAc]: property
formulations for use in air conditioning equipment design. Appl Therm Eng
2017;124:271–8 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.167.
[44] Luo Y, Shao S, Qin F, Tian C, Yang H. Investigation on feasibility of ionic liquids
used in solar liquid desiccant air conditioning system. Sol Energy
2012;86:2718–24 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.06.008.
[45] Jian BS, Mingheng S, Xiaolong G, Ceramic J. Study on vapor pressure of liquid
desiccants solution. Refrig J 2004 http://en.cnki.com.cn/article_en/cjfdtotal-
zlxb200401009.htm.
[46] McNeely Lowell A. Thermodynamic properties of aqueous solutions of lithium
464
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
bromide. 85. 1979. p. 412–34 https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ph-79-03-3-
thermodynamic-properties-of-aqueous-solutions-of-lithium-bromide?product_id=
1853310, Accessed date: 10 January 2019.
[47] Ertas A, Anderson EEE, Kiris I. Properties of a new liquid desiccant solu-
tion—lithium chloride and calcium chloride mixture. Sol Energy 1992;49:205–12
http://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092x(92)90073-j.
[48] Fendu EM, Oprea F. Vapor pressure, density, viscosity, and surface tension of
tetrapropylene glycol. J Chem Eng Data 2013;58:2898–903 http://doi.org/10.
1021/je4004977.
[49] Dow Chemical Company. Triethylene glycol properties. 2007. n.d http://
msdssearch.dow.com/publishedliteraturedowcom/dh_0952/0901b80380952386.
pdf.
[50] Cisternas LA, Lam EJ. An analytic correlation for the vapour pressure of aqueous
and non-aqueous solutions of single and mixed electrolytes. Part II. Application
and extension. Fluid Phase Equilib 1991;62:11–27 http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-
3812(91)87002-q.
[51] Conde MR. Properties of aqueous solutions of lithium and calcium chlorides: for-
mulations for use in air conditioning equipment design. Int J Therm Sci
2004;43:367–82 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2003.09.003.
[52] Sahlot M, Riffat SB. Desiccant cooling systems: a review. Int J Low Carbon Technol
2016;11:ctv032 http://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctv032.
[53] Brünig T, Krekić K, Bruhn C, Pietschnig R. Calorimetric studies and structural
aspects of ionic liquids in designing sorption materials for thermal energy storage.
Chem Eur J 2016;22:16200–12 http://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201602723.
[54] Isetti C, Nannei E, Magrini A. On the application of a membrane air—liquid
contactor for air dehumidification. Energy Build 1997;25:185–93 http://doi.org/
10.1016/s0378-7788(96)00993-0.
[55] Bergero S, Chiari A. Experimental and theoretical analysis of air humidification/
dehumidification processes using hydrophobic capillary contactors. Appl Therm
Eng 2001;21:1119–35 http://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-4311(00)00107-1.
[56] Bergero S, Chiari A. On the performances of a hybrid air-conditioning system in
different climatic conditions. Energy 2011;36:5261–73 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2011.06.030.
[57] Moghaddam DG, LePoudre P, Ge G, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. Small-scale single-
panel liquid-to-air membrane energy exchanger (LAMEE) test facility develop-
ment, commissioning and evaluating the steady-state performance. Energy Build
2013;66:424–36 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.017.
[58] Huang S-M, Yang M, Yang X. Performance analysis of a quasi-counter flow par-
allel-plate membrane contactor used for liquid desiccant air dehumidification.
Appl Therm Eng 2014;63:323–32 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.
11.027.
[59] Zhang L-Z, Zhang N. A heat pump driven and hollow fiber membrane-based liquid
desiccant air dehumidification system: modeling and experimental validation.
Energy 2014;65:441–51 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.014.
[60] Abdel-Salam MRHH, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. Design and testing of a novel 3-
fluid liquid-to-air membrane energy exchanger (3-fluid LAMEE). Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2016;92:312–29 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.08.075.
