Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

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

COMSOL simulation and experimental validation

of promoter geometries facilitating citric acid
transport in electrodialysis

Anusha Chandra, Darshak Pathiwada, Sujay Chattopadhyay ∗

Polymer and Process Engineering, IIT Roorkee Saharanpur Campus, Saharanpur, 247001, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Citric acid transport facilitation in electrodialysis was investigated using different flow
Received 11 July 2018 promoter geometries e.g. rod, twisted tape (TT), rectangular winglet (RW) shape vortex
Received in revised form 23 generator (VG) and helical screws at four different flow rates 5, 10, 15 and 20 LPH. Flow visual-
December 2018 ization of 39 promoters (shape, spacing and orientation) were performed using 3D simulation
®
Accepted 24 December 2018 (COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3a). Based on simulation results, 14 best promoters were selected
Available online 2 January 2019 for experimental determination of ion transport and power consumption from Sherwood
number, Sh and Power number, Pn respectively. With increase in flow rate and reduced spac-
Keywords: ing, Sh increased along with Pn. Mesh type TT performed better than mono layer TT but
Electrodialysis pressure drop increased. Screw promoter placed parallel to flow showed higher Sh and Pn
Flow hydrodynamics compared to rod, VG and TT. 50% rise in Sh was noted with helical screw (d/h = 1.33, ˛ = 90◦ )
Twisted Tape relative to empty channel. 1.5 times rise in LCDs were noted with conducting TT compared
Vortex generator to non-conducting TTs with barely 1.5% increase in Pn. LCDs with conducting TTs were 80%
Helical screw higher compared to empty channel.
Power number © 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction transport. Transport number difference in bulk and membrane phase

Electrodialysis (ED) is an electrical driven membrane process to
remove ionic species from aqueous solutions through ion exchange
membranes (IEMs). It has wide applications in food, pharmaceuti-
cal, desalination, waste water treatment and chemical industries etc.
(Chandra et al., 2018a). Recovery of organic acids (e.g. citric, acetic,
formic, lactic etc.) from fermentation broth, involve series of separation
steps (precipitation, filtration, dissolution etc.) which can be substan-
tially eliminated by electrodialysis (Chandra et al., 2018b; Chandra et al.,
2018c). Organic acids have low mobility through membranes due to
large molecular size (Novalic et al., 1996; Chandra et al., 2019) and have
low conductivities (high electrical resistance due to poor dissociation)
which affect their separation efficiency and demands high energy (Lee
et al., 2006).
Separation efficiency in membrane separation processes are lim-
ited by concentration polarization (Krol et al., 1999). In solution, current
is carried by both cations and anions while inside IEM, as per Don-
nan exclusion principle, only counter ions are responsible for ion
results in concentration polarization i.e., drop in concentration or
increase in resistance at the solution–membrane interface (Krol et al.,
1999; Strathmann, 2010; Balster et al., 2006). With increase in applied
potential/current, concentration polarization increases (drop in con-
centration near membrane surface) on the diluate side. Current density
at which the concentration of counter-ion at the solution–membrane
interface approaches zero is termed as limiting current density (LCD)
(Chandra et al., 2018c; Krol et al., 1999). For a given ED cell geometry
and electrolyte solution (electrolyte composition, concentration, flow
rate and temperature) LCD is the maximum ion flux achievable with-
out much of electrolysis of water (Novalic et al., 1995). Induction of
promoters between IEMs in flow channel resulted eddies which facili-
tated intermixing of core and boundary layers and reduced boundary
layer thickness i.e., resistance to ion transport. In addition to reduced
boundary layer, promoters impart mechanical stability although pres-
sure drop/pumping cost increases (Strathmann, 2010; Balster et al.,
2006; Saeed et al., 2012). Appropriate design of promoters might reduce
concentration polarization and minimize pressure drop.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sujayfpt@iitr.ac.in, sujay1999@gmail.com (S. Chattopadhyay).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.12.024
0263-8762/© 2019 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411
Nomenclature
List of symbols
C Concentration of ions in bulk, mol L−1
D Diffusivity, m2 s−1
d Hydraulic diameter, m
F Faraday’s constant, 96500 C geq−1
h Inter membrane distance, m
i Current density, A m−2
ilim Limiting current density, A m−2
k Mass transfer coefficient, m s−2
L Characteristic length of flow channel, m
P Pressure drop, Pa
tm Transport number of ion in ion exchange mem-
brane
ts Transport number of ion in solution
u Linear velocity, m s−1
z Charge of ion
 Solution density, kg m−3
 Solution viscosity, N m−2 s−1
ı Diffusion boundary layer thickness, m
Abbreviations
AEM Anion exchange membrane
CA Citric acid
ED Electrodialysis
LCD Limiting current density
Pn Power number
Re Reynolds number
RPD Relative pressure drop
Sc Schmidt number
Sh Sherwood number
Several modification of spacer geometries were reported earlier to
overcome concentration polarization in various membrane based sep-
aration processes e.g. ultra-filtration (UF), micro-filtration (MF), reverse
osmosis (RO), ED, reverse electrodialysis (RED) and membrane distilla-
tion (Schwinge et al., 2004; Schwinge et al., 2000; Shrivastava et al., 2008;
Guan et al., 2006; Tadimeti and Chattopadhyay, 2016; Seo et al., 2017;
Gurreri et al., 2014). Netted spacers with filaments of different shape e.g.
cylindrical rod, twisted tape (TT) (Tadimeti and Chattopadhyay, 2016),
diamond shape (Schwinge et al., 2004; Da Costa and Fane, 1994), mul-
tilayer spacers (Balster et al., 2006; Li et al., 2005) are quite popular.
Multilayer spacers are more effective than monolayer/normal netted
(two layer) spacers in introducing turbulence and facilitate ion trans-
port but, with the limitation of higher pressure drop and loss of effective
free space available for fluid flow (spacer filaments covers additional
membrane area) (Balster et al., 2006; Schwinge et al., 2004; Li et al., 2005).
Apart from regular rod, TT and net spacers, over the year’s researchers
have developed different other spacer geometries e.g. ladders, herring-
bones, helices/helical screw (Shrivastava et al., 2008; Geraldes et al.,
2002), zigzag spacer (Schwinge et al., 2000) etc. Vortex generators (VG)
were used to produce longitudinal, transverse (or normal swirl) flows
in a flow channel (Torii et al., 2002; Leu et al., 2004). In heat exchangers,
vortex generators showed significant impact in enhancement of heat
transfer coefficient obviously at the cost of pressure drop. Saha et al.
(2014) reported the heat transfer enhancement and pressure losses are
influenced by the shape of vortex generator (VG), flow arrangements
(common-flow up and common-flow down), Reynolds number, Re and
highly sensitive to the flow attack angles.
In addition to filament shape, dimensions and their arrangement
i.e., flow attack angle (parallel/perpendicular to flow direction or diago-
nally), spacing etc. play a key role in spacer optimization. Tadimeti and
Chattopadhyay (2016), Schwinge et al. (2004) investigated the effect of
promoter spacing (or mesh length), arrangement of spacer filaments
387
and filament diameter for ED of CaCl2 solution and UF of dextran and
whey solutions respectively. With reduced spacing (or mesh length),
mass transport increased up to an optimum spacing and beyond that
it got lowered. Increased filament diameter facilitated mass transfer
but at the expense of pressure drop. Mostly flow promoters are made
of inert (non-conducting) materials imparting resistance to electric
field thus creating a shadow effect and reduces ion transport (Balster
et al., 2010). Application of conducting spacers could overcome this
issue (Dlugolecki et al., 2010; Shahi et al., 2001; Korngold et al., 1998;
Shaposhnik et al., 1998). Besides above mentioned modifications of
spacer geometries membrane integrated spacers (Balster et al., 2010),
corrugated membrane surfaces (Tadimeti et al., 2016) and air sparg-
ing (Balster et al., 2009) were also proposed to reduce concentration
polarization.
Development of novel spacer geometries, optimiza-
tion/modification of existing spacers and their subsequent validation
through experimentation/simulations (Gurreri et al., 2014; Li et al.,
2005; Song and Ma, 2005; Koutsou et al., 2009) is the most appro-
priate method to improve performance. Considering time, energy,
fabrication difficulties and cost of experimentation issues, it is lot
easier to numerically simulate a selected geometry and analyse its
performance. Additionally, numerical simulations provide much better
insight on mixing pattern, its effects, number of stagnant/recirculation
zones and pressure drop inside the flow channel. CFD simulations
allows the user to simulate large number of spacers with different
shapes, dimensions and orientations. Equation of continuity and
momentum (Navier–Stokes) are solved to obtain velocity and pressure
drop profiles inside flow channel. While the mass transport (ionic flux)
is estimated from solving Nernst–Planck (N–P) equation (Strathmann,
2004) assuming: negligible solvent flux interactions among ions,
formation of electrical double layer and membrane properties etc.
These assumptions cause simulated ionic flux to differ widely from
experimental data (Gurreri et al., 2014; Li et al., 2005; Campione et al.,
2018).
Requirement of large computational power limits the above dis-
cussed simulation approach, while some works reported using 1D or
2D simulations (Shaposhnik et al., 1998; Tadimeti et al., 2016). 1D or
2D models are limited to estimation of ionic flux, fluid flow behaviour
and pressure drop, but fail to visualize complex flow patterns in pres-
ence of spacers (Shrivastava et al., 2008). 3D simulations give more
insight to complex flow patterns. Now a days due to improved compu-
tational speed and numerical efficiencies made 3D simulations more
practical for solving spacer geometries (Gurreri et al., 2014; Li et al.,
2005; Koutsou et al., 2009). Gu et al. (2017) investigated the impact of
feed spacer design on membrane performance using 3D CFD simula-
tions by employing solution-diffusion model to estimate water and
solute transport through RO membranes but, at the expense of large
computational facilities (3–8 h of solving time with a workstation of
96 GB RAM and 2.40 GHz processor). Li et al. (2005) reported that spac-
ers with modified filament and TT predicted from 3D simulations
showed higher performance than measured one. They explained that
numerical inaccuracies and calculation errors could be the reasons
behind above observed result. Therefore, as an alternative to the robust
N–P model, semi-empirical models were used for estimating mass
transport either by simulations based on mass/energy balance equa-
tions or by experimentally accessible parameters (Campione et al.,
2018). Earlier Tadimeti and Chattopadhyay (2016) investigated the
effective spacer designs based on mass transfer (Sherwood number,
Sh from experimental LCD measurements) and power consumption
from power number, Pn (where pressure drop obtained from 2D
simulation).
Longitudinal vortex generator (rectangular winglets) and continu-
ous swirl generators (helical screw) have seen limited application in
ED probably due their complex geometries. Herein, we analyse flow
patterns, pressure loss and mass transfer using these promoters and
compare their performance with conventional rod, TT and conductive
TT type flow promoters for weak organic acid (citric acid). To scale up
the performance of flow promoters, we evaluated Sherwood number
(Sh) (to quantify mass transport) and Power number (Pn) (to quantify
energy requirement) with different spacers. A semi-empirical approach
388 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

