See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349361916

The Effect of Working Temperature on the Performance of Water Desalination

Using Forward Osmosis: A CFD Study

Conference Paper · November 2020

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2020-23577

CITATIONS READS

0 50

5 authors, including:

Ahmed Alshwairekh Umar Alqsair

Qassim University Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
15 PUBLICATIONS   60 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anas Alwatban
Qassim University
17 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analyses and characterization of micro-hydrokinetic turbine View project

Thermochemical Energy Storage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Alshwairekh on 04 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 2020 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
IMECE2020
November 16-19, 2020, Portland, Oregon, USA

IMECE2020-23577
The Effect of Working Temperature on The Performance of Water
Desalination Using Forward Osmosis – A CFD study

Ahmed M. Alshwairekh b, * Umar F. Alqsair a, c

b Mechanical Engineering Department, College of
Engineering, Qassim University
Qassim 52571, SAUDI ARABIA
*Corresponding Author: shoierkh@qu.edu.sa
a P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied
Science, Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
c
b Mechanical Engineering Department, College
of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz
University, Alkharj 11942, SAUDI ARABIA

Anas M. Alwatban b Justin Caspar a

b Mechanical Engineering Department, College of b P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied
Engineering, Qassim University Science, Lehigh University
Qassim 52571, SAUDI ARABIA Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA

Alparslan Oztekin a
a
P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied
Science, Lehigh University, PA 18015, USA

ABSTRACT
NOMENCLATURE
Computational fluid dynamics simulations for water
desalination using forward osmosis were conducted on a flat
membrane module. In the simulations, the effect of the porous A pure water permeability 𝑚(𝑠 𝑃𝑎)−1
support layer is assumed negligible. The simulations were
performed with two values of flow rate such that the Reynolds B solute permeation 𝑚 𝑠 −1
number equals 200 and 800 in each channel. The working coefficient
temperatures of both the feed and the draw solutions were varied C solute concentration 𝑘𝑔 𝑚−3
from 20 °𝐶 to 40 °𝐶. The feed solution had a concentration of c solute mass fraction −1
𝑘𝑔𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑘𝑔𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡
0.00355 solute mass fraction while the draw concentration was 𝐷 Solute diffusion 𝑚2 𝑠1−
set to 0.0355 solute mass fraction. In all simulations, the laminar coefficient
model was utilized. The results of the simulations suggest that
the osmotic pressure is not the only factor that affects the water 𝑑ℎ hydraulic diameter 𝑚
flux in forward osmosis when there is a temperature difference ε porous layer porosity -
between the two sides of the membrane. The solution properties h feed and draw channel 𝑚
have a significant effect on the separation process. As the height
solution temperature increases, the viscosity decreases, which in
𝐽𝑤 suction rate 𝑚 𝑠 −1
turn increases the water permeation through the membrane. The
feed temperature had a more substantial influence on the water 𝐽𝑠 reverse solute flux 𝑘𝑔 𝑚−2 𝑠 −1
flux compared to the draw temperature. Also, the effect of K solute resistivity 𝑠 𝑚−1
changing the flow rate did not change the results substantially. coefficient
𝜇 fluid viscosity 𝑃𝑎 𝑠
p pressure 𝑃𝑎