[61] Lin J, Huang S-M, Wang R, Chua KJ. Thermodynamic analysis of a hybrid mem-
brane liquid desiccant dehumidification and dew point evaporative cooling
system. Energy Convers Manag 2018;156:440–58 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.11.057.
[62] Bai H, Zhu J, Chen Z, Chu J. Parametric analysis of a cross-flow membrane-based
parallel-plate liquid desiccant dehumidification system: numerical and experi-
mental data. Energy Build 2018;158:494–508 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
2017.10.018.
[63] Annadurai G, Tiwari S, Maiya MP. Experimental performance comparison of
adiabatic and internally-cooled membrane dehumidifiers. Int J Low Carbon
Technol 2018;13:240–9 http://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cty020.
[64] Bettahalli NMSMS, Lefers R, Fedoroff N, Leiknes T, Nunes SP. Triple-bore hollow
fiber membrane contactor for liquid desiccant based air dehumidification. J
Membr Sci 2016;514:135–42 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.04.059.
[65] Chen Z, Zhu J, Bai H, Yan Y, Zhang L. Experimental study of a membrane-based
dehumidification cooling system. Appl Therm Eng 2017;115:1315–21 http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.153.
[66] Bai H, Zhu J, Chen Z, Ma L, Wang R, Li T. Performance testing of a cross-flow
membrane-based liquid desiccant dehumidification system. Appl Therm Eng
2017;119:119–31 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.03.058.
[67] Hout M, Ghaddar N, Ghali K, Ismail N, Simonetti M, Fracastoro GV, et al.
Displacement ventilation with cooled liquid desiccant dehumidification membrane
at ceiling; modeling and design charts. Energy 2017;139:1003–15 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.046.
[68] OMEGA. Equilibrium relative humidity saturated salt solutions. https://www.
omega.com/temperature/z/pdf/z103.pdf, Accessed date: 10 January 2019.
[69] DEUSA. Solution of magnesium chloride. https://www.deusa.de/
phocadownload/products/magnesium_chloride_solution/spezifikation_
magnesiumchloridloesung-es_33.pdf, Accessed date: 9 March 2019.
[70] Erb B. Run-around membrane energy exchanger performance and operational
control strategies. University of Saskatchewan; 2009 https://harvest.usask.ca/
handle/10388/etd-12192009-145431.
[71] Seyed-Ahmadi M, Erb B, Simonson CJ, Besant RW. Transient behavior of run-
around heat and moisture exchanger system. Part І: model formulation and ver-
ification. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:6000–11 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2009.07.012.
[72] Seyed-Ahmadi M, Erb B, Simonson CJ, Besant RW. Transient behavior of run-
around heat and moisture exchanger system. Part IІ: sensitivity studies for a range
of initial conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:6012–20 http://doi.org/10.
X. Liu, et al.
1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.06.037.
[73] Mahmud K. Design and testing of a laboratory RAMEE system with counter flow
exchangers to transfer heat and water vapor between supply and exhaust air flows.
University of Saskatchewan; 2009 https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/handle/
10388/etd-09092009-223833/khizir_mahmud_2009-sep-28a.pdf?sequence=1&
isallowed=y.
[74] Mahmud K, Mahmood GI, Simonson CJ, Besant RW. Performance testing of a
counter-cross-flow run-around membrane energy exchanger (RAMEE) system for
HVAC applications. Energy Build 2010;42:1139–47 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2010.02.005.
[75] Fakharnezhad A, Keshavarz P. Experimental investigation of gas dehumidification
by tri-ethylene glycol in hollow fiber membrane contactors. J Ind Eng Chem
2016;34:390–6 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2015.12.021.
[76] Petukhov DI, Poyarkov AA, Lukashin AV. Porous polypropylene membrane con-
tactors for dehumidification of gases. Наносистемы: Физика, Химия,
Математика 2017;8 https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/porous-polypropylene-
membrane-contactors-for-dehumidification-of-gases.
[77] Pantelic J, Teitelbaum E, Bozlar M, Kim S, Meggers F. Development of moisture
absorber based on hydrophilic nonporous membrane mass exchanger and al-
koxylated siloxane liquid desiccant. Energy Build 2018;160:34–43 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.093.