is used to characterize momentum (COMSOL simulation) and mass

Table 1 – Geometrical specifications of rod type flow
transport (Sh estimated from experimental LCD) phenomena occur-
promoters.
ring inside spacer filled ED modules. Therefore, the flow hydrodynamic
behaviour obtained from simulation served as a preliminary tool to Spacer Specification Spacing, d in cm ˛ ˇ l1 in cm
choose the proper spacer geometry.
R1, R2, R3 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter 2, 1.33, 1 90 – 8
R4, R5, R6 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter 4, 2.66, 2 0 – 4

2. Materials and experimental procedure

2.1. Materials
Citric acid and hydrochloric acid of analytical grade were pur-
chased from Himedia and Fisher Scientific, India and used
as such without any purification. Cation exchange membrane
(CEM) and anion exchange membrane (AEM) used in this study
were of commercial grade heterogeneous membranes made
up of sulfonated and aminated cross linked styrene-divinyl
benzene copolymer respectively, obtained from Permionics
India Ltd., India.
2.2. Flow promoter (spacer) geometry
Four different categories of flow promoters of varying config-
urations were considered: (i) cylindrical rod, (ii) twisted tape
(monolayer and bi-layer), (iii) vortex generator (rectangular
winglet) and (iv) helical screws. Both parallel/perpendicular
arrangements were considered. Performance of 39 different
spacers were compared with empty flow channel using COM-
®
SOL Multiphysics 5.3a package. Various configurations and
dimensions of four different categories of flow promoters used
in this investigation are summarized in Tables 1–4.
In addition to simulation study, we evaluated LCDs for 14
different spacers, (different filament shapes, material and ori-
entations, R2, R3, R5, R6, T2, T3, T8, T9, T11, CTT, I2, I4, S1b
and SV1b, enlisted in Tables 1–4). Solid rods of 0.25 cm diame-
ter and length 4.0 cm (oriented perpendicular to flow direction)
and 8.0 cm (oriented parallel to flow direction) were used as rod
type promoters, R2, R3, R5 and R6 (Fig. 1(a), Table 1). Polypropy-
lene sheet of 0.06 cm thickness was used to prepare twisted
tape (TT), rectangular winglet and helical screw. TT (T2, T3,
T8, T9 and T11) was prepared with a fixed width of 0.5 cm and
0.5 twist per cm length. Spacing (d), flow attack angles (˛, ˇ)
and length (l1 , l2 ) were varied (Fig. 1(b), Fig. 1(c) and Table 2).
Two rectangular fins (blocks) of 0.5 cm length, 0.3 cm width and
0.06 cm thickness with angle of attack,  v = 45◦ were placed on
either sides of 0.25 cm diameter rods (I2, I4, Fig. 1(a), Table 3).
Similarly, 0.6 cm diameter helical screw (S1b, SV1b) with twist
ratio of 2 was wound over rod (Fig. 1(a), Table 4). Conducting
spacer ‘CTT’ was prepared by applying ion exchange coating
over non-conducting polypropylene TT. Resin coated spacers
(Fig. 1(d)) were prepared from heterogeneous coatings made

Table 2 – Geometrical specifications of twisted tape type flow promoters.

Spacer No. of twist per cm length Spacing, d in cm ˛ ˇ l1 in cm l2 in cm

T1, T2, T3 0.5 2, 1.33, 1 90 – 8 –

T4, T5, T6 0.33 2, 1.33, 1 90 – 8 –
T7, T8, T9 0.5 4, 2.66, 2 0 – 4 –
TT10 0.5 – 0 90 2.66 1.33
T11 0.5 – 0 90 1.6 1.33
CTT 0.5 1.33 90 – 8 –

CTT* = Coated TT.

Table 3 – Geometrical specifications of rectangular winglet type flow promoters.

Spacer Specification Attack angle,  v Spacing, d in cm ˛ ˇ l1 in cm

V1, V2, V3 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + 0.5 cm rectangular winglet (RW) 30◦ ,45◦ ,60◦ 1.33 90 – 8
V4 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + 0.5 cm RW 45◦ 2 90 – 8
V5, V6 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + 0.5 cm RW 45◦ 4, 2.66 0 – 4
I1, I2, I3 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + 0.5 cm inverted rectangular winglet (IRW) 30◦ ,45◦ ,60◦ 1.33 90 – 8
I4 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + 0.5 cm inverted rectangular winglet (IRW) 45◦ 2.66 0 – 4
MV1 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + 0.5 cm RW and IRW 45◦ 1.33 90 – 8
MV2 Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + 0.5 cm RW and IRW 45◦ 2.66 0 – 4

Table 4 – Geometrical specifications of helical screw type flow promoters.

Spacer Specification Spacing, d in cm ˛ ˇ l1 in cm
#
S1a, S1b Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + helical screw with a twist ratio 2 2, 1.33 90 – 8
S2 Helical screw with a twist ratio# 2 1.33 90 – 8
S3 Rod of 0.25 cm dia + helical screw with RL twist at twist ratio# 2 1.33 90 – 8
S4 Helical screw with RL twist at twist ratio# 2 1.33 90 – 8
SV1a, SV1b Rod of 0.25 cm diameter + helical screw with a twist ratio# 2 4, 2.66 0 – 4
SV2 Helical screw with a twist ratio# 2 2.66 0 – 4
SV3 Rod of 0.25 cm dia + helical screw with RL twist at twist ratio# 2 2.66 0 – 4
SV4 helical screw with RL twist at twist ratio# 2 2.66 0 – 4

Twist ratio# = ratio of one full twist length/diameter of twist.

 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411
Fig. 1 – (a) Different types of flow promoters used for experimentation. (b) Geometrical specifications of monolayer twisted
tape (TT) flow promoter. (c) Geometrical specifications of Bilayer (mesh type) TT flow promoter. (d) Modified monolayer TT
(coated TT) flow promoter with d/h = 2.66 and ˛ = 90◦ .
of ion-exchange resin (cation/anion) embedded in PVC (poly
vinyl chloride) using DOP as a plasticizer. Geometric details
are presented in Table 2.
2.3. Limiting current density measurement
The ED setup used for LCD measurement was tailor made in
house. It consisted of commercial membranes (3 CEMs and
2 AEMs), each with an effective membrane area of 32 cm2
(0.08 × 0.04 m2 ) and an intermembrane spacing of 0.5 cm. ED
stack consisted of six separate chambers was used to estimate
current–voltage behaviour and LCD of the central membrane
(AEM) is shown in Fig. 2(a). Two outer chambers (1st and
6th) contained graphite electrodes through which electric
potential was applied across the membrane assembly and an
electrode rinse solution (ERS) was circulated through these
chambers to minimize the effect of electrode reactions inter-
fering ion transport. 0.1 mol L−1 NaCl was chosen as ERS, while
electrolyte in 2nd and 5th chambers were circulated with
shielding solution (0.3 mol L−1 CA). Feed solution (0.1 mol L−1
CA) at a flow rate of 5–20 LPH (liter per hour, L/h) was recircu-
lated in 3rd and 4th chambers adjacent to central membrane.
Performance of spacer geometries were analysed sep-
arately from LCD measurements. LCD measurement was
performed as reported by Balster et al. (2006). Current–voltage
curves were measured by applying DC current across the
stack. The central membrane (AEM) in the stack was under
investigation while other membranes, called auxiliary mem-
branes, protect the central chamber from transportation of
ions due to electrode reactions occurring at the electrodes.
During experiment, current density was increased stepwise
and steady potential drop across the stack was recorded. In
the absence of the central membrane (AEM), similar mea-
surement was performed without disturbing the remaining
389
membrane arrangement. Potential drop with and without cen-
tral membrane for a given current density would indicate the
drop associated with the central membrane alone (Fig. 2(b)).
LCD was estimated using Cowan and Brown method by plot-
ting cell resistance, R (V/i) vs inverse of current, 1/i. Fig. 2(c)
shows an example of LCD estimation with 0.1 mol L−1 CA feed
at Re = 276. LCD measurements with various flow rates (e.g.
0.03 m s−1 , 0.041 m s−1 , 0.056 m s−1 , 0.07 m s−1 ) and different
spacer geometries and arrangement (R2, R3, R5, R6, T2, T3,
T8, T9, T11, CTT, I2, I4, S1b and SV1b, reported in Tables 1–4)
were carried out. After each LCD measurement, ED cell was
thoroughly washed with dilute NaOH (0.01 N), HCl (0.01 N) and
deionized water to remove any leftover solute from previous
experiment.
2.4. Pressure drop estimation
Presence of flow promoters inside an empty flow channel
facilitates mass transport by reducing concentration polar-
ization but at higher pressure drop. Therefore, performance
of flow promoters were understood from power number (Pn).
In laboratory scale ED setup, pressure drop variation with
promoter geometry inside the rectangular flow channel was
appreciably low and could not be measured with the existing
U-tube manometer setup available. The U-tube manometer,
connected at the inlet and outlet of the ED cell, might have
(i) poor sensitivity, (ii) incremental change in volume fraction
with promoter geometry and, (iii) instead of multiple channel
(commonly used in commercial setups) only single channel
being referred, and (iv) influence of flow channel geometry
(e.g., manifolds, distributor, collector etc.) at inlet and out-
let zones, smaller channel length (8 cm) and higher spacing
between spacers (0.5 cm) (Tadimeti and Chattopadhyay, 2016).
Above difficulties with pressure measurement was overcome
390 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 2 – (a) Electrodialysis set up used for LCD measurement. (b) Current–voltage curve of membrane module with central
membrane and without central membrane for empty channel with 0.1 mol L−1 citric acid as feed solution at Re = 267. (c)
Estimation of Limiting current from V/i vs. 1/i data for empty channel with 0.1 mol L−1 citric acid as feed solution at Re = 267.