1
 𝜋 osmotic pressure 𝑃𝑎
coefficient
Re Reynolds number - the decrease of concentration on the draw side are termed
𝑡𝑠 Porous layer thickness 𝑚
𝜏 tortuosity of porous layer - of external concentration polarizations such as increasing the
𝜌 density of fluid 𝑘𝑔 𝑚−3
U Velocity vector 𝑚 𝑠 −1
𝑢̅ average inlet velocity 𝑚 𝑠 −1
xyz Cartesian coordinates m
Subscripts
dB draw bulk
fB feed bulk
f feed solution
d draw solution
INTRODUCTION
Freshwater availability is a major concern in many
countries. Water desalination is the main method in overcoming
the shortages of freshwater supply. Several methods are in use
today to produce pure water for human consumption. The main
concern in such methods is the energy consumption involved.
One way to reduce the cost of water desalination is to utilize the
natural resources available. Forward Osmosis (FO) utilizes the
natural phenomenon of osmosis. When osmosis is utilized, the
use of other energy resources is reduced substantially.
The concept of water desalination using FO systems relies
on the presence of a semipermeable membrane that separates two
channels. The first channel holds the feed solution while the
second channel has the draw solution. The feed solution might
be any solution that needs purification. The draw solution should
possess several characteristics for better utilization of FO
systems. The draw solution must have a higher osmotic pressure
than the feed solution. The chemical composition of the draw
solution should be safe for the environment. The phenomenon of
the reverse solute flux is inevitable in FO systems, and part of
the draw solution will sweep through the membrane to the feed
solution. Therefore, part of the draw solution will be discarded
with the brine of the feed solution. Also, the re-concentration of
draw solution should be more accessible. With the difference in
osmotic pressure across the membrane. Pure water will permeate
through the membrane from the feed channel to the draw side.
The water will continue to permeate until the concentration level
between the two channels equalizes. However, since there is a
continuous flow of both streams, the inlet concentration
difference continues to be constant.
As the water permeates to the draw side, the salt will tend to
accumulate on the membrane surface in the feed side. The salt
accumulation will increase the osmotic pressure of the feed side,
causing a decrease in the water flux locally. On the draw side, as
the pure water permeates to the draw channel, the water will
2
dilute the draw solution causing a decrease in the osmotic
pressure. The increase of the concentration in the feed side and
external concentrative and dilutive concentration polarizations,
respectively. Several remedies are possible to reduce the effect
flow rate of the feed and draw solutions or by introducing mixing
promoters. The authors introduced several innovative designs of
mixing promoters in previous publications such as corrugated
membranes and embedded spacers [1–4].
The membrane is composed primarily of an active dense
separation layer and a porous support layer. This kind of
membrane is asymmetric, and the position of the membrane
relative to the feed or draw side is important. In water
desalination systems, the porous layer is usually facing the draw
side. This setup reduces the potential of scaling formation inside
the porous layer, which is difficult to be removed. However, this
orientation causes what is termed internal dilutive concentration
polarization. If the porous layer is oriented to the feed side, the
internal dilutive concentration polarization is avoided. However,
the risk of internal concentrative concentration polarization
increases.
The porous layer design is crucial for better performance in
FO systems. The thickness of the porous layer, the porosity, and
the tortuosity of the porous layer are important variables to be
considered. Increasing the porosity, reducing the thickness, and
tailoring the pores to be cylindrical will help in water permeation
through the porous layer. The optimum membrane design in FO
systems is to eliminate the use of the porous layer. This treatment
will give low values for the membrane structural parameter.
In most FO systems, the operation of the water desalination
unit is assumed to be isothermal, and the effect of temperature is
ignored. However, the temperature of the feed or draw solutions
has a direct effect on the value of the osmotic pressure. Based on
the Van’t Hoff’s equation, the osmotic pressure increases with
increasing the temperature. Therefore, it is suggested to heat the
draw solution while maintaining a low temperature for the feed
solution. This treatment will create an increase in the osmotic
pressure difference across the membrane. However, having a
temperature difference across the membrane will initiate a heat