[78] Meggers F, Teitelbaum E, Pantelic J. Development of moisture absorber based on
hydrophilic membrane mass exchanger and alkoxylated siloxane liquid desiccant.
Energy Procedia 2017;122:1117–22 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.
473.
[79] Chen X, Su Y, Aydin D, Bai H, Jarimi H, Zhang X, et al. Experimental investigation
of a polymer hollow fibre integrated liquid desiccant dehumidification system with
aqueous potassium formate solution. Appl Therm Eng 2018;142:632–43 http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.07.003.
[80] Warner J, Liu X, Liu X, Qu M, Opadrishta H, Parmalee W. A preliminary experi-
mental study on the performance of a membrane-based air dehumidifier using
ionic liquid. West Lafayette: Purdue Herrick Conf.; 2018. p. 1–10. IN: 2018
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1468085.
[81] IAmpolʹskiĭ IP, IUriĭ P, Pinnau I, Ingo, Freeman BD, Benny D. Materials science of
membranes for gas and vapor separation. John Wiley & Sons; 2006 https://books.
google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hc6ioerc7p8c&oi=fnd&pg=pa391&dq=
solid-state+facilitated+transport+membranes+for+separation+of+olefins/
paraffins+and+oxygen/nitrogen.&ots=p3twitscl8&sig=gnetuhfha_t0tzo5edl_
jhclmkg#v=onepage&q=solid-state facilitated transport membranes for
separation of olefins%2fparaffins and oxygen%2fnitrogen.&f=false, Accessed
date: 10 January 2019.
[82] Chung T-S, Jiang LY, Li Y, Kulprathipanja S. Mixed matrix membranes (MMMs)
comprising organic polymers with dispersed inorganic fillers for gas separation.
Prog Polym Sci 2007;32:483–507 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.
01.008.
[83] Aroon MA, Ismail AF, Matsuura T, Montazer-Rahmati MM. Performance studies of
mixed matrix membranes for gas separation: a review. Separ Purif Technol
2010;75:229–42 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2010.08.023.
[84] Sanchez C, Belleville P, Popall M, Nicole L. Applications of advanced hybrid or-
ganic–inorganic nanomaterials: from laboratory to market. Chem Soc Rev
2011;40:696 http://doi.org/10.1039/c0cs00136h.
[85] Scovazzo P. Testing and evaluation of room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL)
membranes for gas dehumidification. J Membr Sci 2010;355:7–17 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2010.02.067.
[86] Vandezande P. Next-generation pervaporation membranes: recent trends, chal-
lenges and perspectives. Pervaporation, Vap Permeat Membr Distill; 2015. p.
107–41 http://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-78242-246-4.00005-2.
[87] Krull FF, Medved M, Melin T. Novel supported ionic liquid membranes for si-
multaneous homogeneously catalyzed reaction and vapor separation. Chem Eng
Sci 2007;62:5579–85 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2007.01.007.
[88] Lozano LJ, Godínez C, de los Ríos AP, Hernández-Fernández FJ, Sánchez-Segado S,
Alguacil FJ. Recent advances in supported ionic liquid membrane technology. J
Membr Sci 2011;376:1–14 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.03.036.
[89] Malik MA, Hashim MA, Nabi F. Ionic liquids in supported liquid membrane
technology. Chem Eng J 2011;171:242–54 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.03.
041.
[90] Grünauer J, Shishatskiy S, Abetz C, Abetz V, Filiz V. Ionic liquids supported by
isoporous membranes for CO2/N2 gas separation applications. J Membr Sci
2015;494:224–33 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.07.054.
[91] Kudasheva A, Kamiya T, Hirota Y, Ito A. Dehumidification of air using liquid
membranes with ionic liquids. J Membr Sci 2016;499:379–85 http://doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2015.10.069.
[92] Asfand F, Bourouis M. A review of membrane contactors applied in absorption
refrigeration systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:173–91 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.054.
[93] Woods J. Membrane processes for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:290–304 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.