®
using CFD simulation (COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3a platform).
Therefore, role of pressure variation with promoter geometry
was not noticeable and direct conclusion about the promoter
performance could not be drawn from experimental values.
This was overcome through COMSOL simulation for each
promoter geometry separately. A three dimensional represen-
tation of each geometry (Tables 1–4) and empty channel was
constructed in COMSOL platform. Detailed discussion about
computational method and its validation are presented in
Appendix A.
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411
3. Results and discussion
Effective ion transport in ED could be achieved through
introduction of appropriate flow promoters inside the flow
channel. Each selected promoter was placed inside the empty
space of fixed flow channel (8 cm × 4 cm × 0.5 cm) and COMSOL
®
Multiphysics 5.3a simulation was performed. Four different
classes of promoters (Fig. 1(a)) consisting of total 39 differ-
ent configurations (spacing and arrangement): (i) 6 rod type
(R1–R6, Table 1); (ii) 11 TT (twisted tape) type (TT1–TT11,
Table 2); (iii) 12 VG type (V1–V6, I1–I5, MV1 and MV2, Table 3)
and (iv) 10 helical screw type (S1a, S1b, S2–S4, SV1a, SV1b,
SV2–SV4, Table 4) were constructed using COMSOL. Simu-
lations help us to visualize the effect of spacer geometry,
orientation on flow variations inside the rectangular chan-
nel (by means of velocity variations) and pressure drop.
These information will drastically reduce exorbitant cost of
experimentation (design, fabrication, time and energy). Flow
promoters of various geometries with different spacing and
orientation, may or may not enhance ion transport (Tadimeti
and Chattopadhyay, 2016). More specifically, some geome-
tries show enhanced mass transport with increased pressure
drop. Based on simulation results (flow profiles), few promoter
geometries/arrangements were chosen and performance of
those selected geometries were experimentally evaluated
through LCD estimation.
In ED, concentration polarization depends on applied cur-
rent density, velocity, cell design and membrane properties
(Lee et al., 2006). The ion transport through equilibrated mem-
brane is estimated from current-voltage (I–V) characteristics
and maximum ion transport occurs at the limiting current
density, LCD where all process conditions are kept unchanged.
Role of flow promoters on concentration polarization were
analysed from experimental measurement of LCD (ilim ) val-
ues (Balster et al., 2006; Shrivastava et al., 2008; Tadimeti and
Chattopadhyay, 2016; Li et al., 2005) as:
CDzF
ilim =
ı (tm − ts )
where ilim is limiting current density (A m−2 ), C is ion con-
centration in bulk (mol L−1 ), D is diffusion coefficient of the
electrolyte (m2 s−1 ), z is the charge of ion, F is faraday constant,
tm , ts are transport number of ion in membrane and solution
respectively and ı is diffusion boundary layer thickness.
Concentration polarization can be minimized by reducing
the diffusion boundary layer thickness (ı) and it is strongly
dependent on flow hydrodynamics, physical properties of
ions, cell geometry and spacer geometry. Diffusion boundary
layer thickness, (ı) is commonly expressed as
D flow fluctuations (much higher/lower velocities) compared to
ı=
k empty channel or with horizontal arrangement (Fig. 5(a)-(b)).
where k is mass transfer coefficient. Correct estimation of dif-
fusion boundary layer, (ı) is often difficult, therefore, ı (in Eq.
(1)) is replaced in terms of mass transfer coefficient, k
ilim (tm − ts )
k=
CzF
Evaluation of mass transfer coefficient, ‘k’ based on LCD
measurement can clearly define the role of concentration
391
polarization. Additionally, k is well known to have dependence
on linear velocity, u (Lee et al., 2006).
k ˛ ub (4)
This relation indicates, mass transfer coefficient ‘k’ or ion
transport can be directly linked with the velocity profile esti-
mated from COMSOL simulation.
Complexity of the flow channel geometry in evaluation of
mass transfer coefficient, ‘k’ is overcome by expressing it in
terms of a dimensionless number, Sherwood number (Sh).
kh
Sh = (5)
D
where ‘h’ is the inter-membrane spacing or flow characteristic
length, m.
The amount of energy needed to pump process fluid flow-
ing inside rectangular flow channel may be obtained from its
power number, Pn (Eq. (6)).
Pu2 h4
Pn = (6)
L3
where P is pressure drop (Pa), L is characteristic length of
flow channel (m),  is solution density (kg m−3 ),  is solution
viscosity (N m−2 s−1 ). This is directly related to pressure drop
experienced by the fluid. Higher the Pn, higher would be the
energy need to pump fluid inside the flow channel. Perfor-
mance analysis of various flow promoters i.e., ion transport
facilitation at reasonably lower pressure drop can be obtained
from a plot of LCD or k or Sh against Pn.
3.1. Analysis of velocity profile and pressure drop with
various flow promoters
3.1.1. Cylindrical rod type flow promoter
Cylindrical rod type promoters are the widely used conven-
(1) tional flow promoters (filaments of net spacer). Higher velocity
variations and pressure drop was noted with spacer filled
channels compared to empty channel geometries. These vari-
ations (velocity and pressure drop) were further increased
with inlet velocity (Fig. 3) and reduced spacing (insertion of
more rods within a given space, Fig. 4). Reduced flow area due
to insertion of rod type spacers inside the rectangular flow
channel increases velocity and pressure drop relative to empty
channel. Additionally, the role of flow attack angle (orientation
e.g. parallel or perpendicular) on mixing and pressure drop
was distinctly noted through COMSOL simulation.
Horizontal (to flow direction) arrangement increased the
fluid velocity due to reduced cross sectional area while the
perpendicular (to flow direction) arrangement showed wide
(2)
With perpendicular arrangement transverse filaments act as
obstacle to fluid flow and flow occurs in the tangential direc-
tion (Geraldes et al., 2002). Transverse filament separates fluid
into two streams which flow through the gaps present on
either side of the promoter and walls of channel (Fig. 6).
Generally, solid filaments placed in transverse direction sepa-
(3)
rates fluid into two tangential components flowing upstream
and downstream with a recirculation zone (Song and Ma,
2005). It is to be noted that, higher velocity is a resultant of
vortices formed on either side of spacer filament whereas, cav-
392 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 3 – Comparison of velocity profiles for rod type flow promoter with d/h = 4 at different inlet velocities (a) u = 0.007 m s−1 ;
(b) u = 0.014 m s−1 ; (c) u = 0.021 m s−1 and (d) u = 0.028 m s−1 .
ities/recirculation zones appear with lower velocities in the RPD of spacer filled channels increased with Re and reduced
channel (Fig. 6). spacing, d/h. With parallel arrangement of rod type promot-
Relative pressure drop, RPD is used to compare pressure ers, RPD values varied from (Re, 67–267) 1.12–1.14 with d/h = 4;
drop occurring with each promoter relative to pressure drop 1.29–1.32 with d/h = 2.66 and 1.53–1.57 with d/h = 2. While for
in empty channel: perpendicular (to flow direction) arrangement of promoters,
RPD values were: 2.094–2.906 with d/h = 8.0; 3.11–4.84 with
Pressure drop of spacer filled channel d/h = 5.33 and 4.211–6.476 with d/h = 4 where Re were varied
RPD = (7)
Pressure drop of empty channel from 67 to 267. With perpendicular arrangement, appear-
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 393

Fig. 4 – Comparison of velocity profiles for rod type flow promoter at different spacing (a) d/h = 4; (b) d/h = 2.66 and (c) d/h = 2
at an inlet linear velocity, u = 0.028 m s−1 .

ance of transverse vortices accelerate fluid velocity leading to
effective flow disruption and boundary layer destabilization
with increased pressure drop than the parallel arrangement
(Fimbres-Weihs and Wiley, 2010; Santos et al., 2007).
3.1.2. Twisted Tape (TT) flow promoter
Twisted tape (TT) is one of the most popular and extensively
used promoter next to rod type. TT creates swirling motion
inside flow channel which improves fluid mixing and mass
transfer coefficient due to reduced concentration polariza-
tion (Tadimeti and Chattopadhyay, 2016). COMSOL simulation
help us visualize fluid mixing due to formation/disruption
of swirls, vortex and recirculation zone induced by TT. Vari-
ation in velocity profile and pressure drop with twist ratio,
y/W (geometrical details are presented in Fig. 7(a)), orienta-
tion and spacing of TT are presented in Fig. 8(a)–(d). For a given
Re, velocity consistently increases with lower twist ratio and
promoter spacing (Fig. 8) which is attributed to appearance of
high intensity swirl flow and longer flow path inside channel
resulted higher residence time (Eiamsa-ard and Promvonge,
2010). Thus, TT with smaller twist ratios promoted mixing in
the boundary layer and facilitated ion transport relative to TTs
with higher twist ratios. With lower twist ratios pressure drop
increased. TTs (twist ratio (y/W) = 4) arranged parallel to flow
direction showed RPDs 1.14–1.75 and 1.02–1.03 times higher
than empty channel and TTs with twist ratio (y/W) = 6 respec-
tively in the velocity range used.
Perpendicular arrangement of TT created much more com-
plex flow pattern. Fig. 9 shows 2D velocity distribution along
yz plane at x = 0 mm, 1 mm and −1 mm. At x = 0 mm, where
394 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 5 – 3D velocity profiles for rod type flow promoter at different orientations (a) ˛ = 90◦ and (b) ˛ = 0◦ at an inlet linear
velocity, u = 0.028 m s−1 .