transfer from the draw to the feed side. Also, the temperature
variation will alter the membrane permeability of the membrane.
Several researchers have studied the effect of working
temperature on FO water desalination systems [5–10]. Zhao et
al. [5] studied the effect of operating temperature on the
separation efficiency and scaling in FO systems. They have
found that increasing the temperature created higher values of
water flux but higher scaling on the membrane surface. Phuntsho
et al. [6] also investigated the effect of working temperatures on
the performance of FO systems. They concluded that increasing
the temperature of the draw solution is better than that of the feed
solution. Also, the water flux increased by 1.2% every 1 °𝐶
increase in temperature. You et al. [7] studied the effect of the
working temperature on the performance of FO desalination
units. Their findings indicated a higher water flux in the range of The fluid viscosity is taken as a function of temperature and salt
temperatures between 20 – 40 °𝐶. Xie et al. [8] studied the mass fraction
effect of temperature change on two FO membranes. In the
temperature range between 20 − 40 °𝐶, the structure of the
𝜇 = 0.001𝑙𝑛 (−3.79418
membrane did not change. However, the properties of the feed 604.129 (6)
and draw solutions changed drastically. Kim et al. [9] studied the + ) (1
139.18 + 𝑇
effect of temperature on the fouling mechanisms of FO systems. + 𝐴𝜇 𝑐 + 𝐵𝜇 𝑐 2 )
It was seen that the flux decreased with increasing the draw
temperature. Also, less fouling was observed with higher feed
solutions. Hawari et al. [10] experimentally studied several
and is valid for the temperature ranging from 20 ℃ to 180 ℃
parameters on the performance of FO systems; one of them was
the effect of feed and draw temperatures. They concluded that and for the salinity ranging from 0 to 130 𝑔 𝑘𝑔−1 . Here 𝐴𝜇 =
the water flux increased linearly when the draw solution is in the 1.474 × 10−3 + 1.5 × 10−6 𝑇 − 3.927 × 10−8 𝑇 2 and 𝐵𝜇 =
range of 20 − 26 °𝐶 and started to decrease after 26 °𝐶. 1.073 × 10−5 − 8.5 × 10−8 𝑇 + 2.23 × 10−10 𝑇 2 are
temperature-dependent functions [11].
The objective of this article is to investigate the effect of the
The water flux in FO systems without the effect of the
inlet feed and draw temperatures on the performance of the FO
porous support layer can be modeled as
water desalination system with two different Reynolds numbers.
Computational fluid dynamic simulations will be utilized for the
investigation. The performance of the FO system is estimated 𝐽𝑤 = 𝐴(𝜋𝑑,𝑚 − 𝜋𝑓,𝑚 ) (7)
based on the level of the water flux.
where 𝐴 is the pure water permeability of the membrane. 𝜋𝑑,𝑚
MATHEMATICAL MODEL and 𝜋𝑓,𝑚 are the osmotic pressures across the semi-permeable
The flow field inside the flow channels is resolved using the membrane calculated at the membrane interface at the draw and
conservation of mass and the momentum equations. The solute feed side, respectively. The pure water permeability is assumed
transport is modeled by employing a suitable transport equation. to vary with temperature according to the following relation
The feed and draw solutions temperature vary, and the
temperature variation is modeled using the conservation of 𝐷𝐶𝑊 𝑉𝑊
𝐴= (8)
energy. The density of the aqueous solution varies with the mass 𝛿𝑚 𝑅𝑇
fraction. The conservation of mass is
∂ where 𝐶𝑊 = 0.18 𝑔⁄𝑐𝑚3 is the water molar concentration,
(ρ𝑢j ) = 0 (1) 𝑉𝑊 = 18 𝑐𝑚3 ⁄𝑚𝑜𝑙, 𝐷 is the effective water molecule
𝜕𝑥𝑗
diffusivity inside the active layer of the membrane, and it is given
The momentum equation is as
𝜕𝑢𝑖 𝜕 𝜕𝑢𝑖 𝜕𝑢𝑗 𝜕𝑝 4
𝜌𝑢𝑗 = [𝜇 ( + )] − (2) 𝑑𝑠
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝐷 = 𝐷𝑎𝑝𝑝 (1 − ) (9)
𝑑𝑝
The mass transport equation is
𝜕𝑐 𝜕 𝜕𝑐 where 𝑑𝑠 = 4.0 Å and 𝑑𝑝 = 7.2 Å are the diameters of the
𝜌𝑢𝑗 = (𝜌𝐷𝐴𝐵 ) (3) water molecule and the membrane pores, respectively. 𝐷𝑎𝑝𝑝 is
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗
the apparent diffusivity given as:
The energy equation is
𝜕𝑇 𝑘 𝜕 𝜕𝑇 9.4 × 10−15 𝑇
𝑢𝑗 = (4) 𝐷𝑎𝑝𝑝 = 1 3 ⁄ (10)
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜌𝑐𝑝 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜇𝑊 𝑀𝑊
where 𝜌 is density, 𝜇 is viscosity, c is the solute mass fraction,
The solute diffusion coefficient is an important parameter in FO
𝐷𝐴𝐵 is the solute diffusion coefficient, p is the pressure, 𝑘 is the
systems and should be taken as a function of the solution
thermal conductivity, 𝑐𝑝 is the specific heat and 𝑢𝑖 is the velocity
temperature. Equation (10) is consistent with the Stokes-Einstein
vector, 𝑖 and 𝑗 are tensorial indices. relationship as:
The feed and the draw solution considered in the simulations
are NaCl of different concentrations. The properties of NaCl as 𝑘𝑏 𝑇
a function of solute concentration are taken to be: 𝐷= (11)
6𝜋𝑟𝜌𝜇𝑘
𝜌 = 997.1 + 694 𝑐 (5)