01.092.
[94] Khayet M, Matsuura T. Preparation and characterization of polyvinylidene fluoride
membranes for membrane distillation. 2001 http://doi.org/10.1021/ie010553y.
[95] Alkhudhiri A, Darwish N, Hilal N. Membrane distillation: a comprehensive review.
Desalination 2012;287:2–18 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.027.
[96] Mackie JS, Meares P, Rideal EK. The diffusion of electrolytes in a cation-exchange
resin membrane I. Theoretical. Proc Roy Soc Lond Math Phys Sci
1955;232:498–509 http://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1955.0234.
[97] Brandrup J, Immergut EH, Grulke EA, Abe A, Bloch DR. fourth ed. Polymer
465
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
handbook vol. 7. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1989. https://doi.org/10.1002/
1097-0126(200007)49:7<807::aid-pi436>3.0.co;2-1.
[98] Harper CA. Handbook of plastics, elastomers, and composites. McGraw-Hill; 2002
https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/browse/handbook-of-plastics-
elastomers-and-composites-fourth-edition, Accessed date: 10 January 2019.
[99] Van Krevelen DW, Dirk W, Te Nijenhuis K. Properties of polymers: their correla-
tion with chemical structure ; their numerical estimation and prediction from
additive group contributions. Elsevier; 2009 https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=bzrkwjzeq2kc&oi=fnd&pg=pp1&dq=properties+of
+polymers&ots=wzq7vzevqh&sig=fidkrq98myat-nmvyphycx3u3lc#v=
onepage&q=properties of polymers&f=false, Accessed date: 10 January 2019.
[100] Phattaranawik J, Jiraratananon R, Fane A. Heat transport and membrane dis-
tillation coefficients in direct contact membrane distillation. J Membr Sci
2003;212:177–93 http://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-7388(02)00498-2.
[101] Woods J, Kozubal E. On the importance of the heat and mass transfer resistances in
internally-cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifiers and regenerators. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2018;122:324–40 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.01.
111.
[102] Elmarghany MR, El-Shazly AH, Salem MS, Sabry MN, Nady N. Thermal analysis
evaluation of direct contact membrane distillation system. Case Stud Therm Eng
2019;13:100377 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2018.100377.
[103] Zhang L-Z, Zhang L-Z. Effectiveness-NTU methods for heat and mass transfer
processes. Conjug Heat Mass Transf Heat Mass Exch Ducts; 2013. p. 309–34
http://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-407782-9.00011-3.
[104] ASTM. E96/E96M-16. Standard test methods for water vapor transmission of
materials. 2016 http://doi.org/10.1520/e0096_e0096m-16.
[105] Mondal S, Hu JLL, Yong Z. Free volume and water vapor permeability of dense
segmented polyurethane membrane. J Membr Sci 2006;280:427–32 http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.01.047.
[106] Lainioti GC, Bounos G, Voyiatzis GA, Kallitsis JK, Lainioti GC, Bounos G, et al.
Enhanced water vapor transmission through porous membranes based on melt
blending of polystyrene sulfonate with polyethylene copolymers and their CNT
nanocomposites. Polymers 2016;8:190 http://doi.org/10.3390/polym8050190.
[107] Hu Y, Topolkaraev V, Hiltner A, Baer E. Measurement of water vapor transmission
rate in highly permeable films. J Appl Polym Sci 2001;81:1624–33 http://doi.org/
10.1002/app.1593.
[108] Larson MD. The performance of membranes in a newly proposed run-around heat
and moisture exchanger. 2006 https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/
dsk3/ssu/tc-ssu-12192006094159.pdf, Accessed date: 10 January 2019.
[109] Larson MD, Simonson CJ, Besant RW, Gibson PW. The elastic and moisture
transfer properties of polyethylene and polypropylene membranes for use in li-
quid-to-air energy exchangers. J Membr Sci 2007;302:136–49 http://doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2007.06.050.