Fig. 6 – Velocity profile in zx plane (2D cut plane) at y = 1 mm for rod flow promoter at ˛ = 0◦ with an inlet linear velocity,
u = 0.028 m s−1 . Visualization of flow separation near rod filament, high velocity vortices on either side of filament and
recirculation zone (shown in zoom).

Fig. 7 – Geometric details of twisted tape: (a) monolayer TT with different twist ratio (y/W); (b) Bilayer (2 × 2 mesh) TT with
˛ = 0◦ , ˇ = 90◦ and (c) 4 × 2 mesh TT (˛ = 0◦ , ˇ = 90◦ ).
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 395

Fig. 8 – Comparison of velocity profiles for monolayer TT flow promoter with different spacing (d/h) and twist ratio: (a) TT
with d/h = 4, ˛ = 90◦ and y/W = 4; (b) TT with d/h = 2.66, ˛ = 90◦ and y/W = 4; (c) TT with d/h = 2, ˛ = 90◦ and y/W = 4 and (d) TT
with d/h = 2, ˛ = 90◦ and y/W = 6 at an inlet linear velocity, u = 0.028 m s−1 .

two recirculation zones formed at the rear side of the trans-
verse filament along with appearance of higher velocity zones
(Fig. 9a). Narrow space available both above and below the
transverse TT caused fluid to get accelerated (depicted with
red colour). A fraction of fluid changes its direction after strik-
ing with TT and tends to flow towards lower segment of the
filament. This resulted in flow reversal/recirculation (shown in
blue colour). Comparing velocity profiles at distance x = 1 mm
and x = −1 mm along yz plane (Fig. 9b, Fig. 9c), rotating vortices
with counter motion were clearly visible which were of dis-
tinctly different sizes probably due to transverse flow in both
upward and downward directions. At x = 1 mm (Fig. 9b) the
anti-clockwise vortex were predominant while at x = –1 mm,
clockwise vortex were predominant (Fig. 9c). These multidi-
rectional flows of higher velocities disrupted the boundary
layers and resulted in effective mixing between layers. Appear-
ance of recirculation zones with TTs could be more effectively
explained using 3D simulation (Fig. 10).
Asymmetry with TT (continuous change in twist angle)
compelled the adhering fluid to change its flow direction con-
tinuously. Fluid approaching the leading and trailing edges of
TT got deflected and redirected towards the oblique/bulged
396 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 9 – Visualization of flow pattern (recirculation zone, blue colour and high velocity vortices: red colour) for TT at ˛ = 0◦
with an inlet linear velocity, u = 0.028 m s−1 . 2D velocity variations in yz plane at: (a) x = 0 mm; (b) x = 1 mm and (c) x = –1 mm.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

portions of the tape. This facilitated effective mixing with
higher tangential velocities. Evacuation of fluid stream at
the leading and trailing edges of the TT caused cavi-
ties/recirculation zones (Fig. 10). These regions exhibit lower
velocities, higher boundary layer thickness and reduced mass
transfer. Size and structure of the recirculation zones were
found to be strongly dependent on the inlet fluid veloc-
ity (Santos et al., 2007). The size of the recirculation zone
increased with inlet fluid velocity and reduced spacing inside
flow channel. The intensity of recirculation increased with
more number of TT in given spacing i.e., with 3 TT (Fig. 10)
arrangement, restricted flow of fluid occurred after 1st TT fil-
ament due to confined area (limited space between TT and
channel wall) which resulted in cavity formation. The size of
cavity was found to increase with more number of TT fila-
ments in the channel. Similar phenomena was observed by
Geraldes et al. (2002) with ladder type spacer filled in NF/RO
spiral wound module. They reported that boundary layer sepa-
ration and formation of shear free layer occurs at the upstream
corner of each transverse filament with recirculation zone.
The length of recirculation zone increased with Re and the
spacer geometry.
Two different bi-layer or mesh type geometries were con-
structed by placing TTs in axial and transverse directions
(Fig. 7(b)-(c)). The first one contained 2 transverse and 2
axial (2 × 2 mesh) while the 2nd TT mesh category were
with 4 transverse and 2 axial filaments (4 × 2 mesh). With
reduced spacing of monolayer TT filaments (transverse or
axial arrangement) inside the confined rectangular flow chan-
nel, both velocity and pressure drop increased for constant
volumetric flow rate. Although reduced spacing increased
swirl intensity but formation of recirculation zones both at
top/bottom of vortex core, resulted limited contact surface
i.e., ineffective mixing. Eiamsa-ard (2010) reported similar
phenomena with twin-co twisted tape (co-swirl tape) arrange-
ment placed inside a tube during heat transfer facilitation.
Earlier researchers (Saeed et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2007)
reported no significant role with reduced spacing of axial fil-
aments in a net spacer. Axial filaments imparted mechanical
support to transverse arrangement and created flow channel.
With flow aligned spacers, transverse filaments influenced
the flow and mass transfer pattern (Saeed et al., 2012; Santos
et al., 2007). Therefore, role of transverse filaments were inves-
tigated keeping the number of axial filaments unchanged
at two.
On the rare side of transverse filaments, recirculation zone
appeared where fluid got converged between filaments. The
axial filaments facilitated divergence of fluid streams which
resulted in flow through the middle portion of two consecutive
transverse filaments and the corner most portions of the chan-
nel wall (Fig. 11). Relatively higher velocities and improved
mixing were noted with 4 × 2 mesh compared to 2 × 2 mesh
but, at the cost of higher pressure drop. Nearly 8–11% rise in
velocity and 5.34–8.32 RPD were noted with 4 × 2 mesh while
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 397

Fig. 10 – 3D Stream line velocity plot of TT oriented perpendicular to flow direction (˛ = 0◦ ) (exhibiting formation of
recirculation zones and its size) at different inlet linear velocities: (a) u = 0.007 m s−1 ; (b) u = 0.014 m s−1 ; (c) u = 0.021 m s−1
and (d) u = 0.028 m s−1 .

it was only 3–8% and 3.29–4.92 RPD with 2 × 2 mesh at the 3.1.3. Vortex generator (rectangular winglet) flow
same Re. However, transverse arrangement of monolayer 3 promoter
TT performed better than 2 × 2 mesh where velocity and RPD Vortex generators are a pair of rectangular shape winglet
variations were 6–10% and 4.05–6.31 respectively. mounted over a cylindrical rod and are capable of altering
398 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 11 – Comparison of velocity variations for (a) 2 × 2 mesh TT with ˛ = 0◦ , ˇ = 90◦ and (b) 4 × 2 mesh TT (˛ = 0◦ , ˇ = 90◦ ) at an
inlet linear velocity, u = 0.028 m s−1 .

Fig. 12 – Geometric details of vortex generator (VG): (a) Rectangular winglet (RW) mounted over rod with an angle of attack,
 v ; (b) Rectangular winglet with  v = 45◦ (V or common flow-down, CFD) configuration; (c) Inverted rectangular winglet (IRW)
with  v = 45◦ (Inverted V or common flow-up CFU) configuration; (d) RW with  v = 30◦ ; (e) RW with  v = 45◦ ; (f) RW with
 v = 60◦ ; (g) IRW with  v = 60◦ ; (h) Modified VG with RW and IRW at  v = 45◦ arranged alternatively over rod oriented
horizantal to flow direction and (i) Modified VG oriented perpendicular to flow direction.

fluid flow area to promote heat and mass transfer effects.
There are wide ranges of vortex generators (VG) available and
of which the longitudinal vortex generators (LVG) are very
popular due to its simple geometry. LVGs were extensively
applied in facilitating heat transfer coefficient (Torii et al.,
2002; Leu et al., 2004; Saha et al., 2014; Wu and Tao, 2012).
Various (primary/secondary) flow patterns could be created
by altering positions of VGs inside flow channel. Secondary
flow (due to vortices) generated by LVGs could facilitate fluid
mixing (Leu et al., 2004; Jacobi, 1777). Improved interlayer
mixing (reduced boundary layer) could improve ion transport
but with increased pressure drop. Several modifications of
VG shape and geometry (spacing, angle of attack  v , paral-
lel/perpendicular orientation, and winglet positioning) might
be constructed to reduce pressure drop and improve fluid mix-
ing. Based on the orientation of fins facing fluid flow, these are
classified into two categories as: (i) Rectangular winglet, RW,
where fluid faces the tapered ends (called common flow-down,
CFD) and inverted rectangular winglet, IRW where fluid faces
the diverged ends (called common flow-up CFU). By varying
the flow attack angle (between winglet and rod) e.g.  v = 30◦ ,
45◦ and 60◦ (Fig. 12) various flow profiles can be created inside
the flow channel. CFU configuration caused vortices rotate in
counter direction and moved away from the rod (mounted sur-
face). While with CFD configuration, vortices moved towards
the cylindrical rod (Saha et al., 2014).
Similar like TTs, the intensity of swirls generated by VG
increased with Re and reduced spacing. Higher intensity facil-
itated mass transfer at the cost of pressure drop. The linear
velocity and RPD values of both RW and IRW increased with
flow attack angle ( v = 30◦ , 45◦ , 60◦ ) where fluid flow was paral-
lel to the length of promoters (Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 (V1–V3, I1–I3)).
Velocity and pressure drop values were much higher with RW
compared to IRW (Fig. 13(b) and 13(d), Fig. 14 (V2 and I2) at
 v = 45◦ ). This could be attributed to appearance of converging
flows between (i) promoters and (ii) wall and promoter (winglet
fin, Fig. 13(b)) reduced flow area with RW arrangement while
a diverging flow appeared with IRW arrangement (Fig. 13(d))
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 399

Fig. 13 – 3D simulation of RW and IRW flow promoter geometries with variation in flow attack angles: (a)  v = 30◦ ; (b)  v = 45◦ ;
(c)  v = 60◦ and (d) IRW with  v = 45◦ , shows velocity variation inside flow channel using slice plots.