3
where 𝑘𝑏 is the Boltzman constant, 𝜇𝑊 is the kinematic viscosity 1−𝑅
𝐵= |𝐽𝑤 | (17)
of NaCl solution, 𝑇 is the solution temperature, 𝜌 is the density 𝑅
of the solution, and r is the ion radius.
where, 𝑅 is the salt rejection coefficient, and 𝐵 is approximated
The pure water permeability can be obtained experimentally as constant with the value of 1.42 × 10−6 𝑚 𝑠 −1 .
or estimated using Eq. 9. However, Eq .9 is developed for RO
membranes, and care should be given for using it in FO The boundary conditions imposed on the membrane surface
membranes. To obtain the value if the pure water permeability as are
a function of solution temperature and diffusivity, the following
function can be derived using equation (8): 𝜕𝑐
−𝜌𝐷𝐴𝐵 + 𝜌𝑐𝐽𝑤 = 𝐽𝑠 ,
𝜕𝑦
𝐷 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝜕𝑇
𝐴 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓 (12) 𝑘𝑓 = (𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 + 𝑄̇𝑠 − 𝑄̇𝑤 ) (18)
𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑇 𝜕𝑦
where 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 is a reference temperature given as 293 K, 𝐷𝑟𝑒𝑓 is the 𝑣 = 𝐽𝑤 = 𝐴(𝜋𝑑,𝑚 − 𝜋𝑓,𝑚 ),
solution diffusion coefficient calculated at the reference 𝑢 = 0 , and 𝑤 = 0.
temperature, and 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓 is the pure water permeability determined
𝑘
at the reference temperature. The temperature-dependent where 𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚 (𝑇𝑚,𝑑 − 𝑇𝑚,𝑓 ), 𝑄̇𝑠 = 𝐽𝑠 𝑐𝑝𝑑 (𝑇𝑚,𝑑 − 𝑇𝑚,𝑓 ),
𝛿
viscosity given in equation (6) is used for calculating the and 𝑄̇𝑤 = 𝐽𝑤 𝑐𝑝𝑤 (𝑇𝑚,𝑑 − 𝑇𝑚,𝑓 ).
permeability at a given temperature. The boundary conditions imposed at the channel walls are
The osmotic pressure of both the feed and the draw solutions no-slip, no-penetration,
𝜕𝑐
= 0 , and
𝜕𝑇
= 0. The periodic
can be calculated based on the Van’t Hoff’s equation as a 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦

function of both the solution concentration and temperature as boundary conditions are applied at the side walls

NUMERICAL MODEL
𝜋 = 𝐶𝑅𝑇 (13)
The value of the pure water permeability was assumed to be
variable with temperature and solute diffusivity. The reference
If the effect of the porous support layer is included, then a
modified version of the solution diffusion model can be used as pure water permeability was taken as 2.0 × 10−12 𝑚⁄(𝑠 ∙ 𝑃𝑎).
In the current work, the effect of the porous support layer of the
membrane is assumed to be negligible. Recently several FO
1 𝐵 + 𝐴𝜋𝑑,𝑖
𝐽𝑤 = 𝑙𝑛 ( ) (14) membranes have been fabricated without the presence of the
𝐾 𝐵 + |𝐽𝑤 | + 𝐴𝜋𝑓,𝑚 porous support layer [13]. The feed solution concentration is
taken as brackish water with a 0.004 solute mass fraction
In the equation above, B is the solute permeation coefficient, K (4,000 𝑝𝑝𝑚) and a draw solution of a solute mass fraction of
is the diffusion resistivity coefficient given as 0.0355 (35,000 𝑝𝑝𝑚). The inlet feed and draw temperatures
𝑡𝑠 𝜏 𝑡𝑠 𝜏 were varied from 20 °𝐶 to 40 °𝐶. The flow rate in both channels
𝐾= , 𝑆 = 𝐾𝐷𝐴𝐵 = (15) was changed twice as Reynolds number of 200 and 800. In both
𝐷𝐴𝐵 𝜀 𝜀
cases, the laminar model was utilized. Most real membrane
where 𝑆 is the membrane structural parameter, 𝑡𝑠 is the porous systems operate in this range of 𝑅𝑒 numbers [14,15].
support layer thickness, 𝜀 is the porosity, and 𝜏 is the tortuosity
of the pores in the porous layer. Note that the solute diffusivity The simulations were conducted using Ansys Fluent 17.1.
is a function of concentration and temperature, as described by The flux equation (Eq. 7) was utilized by employing a suitable
Eq. 12. user-defined function in which the flow field variables, along
with the temperature and concentration, were coupled together.
The solute in the draw solution can enter the feed channel A second-order upwind scheme was used for the governing
which is undesirable, and it is termed as the solute reverse flux equations with the SIMPLE scheme. The absolute residual
which can be modeled using the solution-diffusion equation as convergence criteria of 10−3 was applied.
[12]
𝐵 The domain of the simulation is given in Fig. 1. The two
𝐽𝑠 = − 𝐽 (16) channels are modeled as a counter-current flow. The bottom
∅. 𝐴 𝑤 channels hold the feed solution while the upper channel has the
In Eqn. (16), the proportionality factor ∅ = 805 × draw solution. The FO membrane separates the two channels in
102 𝑃𝑎 𝑚3 𝑘𝑔−1 . The negative sign indicates that the solute flux the middle. The height of each channel is given as ℎ, the length
is opposing the water flux. It is desired to have a low solute of the simulated module is 40ℎ, the width of the module is 5ℎ.
permeation coefficient and a high-water permeability In the simulation, ℎ was taken as 1 𝑚𝑚.
coefficient. The solute permeation coefficient is estimated using

4

Fig. 1 The domain of the simulated FO module
The domain was discretized uniformly. Inflation layers were
utilized near the membrane surface on both sides of the
membrane. The first layer thickness was set to 5 × 10−6 𝑚 with
a growth rate of 1.2 𝑚 and 5 inflation layers. The number of
mesh elements is 2 million elements. Several mesh studies were
utilized in our previous studies [16,17]
Fig. 2(b) shows the water flux variation along the membrane
surface as the draw solution temperature is fixed, and the feed
solution temperature is allowed to vary. The bottom curve is
identical to the bottom curve shown in Fig. 2(a) since the system
is isothermal. The effect of changing the feed temperature on the
water flux is greater than changing the draw temperature. The
local values of the water flux over the membrane surface are
higher for the same temperature values used with the draw
solution. Also, the decrease of the local water flux values over
the membrane surface is not as sharp as it is with changing the
draw temperature. This behavior might be attributed to the low
concentration levels in the feed solution, which results in a lower
dynamic viscosity and thus, a higher pure water permeability
coefficient.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In FO systems, the driving force for the water flux through
the membrane is the osmotic pressure difference across the
membrane. The osmotic pressure can be estimated using the
Van’t Hoff’s equation which is a function of concentration and
temperature. Van’t Hoff’s equation suggests that increasing the
draw solution temperature and decreasing the feed solution
temperature will increase the osmotic pressure difference, which a
will result in an increase in the water flux. However, the osmotic
pressure is not the only factor that is affecting the water flux
through the membrane.
Increasing the feed temperature will result in a decrease in
the solution dynamic viscosity. In return, the diffusion of water
through the membrane increases. Several simulations were
conducted to investigate the effect of the working temperatures
in the feed and draw solutions with two different flow rates on
the produced water flux.
Fig. 2 shows the variation of the water flux along the length
of the membrane surface. In Fig. 2(a) the feed solution
temperature is fixed at 20 °𝐶 while the temperature of the draw
solution is allowed to vary from 20 °𝐶 to 40 °𝐶. The water flux
is lower when the draw solution temperature equals the feed
temperature. The water flux starts high from the draw inlet (at
𝑥/ℎ = 40) and decreases along the membrane surface. In this
case, the system is isothermal, and the decrease in the water flux b
is attributed to the external dilutive and concentrative
concentration polarization. As the water migrates from the feed
side, the concentration of the feed solution increases. Similarly,
the concentration of the draw solution will be diluted due to the
permeation of the water flux to the draw side. This effect is seen
in the figure as 𝑥/ℎ approaches 0.
As the draw solution temperature is increased, the local
variation of water flux increases. The increase in the draw
Fig. 2 The variation of water flux along the membrane surface with
solution temperature decreases the solution viscosity, which fixed flow rates in both channels of Re = 200 for (a) fixed 𝑻𝒇 =
increases the water diffusion through the membrane. As the
𝟐𝟎 °𝑪 and (b) fixed 𝑻𝑫 = 𝟐𝟎 °𝑪
temperature of the draw is increased, further increase of the local
water flux is seen. The trend in the decrease of the water flux
value with the membrane length is similar in all cases. Fig. 3 shows the variation of the local water flux over the
membrane surface at fixed flow rates of 𝑅𝑒 = 800 in both