[110] Gibson P, Kendrick C, Rivin D, Charmchi M. An automated dynamic water vapor
permeation test method. Perform. Prot. Cloth. Sixth vol., 100 barr harbor drive,
PO box C700 19428-2959 West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 1997. 93-
93–15 http://doi.org/10.1520/stp19896s.
[111] Zhang L-Z, Huang S-M. Coupled heat and mass transfer in a counter flow hollow
fiber membrane module for air humidification. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2011;54:1055–63 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2010.11.025.
[112] Zhang L-Z. Coupled heat and mass transfer in an application-scale cross-flow
hollow fiber membrane module for air humidification. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2012;55:5861–9 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.05.083.
[113] Zhang L-Z. An analytical solution for heat mass transfer in a hollow fiber mem-
brane based air-to-air heat mass exchanger. J Membr Sci 2010;360:217–25 http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.05.015.
[114] Zhang L-Z. An analytical solution to heat and mass transfer in hollow fiber
membrane contactors for liquid desiccant air dehumidification. J Heat Transf
2011;133:92001 http://doi.org/10.1115/1.4003900.
[115] Zhang L-Z, Huang S-M, Pei L-X. Conjugate heat and mass transfer in a cross-flow
hollow fiber membrane contactor for liquid desiccant air dehumidification. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:8061–72 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.
2012.08.041.
[116] Wickramasinghe SRR, Semmens MJ, Cussler ELL. Better hollow fiber contactors. J
Membr Sci 1991;62:371–88 http://doi.org/10.1016/0376-7388(91)80048-b.
[117] Mansourizadeh A, Ismail AFF, Matsuura T. Effect of operating conditions on the
physical and chemical CO2 absorption through the PVDF hollow fiber membrane
contactor. J Membr Sci 2010;353:192–200 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.
2010.02.054.
[118] Ismail AFF, Mansourizadeh A. A comparative study on the structure and perfor-
mance of porous polyvinylidene fluoride and polysulfone hollow fiber membranes
for CO2 absorption. J Membr Sci 2010;365:319–28 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2010.09.021.
[119] Li Z-X, Zhang L-Z. Flow maldistribution and performance deteriorations in a
counter flow hollow fiber membrane module for air humidification/dehumidifi-
cation. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2014;74:421–30 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2014.03.047.
[120] Moch I. Hollow-fiber membranes. http://www.desware.net/sample-chapters/
d05/d09-006.pdf, Accessed date: 7 March 2019.
[121] Wu S-E, Lin Y-C, Hwang K-J, Cheng T-W, Tung K-L. High-efficiency hollow fiber
arrangement design to enhance filtration performance by CFD simulation. Chem
Eng Process Process Intensification 2018;125:87–96 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.
2018.01.003.
[122] Isetti C, Nannei E, Orlandini B. Three-fluid membrane contactors for improving
the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-handling systems. Int J Ambient
Energy 2013;34:181–94 http://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2012.755905.
X. Liu, et al.
[123] Yang Y, Yang M, Huang W, Huang S-MM, Ye W-BB, Hong Y, et al. Heat and mass
transfer in an adjacent internally-cooled membrane-based liquid desiccant dehu-
midifier (AIMLDD). Energy Procedia 2017;142:3990–7 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2017.12.308.
[124] Huang S-M, Yang M, Hong Y, Ye W-B. Performance correlations of an adjacently
internally-cooled membrane contactor applied for liquid desiccant air dehumidi-
fication. Appl Therm Eng 2018;129:1660–9 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2017.10.154.
[125] Huang S-M, Zhong Z, Yang M. Conjugate heat and mass transfer in an internally-
cooled membrane-based liquid desiccant dehumidifier (IMLDD). J Membr Sci
2016;508:73–83 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.02.026.
[126] Woods J, Kozubal E. A desiccant-enhanced evaporative air conditioner: numerical
model and experiments. Energy Convers Manag 2013;65:208–20 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2012.08.007.
[127] Woods J, Kozubal E. Combining liquid desiccant dehumidification with a dew-
point evaporative cooler: a design analysis. HVAC R Res 2013;19:663–75 http://
doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2013.797861.