(Torii et al., 2002). With higher  v , reduced flow area resulted
in higher velocities and pressure drop (Fig. 14 (V1–V4, I1–I3)
and Fig. 15).
VG (RW/IRW) oriented perpendicular to flow direction
showed lower velocities (Fig. 16(c)-(d)) and pressure drop
(Fig. 14 (V2, V4–V6, I2 and I4)) compared to their horizontal
arrangement (Fig. 16(b)). Generally, longitudinal (horizontal
orientation) and transverse (perpendicular orientation) vor-
tices are created by VGs which destabilized the flow and
reduced boundary layer thickness (Fiebig, 1998). Fiebig (1998)
reported longitudinal vortices lasted for longer distance along
the length of promoter while transverse vortices usually have
shorter life and move perpendicular to flow direction. With
 v = 45◦ , RW promoters showed higher pressure drop (RPD) rel-
ative to IRW (Fig. 14, V6 and I4).
A moderate effect of reasonable velocities and RPDs could
be achieved by mounting both RW and IRW ( v = 45◦ ) on the
same cylindrical rod (Fig. 12). Both horizontal (Fig. 12(h)) and
perpendicular (Fig. 12 (i)) orientations of this modified geome-
tries were analysed. A combined effect of both outward (IRW)
and inward flows (RW) averaged both velocity and RPD val-
ues (Saha et al., 2014). Velocity variations occurring with rod,
RW, IRW and modified VG (RW-IRW combination) are pre-
sented in Fig. 17, while pressure drop effects are clearly visible
in Fig. 14. RPD values of modified VG, MV1 were between
V2 (RW) and I2 (IRW). Thus, the proposed modified geome-
400 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 14 – Relative pressure drop (RPD) for VG with spacing, configuration and orientation.

Fig. 15 – 2D yz cut plane graph showing velocity variations of RW and IRW at different flow attack angles: (a) RW with
 v = 30◦ ; (b) RW with  v = 45◦ ; (c) RW with  v = 60◦ and (d) IRW with  v = 45◦ .
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 401

Fig. 16 – 3D plots showing velocity variations of VG with spacing and orientation. RW with angle of attack,  v = 45◦ at
different spacing (a) d/h = 4; (b) d/h = 2.66 oriented horizontal to flow direction (˛ = 90◦ ); (c) RW with  v = 45◦ oriented
perpendicular to flow direction (˛ = 0◦ ) and (d) IRW with  v = 45◦ oriented perpendicular to flow direction (˛ = 0◦ ).

try is expected to improve inter-mixing and facilitate mass
transfer.
Perpendicular orientation of modified VGs showed
improved mixing (Fig. 18) compared to RW, IRW and empty
channel. 2D images of swirling motion generated from
modified VG at different positions (z = 20, 15, 10, 0, −10, −15
and −20 mm) are presented in Fig. 18. As fluid entered into
the rectangular channel (u = 0.028 m s−1 ), counter rotating
vortices appeared because it experiences CFU (IRW). In CFU
configuration, due to orientation of winglets an up wash
flow (outflow) appeared at the central region between two
counter rotating vortices, while a downwash flow of vortices
appeared between channel wall and the fin (due to geometric
restriction at two ends) of the perpendicular VGs (Saha et al.,
2014). The up wash flow appeared between winglets pushed
the fluid towards cylindrical rod (on which winglets of CFU
configuration are mounted) placed perpendicular to the flow
path. Rod placed perpendicular to flow path could produce
transverse vortices and interact with longitudinal vortices
(produced by CFU configuration) to increase fluid veloci-
ties but the same was not observed. Fig. 18 (2D geometry,
xy plane) fluid velocity (0.05 m s−1 ) remained same at two
locations z = −15 mm and z = –10 mm. Probably (i) collision
of longitudinal vortices with cylindrical rod altered flow
402 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 17 – 3D plots showing velocity variations of (a) rod; (b) RW with  v = 45◦ ; (c) IRW with  v = 45◦ and (d) Modified VG with
 v = 45◦ oriented horizontal to flow (˛ = 90◦ ) at d/h = 4.

direction and reduced energy of vortices, and (ii) existence of
transverse vortices and its diffusion in the flow (Fiebig, 1998)
resulted in constancy of velocity at two different locations.
After crossing the rod, left over vortices would subsequently
interact with a pair of counter rotating vortices (produced by
CFD configuration) resulting downwash flow (inflow). Thus,
fluid would flow towards the bottom of the channel wall. The
down wash flow after striking the bottom wall came up as
counter rotating vortices with reduced energy and interacted
with each other (at z = 0 mm, xy plane) to produce an up wash
flow. Perpendicular orientation of flow promoters resulted in
periodic changes in velocities with other promoter as well
(Fig. 18).
Availability of wide variety (geometry and orientation) of
VGs (RW, IRW, modified VGs) caused selection of appropriate
promoter a challenging task. This issue could be overcome
with the power number, Pn estimation (Eq. (6)). Pn can quan-
titatively indicate the energy requirement for a targeted flow
and pressure drop. Pn values were estimated (Eq. (6)) for each
promoter type using pressure drop values. Horizontal arrange-
ment of single promoter shows 20–33% rise in Pn relative to
empty channel where Re were varied between 67–267. Under
identical condition, perpendicular arrangement of promoter
showed ∼115–190% rise in Pn. With flow attack angle vari-
ation  v , Pn values were 48–65% ( v = 30◦ ), 64–90% ( v = 45◦ ),
75–115% ( v = 60◦ ) for RW and 36–42% ( v = 30◦ ), 49–65% ( v = 45◦ )
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 403

Fig. 18 – 3D velocity profile of modified VG oriented perpendicular to flow direction (˛ = 0◦ ) with an inlet linear velocity,
u = 0.028 m s−1 . Visualization of flow near VG filaments, formation of counter rotating vortices and their diffusion into flow
(shown in zoom using xy plane (2D cut plane) at z = −20, −15, −10, 0, 10, 15 and 20 mm.

Fig. 19 – Types of helical screw: (a) Helical screw with rod, S1; (b) Helical screw without rod, S2; (c) Helical screw wound
(clock wise/counter clockwise) over a central rod, S3 and (d) Helical screw of S3 configuration without central rod, S4 (e)
Geometric details of helical screw.

and 63–90% ( v = 60◦ ) with IRW promoters where Re were in
the range 67–267. With reduced spacing of RW promoters
(d/h = 4.0–2.66) placed in the flow direction, Pn increased 3
times compared to mere 1.2–1.5 times with similar arrange-
ment of IRW promoters. With reduced spacing (d/h = 8.0–5.33)
and perpendicular (to flow) promoters Pn values got nearly
doubled with both RW and IRW arrangements. Parallel (to
flow) orientation of modified VG promoters showed Pn raise
almost 1.6–1.85 times relative to empty channel while their
perpendicular arrangement increased Pn almost 3.5–5.0 times
(Re = 67–267). Comparing velocity, RPD and Pn values for RW,
IRW and modified VG, it is understood that IRW arrangement
will be advantageous over modified geometry. Therefore, IRW
geometry was considered for experimental investigation.
3.1.4. Helical screw
Helical screw is best understood from Fig. 19(a) where, a flat
tape is assumed to wound over a cylindrical rod. Helical geom-
etry will turn the flow font in the direction of helices. Four
different configurations of helices were considered for analy-
sis e.g. (i) full length single helical screw with cylindrical rod
(Fig. 19(a), S1); (ii) full length helical screw alone (without rod),
(Fig. 19(b), S2); (iii) helical screws with both clock wise and
counter clockwise turns over the cylindrical rod, (Fig. 19(c), S3)
and (iv) S3 configuration without central rod (Fig. 19(d), S4).
Horizontal arrangement of S1 in the flow channel resulted
higher velocity compared to S2 configuration because the
central portion area is not available for fluid flow in S1
(Fig. 20(a)-(b)). With reduced spacing (two S1 promoters placed
inside flow channel), mixing improved as shown in Fig. 20(a).
Rod placed at the centre of the helical screw (S1) reduced
cross sectional area along axis and restricted fluid flow along
axis. Fluid flow near screw followed helical path where the
upper and lower segments of the helix directed fluid down-
ward and upward respectively. This resulted in high intensity
swirl flow that facilitated mixing inside the flow channel. With
S2 (Fig. 20(b)) arrangement, fluid flow occurred both along axial
and helical coil directions which reduced overall intensity
which might be supported by higher (10%) heat transfer coeffi-
cient with S1 arrangement over S2 Eiamsa-ard and Promvonge
(2005) where Re were varied between 2300–8800. Horizon-
tal arrangement of S3 promoter changed the flow direction
404 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411