5
channels. In Fig. 3(a) the feed solution temperature is fixed while
the draw solution temperature is varied. Overall, the effect of
changing the flow rate is not significant. Fig. 2(a) can be
compared with Fig. 3(a); the significant difference can be seen
near 𝑥/ℎ = 0, where the local values of the water flux at 𝑅𝑒 =
800 are higher than lower flow rates. The incremental increase
in the water flux can be attributed to the reduction in the
concentration and temperature boundary layers at a higher flow
rate [18]. We have shown in several of our previous studies a
[2,11,16] that increasing the flow rate indeed increases the
average value of the water flux.
Fig. 3(b) shows the local variation of the water flux over the
membrane surface with fixed feed temperature at 𝑅𝑒 = 800.
The effect of the feed temperature is still dominating the water
flux in the higher flow rate cases. A similar discussion can be
given to the influence of the concentration and temperature
boundary layer on the water flux values. As the flow rate is
increased, the local water flux is higher than 𝑅𝑒 = 200. These
results indicate that the importance of boundary layer destruction
on both sides of the membrane. The boundary layer destruction
can be achieved by utilizing mixing promoters inside the flow
channels.
Table 1 and 2 shows the average area values of
concentration polarization coefficients in the feed and the draw
sides, the temperature polarization coefficients, and the water
flux over the membrane surface for two Reynolds numbers at b
fixed feed and draw solution temperatures, respectively. The
average values can be used to estimate the performance of the
FO system. In isothermal systems, the external concentration
polarization coefficients are preferred to equal to unity. However,
due to the occurrence of polarization, the concentration values
increase in the feed and decrease in the draw sides. The trend
depicted in the tables shows that the average values of the water
flux increase with increasing either the feed or draw solution
temperatures. The feed solution temperature has much more Fig. 3 The variation of water flux along the membrane surface with
influence on water flux values. Also, increasing the flow rate fixed flow rates in both channels of Re = 800 for (a) fixed 𝑻𝒇 =
does not have a significant influence on the parameters shown in 𝟐𝟎 °𝑪 and (b) fixed 𝑻𝑫 = 𝟐𝟎 °𝑪
the tables. The temperature polarization coefficient is low and
increasing the flow rate has helped in increasing the 𝑇𝑃𝐶.
Table 1 Average area values of the concentration and temperature
However, mixing promoters should be used to properly mix the polarization coefficients and the water flux at fixed feed
solution inside the membrane module so that the temperature temperature of 20 °C
polarization is alleviated.
Re = 200 Re = 800
𝑱𝒘
𝑻𝒅 𝑱𝒘
𝑪𝑷𝒇 𝑪𝑷𝑫 𝑻𝑷𝑪 𝑪𝑷𝒇 𝑪𝑷𝑫 𝑻𝑷𝑪
[°𝑪] [𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟐 𝒉]
[𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 ℎ]
20 1.193 0.845 - 24.77 1.119 0.893 - 26.65
25 1.196 0.848 0.789 25.40 1.121 0.895 0.862 27.21
30 1.198 0.849 0.785 26.00 1.122 0.897 0.860 27.76
35 1.201 0.850 0.783 26.61 1.124 0.899 0.858 28.30
40 1.204 0.852 0.780 27.22 1.126 0.900 0.856 28.83