[128] Huang S-M, Yang M, Hu B, Tao S, Qin FGFF, Weng W, et al. Performance analysis
of an internally-cooled plate membrane liquid desiccant dehumidifier (IMLDD): an
analytical solution approach. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2018;119:577–85 http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.11.126.
[129] Xiao H, Huang S-M, Qiu D, Huang W, Yang M. Laminar flow and heat transfer in a
quasi-counter flow parallel-plate membrane channel in the solution side with
cooling tubes. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2016;105:769–80 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2016.10.047.
[130] Qiu D, Wu Z, Huang S-MM, Ye W-BB, Chen X, Luo J, et al. Laminar flow and heat
transfer in an internally-cooled hexagonal parallel-plate membrane channel
(IHPMC). Appl Therm Eng 2017;124:767–80 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2017.06.079.
[131] Woods J, Kozubal E. Combining liquid desiccant dehumidification with a dew-
point evaporative cooler: a design analysis. HVAC R Res 2013;19:663–75 http://
doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2013.797861.
[132] Zhang N, Yin S-YY, Zhang L-ZZ. Performance study of a heat pump driven and
hollow fiber membrane-based two-stage liquid desiccant air dehumidification
system. Appl Energy 2016;179:727–37 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.
07.037.
[133] Seblany R, Ghaddar N, Ghali K, Ismail N, Simonetti M, Virgone J, et al. Humidity
control of liquid desiccant membrane ceiling and displacement ventilation system.
Appl Therm Eng 2018;144:1–12 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.
08.036.
[134] Gommed K, Grossman G. Experimental investigation of a liquid desiccant system
for solar cooling and dehumidification. Sol Energy 2007;81:131–8 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2006.05.006.
[135] Abdel-Salam MRH, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. Performance definitions for three-
fluid heat and moisture exchangers. J Heat Transf 2016;139:022003 http://doi.
org/10.1115/1.4034756.
[136] Moghaddam DG, Besant RW, Simonson CJ, Ghadiri Moghaddam D, Besant RW,
Simonson CJ. Solution-side effectiveness for a liquid-to-air membrane energy ex-
changer used as a dehumidifier/regenerator. Appl Energy 2014;113:872–82
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.037.
[137] Bai H, Zhu J, Chen Z, Chu J, Liu Y. Performance evaluation of a membrane-based
flat-plate heat and mass exchanger used for liquid desiccant regeneration. Appl
Therm Eng 2018;139:569–84 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.05.
011.
[138] Abdel-Salam AH, Ge G, Simonson CJ. Performance analysis of a membrane liquid
desiccant air-conditioning system. Energy Build 2013;62:559–69 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.028.
[139] Chen Z, Zhu J, Bai H. Performance assessment of a membrane liquid desiccant
dehumidification cooling system based on experimental investigations. Energy
Build 2017;139:665–79 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.046.
[140] Zhang LZ, Niu JL. Effectiveness correlations for heat and moisture transfer pro-
cesses in an enthalpy exchanger with membrane cores. J Heat Transf
2002;124:922–9.
[141] Conde-Petit M, Weber R, Dorer V. Open absorption systems for air-conditioning
using membrane contactors. Eidgenössisches Dep Für Umwelt; 2008.
[142] Abdel-Salam MRH, Besant RW, Ge G, Simonson CJ. Experimental study of effects
of phase-change energy and operating parameters on performances of two-fluid
and three-fluid liquid-to-air membrane energy exchangers. ASHRAE Transact
2016;122:134–46 https://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?v=2.1&it=r&sw=w&id=
466
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 444–466
gale%7ca462045162&prodid=aone&sid=googlescholarfulltext&
usergroupname=indi8729, Accessed date: 6 March 2019.
[143] Ge G, Ghadiri Moghaddam D, Abdel-Salam AH, Besant RW, Simonson CJ.
Comparison of experimental data and a model for heat and mass transfer perfor-
mance of a liquid-to-air membrane energy exchanger (LAMEE) when used for air
dehumidification and salt solution regeneration. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2014;68:119–31 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.09.016.