Fig. 20 – Streamline plot of velocity profiles for screw at different orientations: (a) full length single helical screw with rod at
˛ = 90◦ , S1; (b) full length helical screw without rod at ˛ = 90◦ , S2; (c) helical screws with both clock wise and counter
clockwise arrangement over cylindrical rod at ˛ = 90◦ , S3; (d) S1 at ˛ = 0◦ ; (e) S2 at ˛ = 0◦ and (f) S3 at ˛ = 0◦ . Recirculation zone
depicted with dark blue colour lines (highlighted in (c) and similar zones are present in (f)). (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

from clock wise to counter clock wise around the middle of Perpendicular orientation of S1, S2, S3 promoters inside
its length of the promoter. This resulted in abrupt mixing flow channel are presented in Fig. 20(d), 20 (e) and 20 (f).
of fluid layers that could reduce boundary layer thickness 2D flow profiles of these geometries are presented in Fig. 21
(Fig. 20(c)). for improved clarity. The bulged portions ( s = 30◦ , Fig. 19(e))
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 405

Fig. 21 – Visualization of flow pattern (recirculation zone, blue colour) and high velocity vortices, red colour) for helical
screw, S1 (a-c) and screw with S3 (d-f) at ˛ = 0◦ with an inlet linear velocity, u = 0.028 m s−1 . 2D velocity variations in yz plane
at: (a) x = 0 mm; (b) x = 1 mm; (c) x = –1 mm; (d) x = 0 mm; (e) x = 1 mm (top wall) and (f) x = –1 mm (bottom wall) respectively.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

along the length of the promoters showed turns of helical
coil (Fig. 21), while sections without bulge part were free area
i.e., only rod without any coil. Once fluid attacked these pro-
moters, the coils directed the fluid flow and major portion
of fluid adopted low resistance path (between bulged por-
tions) where accumulation of large volume occurred leading
to higher velocities (yellow to reddish zones, Fig. 21). Cavi-
ties and recirculation zones of low velocities appeared once
fluid crossed the flow promoters (Fig. 20(d) and 20 (f)). Split-
ting of fluid stream along upward and downward directions
(Fig. 19(e)) resulted in formation of cavities and recirculation
zones. Similar phenomena were observed with Rod/TT type
promoters (Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2).
Perpendicular arrangement of S3 promoter resulted lesser
velocities compared to similar arrangement with S1 (Fig. 20(f)
and Fig. 21). Probably, appearance of a narrow slit at the mid-
dle of S3 (due to junction of two coils with opposite turns)
allowed fluid to escape through it. At this slit, fluid could
escape and freely move towards the bottom wall reducing the
velocity (Fig. 21(d–f)). Recently Tadimeti and Chattopadhyay
(2016) reported TT with cuts, interrupted the longitudinal
and transverse vortices compared to conventional TT with-
406 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411
Fig. 22 – Relative pressure drop (RPD) for helical screw with spacing, configuration and orientation.
out cut. Relative pressure drop, RPD values were much higher
with S3 compared to horizontal/perpendicular arrangements
of remaining helical screw promoters (Fig. 22). Based on above
discussions S1 geometry was understood to be quite promis-
ing.
3D simulations of 39 geometries were performed to select
the best promoter geometries with reference to spacing and
orientation to achieve higher velocities and reduced pressure
drop. 14 geometries were selected based on velocity and RPD
and these were fabricated and placed inside flow channel for
experimental validation.
3.2. Analysis of experimental data
Experimental LCD for 14 promoter geometries/orientations
(Tables 1–4) were carried out at four different flow rates
(e.g. 0.03 m s−1 , 0.041 m s−1 , 0.056 m s−1 , 0.07 m s−1 ) using
0.1 mol L−1 CA as feed solution.
3.2.1. Role of flow rate and promoter spacing on LCD
LCDs were quite sensitive to flow rate and promoter
geometries/orientation (Chandra et al., 2018c; Tadimeti
and Chattopadhyay, 2016; Tadimeti et al., 2016). With flow rate
variation from 5 to 20 LPH (Re = 67–267), LCD values got nearly
doubled (Figs. 23–25). Reduced diffusion boundary layer
at higher flow rates resulted in higher LCD values
and improved mass transfer coefficient (Tadimeti and
Chattopadhyay, 2016). Fig. 23 (rod type), Fig. 24 (TT type) and
Fig. 25 (IRW and helical screw types) showed variation of
LCD and mass transfer coefficient, k with Re. In the complete
range of Re 67 to 267, ‘R2’ type promoters showed lower LCDs
compared to empty channel while LCD of ‘R3’ were higher
at Re > 67. Both ‘R5’ and ‘R6’ geometries showed higher LCDs
compared to empty channel (Fig. 23).
Fig. 24 shows LCD variation with TT (monolayer, bilayer and
coated) promoters. At lower Re = 67, all monolayer TT promot-
ers (T2, T3, T8 and T9) showed higher LCD values compared
to empty channel but nearly similar LCD values among them.
Mesh type promoters (T11) and coated TT (CTT) showed much
higher LCDs relative to other TT geometries. With reduced
spacing, monolayer TT (T3, T9 compared to T2 and T8) showed
higher LCD values at lower Re ≤ 134 but, the rate of change got
lowered at higher Re (Fig. 24). The reduced LCD values at higher
Re might be attributed to appearance of recirculation zones.
Although similar recirculation zones will appear at lower Re
but, its intensity and volume occupancy being lower (Geraldes
et al., 2002) would not influence ion transport (Eiamsa-ard,
2010). Therefore, appearance of large cavitation and recircu-
lation zones at higher Re resulted in poorer ion transport. TT
mesh, T11 showed much higher LCD values than all other TTs
at lower Re ≤ 134. Coated twisted tape (CTT although mono-
layer) showed higher LCD values compared to all monolayer
TTs and its performance could supersede even the mesh type
at higher Re ≥ 207.
Both horizontal and vertical arrangements of inverted rect-
angular winglets (I2, I4) and helical screws (S1b, SV1b) showed
nearly similar LCDs at lower Re = 67, whereas, with rise in
Re, LCD increased (Fig. 25). The high intensity of longitu-
dinal/transverse vortices (inverted rectangular winglet, IRW)
and swirling flow in single direction (helical screw), increases
fluid mixing (Jacobi, 1777; Eiamsa-ard and Promvonge, 2005)
and reduces diffusion boundary layer thickness resulting in
improved mass transfer (LCD) (Fig. 25).
Comparison of promoter spacing between rod (R3, R6) and
TT (T3, T9) in either orientation (horizontal, ˛ = 90◦ or vertical,
˛ = 0◦ ), showed increase in LCD (Fig. 23, Fig. 24). A combined
plot of Sh and Pn (Fig. 26) could easily compare performances
of promoters. Although reduced spacing (R3, R6, T3 and T9)
improved ‘k’ or ‘Sh’ but their corresponding ‘Pn’ values were
higher than R2, R5, T2, T8 promoters (Fig. 26).
3.2.2. Role of spacer orientation
Promoter orientation (horizontal, ˛ = 90◦ or vertical, ˛ = 0◦ )
were analysed with a set of promoters (R2, R5, T2, T8, T11,
I2, I4, S1b, SV1b and CTT), where number of filaments were
fixed as two for whole group. LCD (or k) variation with Re
(Fig. 23, Fig. 24 and Fig. 25) and Sh (or k) variation with Pn
(Fig. 26) could clearly distinguish performance of each pro-
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 407

Fig. 23 – Plot of ilim , A m−2 and k, m s−1 vs. Re for rod type flow promoters with different spacing, flow attack angles (R2, R3,
R5 and R6) and empty channel.

Fig. 24 – Plot of ilim , A m−2 and k, m s−1 vs. Re for twisted tape flow promoters with different spacing, flow attack angles (T2,
T3, T8 and T9); multilayer spacer (T11) and modified twisted tape (coated TT, CTT) and empty channel.