[144] Abdel-Salam MRH, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. Performance testing of 2-fluid and 3-
fluid liquid-to-air membrane energy exchangers for HVAC applications in cold–dry
climates. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2017;106:558–69 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2016.09.024.
[145] Abdel-Salam MRH, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. Performance testing of a novel 3-
fluid liquid-to-air membrane energy exchanger (3-fluid LAMEE) under desiccant
solution regeneration operating conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2016;95:773–86 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.10.065.
[146] Bergero S, Chiari A. Performance analysis of a liquid desiccant and membrane
contactor hybrid air-conditioning system. Energy Build 2010;42. 1976–86 http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.06.003.
[147] Ge G, Abdel-Salam AH, Abdel-Salam MRHH, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. Heat and
mass transfer performance comparison between a direct-contact liquid desiccant
packed bed and a liquid-to-air membrane energy exchanger for air dehumidifi-
cation. Sci Technol Built Environ 2017;23:2–15 http://doi.org/10.1080/
23744731.2016.1203712.
[148] Olufade AO, Simonson CJ. Characterization of the evolution of crystallization
fouling in membranes. ACS Omega 2018;3:17188–98 http://doi.org/10.1021/
acsomega.8b01058.
[149] Choudhury RR, Gohil JM, Mohanty S, Nayak SK. Antifouling, fouling release and
antimicrobial materials for surface modification of reverse osmosis and nanofil-
tration membranes. J Mater Chem 2018;6:313–33 http://doi.org/10.1039/
c7ta08627j.
[150] Olufade AO, Simonson CJ. Application of indirect non-invasive methods to detect
the onset of crystallization fouling in a liquid-to-air membrane energy exchanger.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 2018;127:663–73 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2018.06.032.
[151] Olufade AO, Simonson CJ. Detection of crystallization fouling in a liquid-to-air
membrane energy exchanger. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2018;92:33–45 http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2017.10.017.
[152] Huang S-M. Laminar flow and heat transfer in plate membrane channels: effects of
the deformation heights. Int J Therm Sci 2016;109:44–53 http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijthermalsci.2016.05.032.
[153] Huang SM, Qiu D, Wu Z, Yang M, Zeng S, Chen Y. Fluid flow and heat transfer
across a curved hollow fiber membrane tube bank (CHFMTB): effects of the tube
deformations. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2018;116:471–83 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2017.09.041.
[154] Huang S-M, Qiu D, Ye W-B, Hong Y, Huang W, Yang M. Effects of the random
distributions on the laminar flow and heat transfer in a quasi-counter flow par-
allel-plate membrane channel. Heat Transf Eng 2018;39:1522–30 http://doi.org/
10.1080/01457632.2017.1369840.
[155] Zhang L-Z. Flow maldistribution and thermal performance deterioration in a cross-
flow air to air heat exchanger with plate-fin cores. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2009;52:4500–9 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.03.049.
[156] Zhang L-Z. Performance deteriorations from flow maldistribution in air-to-air heat
exchangers: a parallel-plates membrane core case. Numer Heat Tran
2009;56:746–63 http://doi.org/10.1080/10407780903466402.
[157] Zhang L-Z. Flow maldistribution and performance deteriorations in membrane-
based heat and mass exchangers. J Heat Transf 2009;131:111801 http://doi.org/
10.1115/1.3154832.
[158] Abdel-Salam MRH, Besant RW, Simonson CJ. Sensitivity of the performance of a
flat-plate liquid-to-air membrane energy exchanger (LAMEE) to the air and solu-
tion channel widths and flow maldistribution. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2015;84:1082–100 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.01.042.
[159] Zhang L-Z, Li Z-X, Zhong T-S, Pei L-X. Flow maldistribution and performance
deteriorations in a cross flow hollow fiber membrane module for air humidifica-
tion. J Membr Sci 2013;427:1–9 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.09.030.
[160] He K, Zhang L-Z. Fluid flow and heat transfer of cross flow hollow fiber membrane
contactors with randomly distributed fibers: a topological study. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2019;135:186–98 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.01.
112.