Fig. 25 – Plot of ilim , A m−2 and k, m s−1 vs. Re for rectangular winglet and helical screw with different flow attack angles [I2
(˛ = 90◦ ); I4 (˛ = 0◦ ); S1b (˛ = 90◦ ); SV1b (˛ = 0◦ )] and empty channel.
408 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411
Fig. 26 – Plot of (a) Sh vs Pn for different flow promoters (R2, R3, R5, R6, T2, T3, T8, T9, T11, CTT, I2, I4, S1b and SV1b) with
spacing, configuration and orientation and empty channel.
moter. Shifting of Sh towards right indicated more power
consumption. Horizontal orientation of rod type promoters
‘R2’ showed poor performance compared to empty channel
while perpendicular orientation, ‘R5’showed higher Sh but, it
got shifted right indicating high Pn. Both orientation of TT,
T2 (˛ = 90◦ ) and T8 (˛ = 0◦ ) showed higher LCD and Pn com-
pared to empty channel. Sh with ‘T2’ arrangement was higher
at low Re (<134) but, it rapidly increased thereafter with simul-
taneous rise in Pn indicating higher energy consumption. At
higher Re > 134, ‘T8’ performed better (higher Sh) but, at the
expense of Pn. TT aligned perpendicular to flow direction (‘T8’)
induced tangential flow which effectively reduced diffusion
boundary layer thickness and thus enhanced ion transport.
Whereas, TT aligned in the flow direction (‘T2’) generated
swirling motion along promoter axis which might not have
adequate strength to disrupt the diffusion boundary layer
(Tadimeti and Chattopadhyay, 2016). Sh and Pn values with
mesh type TT promoters ‘T11’ (˛ = 0◦ and ˇ = 90◦ , Table 2) were
relatively higher than monolayer TTs ‘T2’ (˛ = 90◦ ) and ‘T8’
(˛ = 0◦ ). Crosswise arrangement of TTs increased turbulence
leading to improved mass transport (higher Sh) but, at the cost
of pressure drop (higher Pn).
At lower Re (<200) horizontal (I2, ˛ = 90◦ ) and vertical (I4,
˛ = 0◦ ) arrangements of VGs showed almost similar values of Sh
but, Pn values were much higher with ‘I4’ (Fig. 26). Sh values for
horizontal (˛ = 90◦ , S1b) and vertical (˛ = 0◦ , SV1b) orientation of
helical screw promoters were similar but, Pn values were much
higher with SV1b type i.e., higher energy requirement with
these promoters. The pumping cost further increased with Re.
3.2.3. Effect of Bi-layer or mesh type TT
Mesh type (or bilayer) arrangement of TT promoters (4 trans-
verse × 2 axial filaments, 4 × 2 mesh) ‘T11’ always resulted in
higher Sh (mass transfer coefficient) compared to all other
promoters excluding the coated one (CTT). Perpendicular
(transverse filaments) arrangement of TTs created large size
cavities and recirculation zones (Fig. 10(d)) which got drasti-
cally reduced with axial filaments (Fig. 11(b)) of mesh type
promoters. Axial filaments of ‘T11’ distributed fluid stream
into the restricted sections between wall and consecutive
transverse sections. Fluid in contact with axial filaments will
introduce additional swirling motion in axial direction which
will combine with swirls of transverse filaments. The com-
bined effect of these swirls improved mixing and higher Sh
number. Even at lower Re (<200), mesh type promoters (T11)
showed higher Sh number compared to all other geometries
investigated here. In spite of higher Sh (LCD values) these pro-
moters would be less preferred because of higher Pn values
(Fig. 26).
3.2.4. Role of conducting spacer
Mostly promoters discussed so far are commonly made up
of non-conducting PP (polypropylene) materials and they are
impermeable to electric (ion) field which leads to higher
resistance and power consumption in ED module (Balster
et al., 2010; Dlugolecki et al., 2010; Shahi et al., 2001). Thus,
these spacers limit/block effective membrane area required
for ion transport (known as shadow effect). This shadow effect
of non-conducting spacers cannot be overcome by improv-
ing flow hydrodynamics (Dlugolecki et al., 2010). Thus, ion
conducting spacers are used to eliminate shadow effect. Con-
ducting TT showed higher Sh (∼1.5 times) and Pn values (nearly
1–1.5%) compared to non-conducting ‘T2’ type promoter of
same spacing and orientation (Fig. 26). Sh values of CTT pro-
moters were almost 80% higher compared to empty channel.
4. Conclusions
Introduction of flow promoters inside rectangular flow chan-
nel could effectively reduce concentration polarization and
improved ion transport. COMSOL simulations (velocity pro-
file or fluid mixing pattern and pressure drop) of 39 promoter
geometries of various shapes (rod, TT, VG, helical screw), ori-
entation and spacing served as preliminary tool to select the
right promoter geometry. Simulation results of velocity pro-
files and pressure drop estimation with each geometry could
drastically reduce time, energy and fabrication cost and dif-
ficulties. Performance analysis (based on Sh and Pn) of 14
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411 409

geometries (best performed geometries obtained from simula- (No. IITR/SRIC/244/FIG-Sch-A), India and Uchhatar Avishkar
tions) appeared promising were designed in house to estimate Yojana project (ICSR/UAY/2016/SN dt.04/01/2017), India.
LCD values. LCD’s were strong function of flow rate, promoter
geometries and orientation. With flow rate variation from 5 L/h Appendix A.
to 20 L/h (Re = 67–267), LCD almost doubled. Sh increased with
reduced spacing of promoters but, at the cost of pressure drop Computational details and Validation
i.e., higher Pn. VG, helical screw, mesh and TT geometries could
effectively reduce concentration polarization compared to rod ®
COMSOL Multiphysics uses finite element method for solv-
type promoters. TT generated swirling motion due to longi- ing PDEs used to represent ED flow profiles in this report.
tudinal and transverse movement of vortices. These vortices Laminar flow interface is used to estimate pressure drop
moved towards boundaries and interrupted concentration occurring with flow promoters. Navier–Stokes equations (Eqs.
polarization layer. Horizontal TT, ‘T2’ (˛ = 90◦ ) performed bet- (A1–A3)) are used to solve momentum transport in the chan-
ter at lower Re with low pressure drop. In spite of higher Sh nel with incompressible fluid. 3D geometries containing flow
number with ‘T11’ these should not be preferred due to high promoter (of each type) placed inside an empty channel
Pn. At lower Re (≤134), transverse orientation of TT, ‘T8’ (˛ = 0◦ ) (8 cm × 4 cm × 0.5 cm) were constructed in COMSOL. As per
and inverted rectangular winglet ‘I4’ (IRW, ˛ = 0◦ ) promoters experimental conditions, inlet velocity and outlet pressure
showed nearly similar performance while at higher Re ‘T8’ were defined for each constructed geometry and no slip con-
showed higher Sh and Pn but ‘I4’ indicated lower Sh and Pn. dition was assumed over flow promoter to solve PDEs. This
Thus, at higher Re, ‘I4’ would be preferred over ‘T8’. procedure was repeated with four different inlet velocities for
Comparing horizontal and vertical orientations of TT and each promoter type.
VG promoters, ‘I2’ (IRW, ˛ = 90◦ ) performed better (higher Sh
along with nominal rise in Pn) than remaining geometries (T2,
   ∂u 
∂2 ux ∂2 ux x ∂ux ∂p
T8 and I4) at lower Re. ‘I2’ produced longitudinal vortices that  + =  ux + uy + (A1)
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x ∂y ∂x
lasted for longer duration along the length of promoter while
‘I4’ produced transverse vortices which diffused into the fluid    ∂u 
∂2 uy ∂2 uy y ∂uy ∂p
stream thus short lived. This resulted in above performance  + =  ux + uy + (A2)
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x ∂y ∂y
‘I2’ over ‘I4’. Thus, vortex generators performed better when
placed horizontal (to flow direction).
∂ux ∂uy
Helical screw with vertical orientation, ‘SV1b’ (˛ = 0◦ ) + =0 (A3)
∂x ∂y
showed higher Sh and Pn compared to horizontal arrange-
ment, ‘S1b’ (˛ = 90◦ ). Higher Pn values (pressure drop) with
Model equations (e.g., laminar flow physics) were solved
vertical arrangement ‘S1b’ would perform better in the long
by constructing appropriate mesh (discretization of model
term application. Horizontal arrangement of screw type pro-
geometry into small elements). In COMSOL, a default (pre-
moters (S1b) performed better than TT (T2) with a small trade
set/pre-defined) physics controlled mesh is available for
off in pressure drop. Both helical screw and TT promoters
discretization. Alternatively, user-controlled meshing option
produced swirl motion but the former produced along axial
is also available. Using this option, it is possible to construct
direction while axial and radial directions and lower intensi-
and control mesh parameters e.g. mesh size, number and
ties with the later. This resulted in better performance with
shape of mesh elements with reference to constructed geome-
screw promoters over TT.
try. For validating a model, mesh resolution and mesh element
quality aspects are looked into before solving.
Acknowledgements Earlier Tadimeti et al. (2016) discussed about the problem
of inconsistent solution convergence during computational
Financial support to execute the experimental work is grate- solving of 2D rectangular channel with membrane corruga-
fully acknowledged to Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee tions and netted spacer with fine mesh configuration. They

Fig. A1 – Comparison of element quality histograms for different mesh configurations (extra coarse, coarse, normal, fine
®
and user defined mesh) obtained from mesh statistics of COMSOL Multiphysics .
410 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411
Table A1 – Variation of number of mesh elements,
predicted mean pressure drop and % difference in
pressure drop for different mesh configurations at Re 276
(for inverted rectangular winglet geometry oriented in
the flow direction).
Mesh configurations Number of Pressure drop % difference
mesh (Pa) in pressure
elements drop
Extra Coarse 96,141 1.793 8.23
Coarse 5,03,014 1.712 3.38
Normal 11,46,319 1.690 2.05
Fine 27,01,989 1.666 0.56
User defined mesh 7,27,220 1.657 –
reported spatial discretization, convergence of iterative pro-
cedure, computer round-off and programming errors were
responsible for insufficient convergence. It is well known that
the low mesh quality and mesh resolution leads to conver-
gence issues. COMSOL is having pre-set mesh size settings
ranging from extremely coarse to extremely fine and the
default available mesh size is normal. Selection of smaller
mesh size element often overcome convergence issues but,
obviously with increased computation memory and time.
Therefore, adaptive mesh (refines/adjusts mesh element size
based on error or problems physical behaviour) or user con-
trolled mesh are preferred (Fairclough, n.d.; Comsol, 2012).
User-controlled mesh are used to reduce computational time
where mesh is manually constructed in which mesh quality,
number and element type are appropriately chosen to improve
accuracy (Comsol, 2012).
Model convergence and accuracy
Appropriate mesh selection was chosen by carrying sim-
ulations with extra coarse, coarse, normal, fine and user
defined mesh configurations. Mesh quality and resolution
(governing factors for solution convergence and accu-
racy) for above mentioned meshes were compared from
mesh statistics data and mesh element quality histogram
shown in Fig. A1. User-controlled mesh was found to have
higher element quality compared to other predefined mesh
types.
Careful selection of maximum and minimum element size,
maximum element growth rate, resolution of curvature, res-
olution of narrow regions in user-controlled mesh, is possible
to achieve higher element quality (Fig. A1). Number of mesh
elements, pressure drop and the % variation in pressure drop
occurring with each mesh type were compared with reference
to user defined mesh (Table A1). It was found that about 7, 27,
220 mesh elements in total would be enough to obtain higher
element quality mesh for user-controlled mesh constructed
for inverted rectangular winglet geometry oriented in the flow
direction than 11,46,319 and 27,01,989 mesh elements with a
% pressure drop difference of 2.05% and 0.56% for normal, fine
mesh respectively (Table A1).
References
Balster, J., Punt, I., Stamatialis, D., Wessling, M., 2006. Multi-layer
spacer geometries with improved mass transport. J. Memb.
Sci. 282, 351–361.
Balster, J., Stamatialis, D.F., Wessling, M., 2009. Towards spacer
free electrodialysis. J. Memb. Sci. 341, 131–138,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.05.048.
Balster, J., Stamatialis, D.F., Wessling, M., 2010. Membrane with
integrated spacer. J. Memb. Sci. 360, 185–189,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.05.011.
Campione, A., Gurreri, L., Ciofalo, M., Micale, G., Tamburini, A.,
Cipollina, A., 2018. Electrodialysis for water desalination: a
critical assessment of recent developments on process
fundamentals, models and applications. Desalination 434,
121–160, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.12.044.
Chandra, A., Bhuvanesh, E., Mandal, P., Chattopadhyay, S., 2018a.
Surface modification of anion exchange membrane using
layer-by-layer polyelectrolytes deposition facilitating
monovalent organic acid transport. Colloids Surf. A
Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 558, 579–590,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.09.013.
Chandra, A., Tadimeti, J.G.D., Chattopadhyay, S., 2018b. Transport
hindrances with electrodialytic recovery of citric acid from
solution of strong electrolytes. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 26, 278–292,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2017.05.010.
Chandra, A., Tadimeti, J.G.D., Bhuvanesh, E., Pathiwada, D.,
Chattopadhyay, S., 2018c. Switching selectivity of carboxylic
acids and associated physico-chemical changes with pH
during electrodialysis of ternary mixtures. Sep. Purif. Technol.
193, 327–344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.10.048.
Chandra, A., Bhuvanesh, E., Chattopadhyay, S., 2019.
Physicochemical interactions of organic acids influencing
microstructure and permselectivity of anion exchange
membrane. Colloids Surf. A 560, 260–269,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2018.10.029.
Comsol, 2012. Comsol Multiphysics User’s Guide.
Da Costa, A.R., Fane, A.G., 1994. Net-type spacers effect of
configuration on fluid flow path and ultrafiltration flux. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 33, 1845–1851,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie00031a026.
Dlugolecki, P., Dabrowska, J., Nijmeijer, K., Wessling, M., 2010. Ion
conductive spacers for increased power generation in reverse
electrodialysis. J. Memb. Sci. 347, 101–107,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.10.011.
Eiamsa-ard, S., Promvonge, P., 2005. Enhancement of heat
transfer in a tube with regularly-spaced helical tape swirl
generators. Sol. Energy 78, 483–494,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2004.09.021.
Eiamsa-ard, S., Promvonge, P., 2010. Performance assessment in a
heat exchanger tube with alternate clockwise and
counter-clockwise twisted-tape inserts. Int. J. Heat Mass
Trans. 53, 1364–1372,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.12.023.
Eiamsa-ard, C., 2010. Turbulent heat transfer enhancement by
counter/co-swirling flow in a tube fitted with twin twisted
tapes, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 34, 53–62,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2009.09.002.
Fairclough C., Efficiently Mesh Your Model Geometry with
Meshing Sequences | COMSOL Blog, (August 18, 2016).
https://www.comsol.com/blogs/efficiently-mesh-your-model-
geometry-with-meshing-sequences/.
Fiebig, M., 1998. Vortices, generators and heat transfer. Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 76, 108–123,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/026387698524686.
Fimbres-Weihs, G.A., Wiley, D.E., 2010. Review of 3D CFD
modeling of flow and mass transfer in narrow spacer-filled
channels in membrane modules. Chem. Eng. Process. Process
Intensif. 49, 759–781,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2010.01.007.
Geraldes, V., Semião, V., De Pinho, M.N., 2002. Flow management
in nanofiltration spiral wound modules with ladder-type
spacers. J. Memb. Sci. 203, 87–102,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(01)00753-0.
Gu, B., Adjiman, C.S., Xu, X.Y., 2017. The effect of feed spacer
geometry on membrane performance and concentration
polarisation based on 3D CFD simulations. J. Memb. Sci. 527,
78–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.058.
Guan, R., Dai, H., Li, C., Liu, J., Xu, J., 2006. Effect of casting solvent
on the morphology and performance of sulfonated
 Chemical Engineering Research and Design 1 4 2 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 386–411
polyethersulfone membranes. J. Memb. Sci. 277, 148–156,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.10.025.
Gurreri, L., Tamburini, A., Cipollina, A., Micale, G., Ciofalo, M.,
2014. CFD prediction of concentration polarization
phenomena in spacer-filled channels for reverse
electrodialysis. J. Memb. Sci. 468, 133–148.
Jacobi, A.M., 1777. Heat transfer surface enhancement through
the use of longitudinal vortices: a review of recent progress.
Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 1995, 295–309.
Korngold, E., Aronov, L., Kedem, O., 1998. Novel ion-exchange
spacer for improving electrodialysis. I. Reacted spacer. J.
Memb. Sci. 138, 165–170,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(97)00216-0.
Koutsou, C.P., Yiantsios, S.G., Karabelas, A.J., 2009. A numerical
and experimental study of mass transfer in spacer-filled
channels: effects of spacer geometrical characteristics and
Schmidt number. J. Memb. Sci. 326, 234–251,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.10.007.
Krol, J.J., Wessling, M., Strathmann, H., 1999. Concentration
polarization with monopolar ion exchange membranes:
current–voltage curves and water dissociation. J. Memb. Sci.
162, 145–154.
Lee, H.J., Strathmann, H., Moon, S.H., 2006. Determination of the
limiting current density in electrodialysis desalination as an
empirical function of linear velocity. Desalination 190, 43–50.
Leu, J.S., Wu, Y.H., Jang, J.Y., 2004. Heat transfer and fluid flow
analysis in plate-fin and tube heat exchangers with a pair of
block shape vortex generators. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 47,
4327–4338,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.04.031.
Li, F., Meindersma, W., De Haan, A.B., Reith, T., 2005. Novel
spacers for mass transfer enhancement in membrane
separations. J. Memb. Sci. 253, 1–12.
Novalic, S., Jagschits, F., Okwor, J., Kulbe, K.D., 1995. Behaviour of
citric acid during electrodialysis. J. Memb. Sci. 108, 201–205.
Novalic, S., Okwor, J., Kulbe, K.D., 1996. The characteristics of
citric acid separation using electrodialysis with bipolar
membranes. Desalination 105, 277–282.
Saeed, A., Vuthaluru, R., Yang, Y., Vuthaluru, H.B., 2012. Effect of
feed spacer arrangement on flow dynamics through spacer
filled membranes. Desalination 285, 163–169,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.09.050.
Saha, P., Biswas, G., Sarkar, S., 2014. Comparison of winglet-type
vortex generators periodically deployed in a plate-fin heat
exchanger — a synergy based analysis. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans.
74, 292–305,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.03.015.
Santos, J.L.C., Geraldes, V., Velizarov, S., Crespo, J.G., 2007.
Investigation of flow patterns and mass transfer in membrane
411
module channels filled with flow-aligned spacers using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). J. Memb. Sci. 305,
103–117, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2007.07.036.
Schwinge, J., Wiley, D.E., Fane, A.G., Guenther, R., 2000.
Characterization of a zigzag spacer for ultrafiltration. J. Memb.
Sci. 172, 19–31,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(00)00312-4.
Schwinge, J., Wiley, D.E., Fane, A.G., 2004. Novel spacer design
improves observed flux. J. Memb. Sci. 229, 53–61,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2003.09.015.
Seo, J., Mi, Y., Ha, J., 2017. Spacer optimization strategy for direct
contact membrane distillation: shapes, configurations,
diameters, and numbers of spacer filaments. Desalination
417, 9–18.
Shahi, V.K., Thampy, S.K., Rangarajan, R., 2001. The effect of
conducting spacers on transport properties of ion-exchange
membranes in electrodriven separation. Desalination 133,
245–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00105-9.
Shaposhnik, V.A., Grigorchuk, O.V., Korzhov, E.N., Vasil’ eva, V.I.,
Klimov, V.Y., 1998. The effect of ion-conducting spacers on
mass transfer–numerical analysis and concentration field
visualization by means of laser interferometry. J. Memb. Sci.
139, 85–96.
Shrivastava, A., Kumar, S., Cussler, E.L., 2008. Predicting the effect
of membrane spacers on mass transfer. J. Memb. Sci. 323,
247–256, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.05.060.
Song, L., Ma, S., 2005. Numerical studies of the impact of spacer
geometry on concentration polarization in spiral wound
membrane modules. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44, 7638–7645,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie048795w.
Strathmann, H., 2004. Ion-Exchange Membrane Separation
Processes, 1st ed. Elsevier.
Strathmann, H., 2010. Electrodialysis, a mature technology with a
multitude of new applications. Desalination 264, 268–288.
Tadimeti, J.G.D., Chattopadhyay, S., 2016. Uninterrupted swirling
motion facilitating ion transport in electrodialysis.
Desalination 392, 54–62.
Tadimeti, J.G.D., Kurian, V., Chandra, A., Chattopadhyay, S., 2016.
Corrugated membrane surfaces for effective ion transport in
electrodialysis. J. Memb. Sci. 499, 418–428.
Torii, K., Kwak, K.M., Nishino, K., 2002. Heat transfer
enhancement accompanying pressure-loss reduction with
winglet-type vortex generators for fin-tube heat exchangers.
Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 45, 3795–3801,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0017-9310(02)00080-7.
Wu, J.M., Tao, W.Q., 2012. Effect of longitudinal vortex generator
on heat transfer in rectangular channels. Appl. Therm. Eng.
37, 67–72,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.01.002.