6
Table 2 Average area values of the concentration and temperature REFERENCES
polarization coefficients and the water flux at a fixed draw
temperature of 20 °C [1] A.M. Alshwairekh, A.. Alghafis, A.M. Alwatban, U.F.
Alqasair., A. Oztekin, The effect of membrane and
Re = 200 Re = 800
𝑱𝒘 channel corrugation in forward osmosis membrane
𝑻𝒇 𝑱𝒘
[°𝑪]
𝑪𝑷𝒇 𝑪𝑷𝑫 𝑻𝑷𝑪
[𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟐 𝒉]
𝑪𝑷𝒇 𝑪𝑷𝑫 𝑻𝑷𝑪 modules - Numerical analyses, Desalin. 460 (2019) 41–
[𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚2 ℎ]
20 1.193 0.845 - 24.77 1.119 0.893 - 26.65
55. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.03.003.
25 1.205 0.834 0.790 27.18 1.127 0.884 0.863 29.50 [2] A.M. Alwatban, A.M. Alshwairekh, U.F. Alqsair, A.A.
30 1.248 0.824 0.787 29.63 1.135 0.875 0.862 32.44 Alghafis, A. Oztekin, Performance improvements by
35 1.231 0.813 0.786 32.12 1.143 0.865 0.861 35.43 embedded spacer in direct contact membrane distillation
40 1.242 0.803 0.784 34.66 1.115 0.856 0.860 38.50 – Computational study, Desalination. 470 (2019)
p.114103. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.114103.
CONCLUSION [3] Alwatban, A. M., Alshwairekh, A. M., Alqsair, U. F.,
Krysko, R., Alghafis, A. A., & Oztekin, A. "The effect of
This preliminary study focuses on the effect of working
the embedded spacers on the performance of direct
temperatures in water desalination using FO systems. A flat
contact membrane distillation system operating with
membrane module is used in the simulations with a counter-
different inlet feed temperature." ASME International
current flow setup. The feed and the draw solutions are
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Vol.
comprised of NaCl solution with different levels of
59445. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
concentration. The flow rate in both channels was changed twice
2019. doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2019-10723
so that the Reynolds number equals 200 and 800. The inlet
[4] Alqsair, U. F., Alwatban, A. M., Alshwairekh, A. M.,
temperature of the feed and the draw were varied from 20 °𝐶 to
Krysko, R., Alghafis, A. A., & Oztekin, A. "The Effect
40 °𝐶. Ansys Fluent was utilized in the simulations. The total
of Mixing Promotors on Sweeping Gas Membrane
number of mesh elements used was 2 million elements. Inflation Distillation System Performance." ASME International
layers were used near the membrane surface on both sides of the Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Vol.
membrane. The first layer thickness used was 5 × 10−6 𝑚. The 59445. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
growth rate was set to 1.2 with five layers. The boundary 2019. doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2019-10727
conditions imposed on the membrane surface were made [5] S. Zhao, L. Zou, Effects of working temperature on
possible by employing a user-defined function in Fluent. The separation performance, membrane scaling and cleaning
laminar model was used in all 20 simulations. in forward osmosis desalination, Desalination. 278
(2011) 157–164. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.05.018.
The results of the simulations indicate that the solution [6] S. Phuntsho, S. Vigneswaran, J. Kandasamy, S. Hong, S.
temperature does indeed affect the water flux. The feed solution Lee, H.K. Shon, Influence of temperature and
temperature influence is seen to be dominating the draw solution temperature difference in the performance of forward
temperature. It is to be concluded that the effect of the osmotic osmosis desalination process, J. Memb. Sci. 415 (2012)
pressure is not the only factor affecting the separation process in 734–744. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2012.05.065.
FO when there is a temperature difference between the two sides [7] S.J. You, X.H. Wang, M. Zhong, Y.J. Zhong, C. Yu, N.Q.
of the membrane. The solution properties have a significant Ren, Temperature as a factor affecting transmembrane
effect on the separation process. The dynamic viscosity of NaCl water flux in forward osmosis: Steady-state modeling
decreases as the temperature is increased. The decrease in and experimental validation, Chem. Eng. J. 198–199
viscosity is more substantial with lower concentration. As a (2012) 52–60. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.087.
result, the effect of the feed solution temperature on the water [8] M. Xie, W.E. Price, L.D. Nghiem, M. Elimelech, Effects
flux is more pronounced than the draw solution temperature. The of feed and draw solution temperature and
results presented in this study are preliminary, and further transmembrane temperature difference on the rejection
investigation of the model with proper validation studies will be of trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis, J.
conducted in future publications. Memb. Sci. 438 (2013) 57–64.
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.031.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS [9] Y. Kim, S. Lee, H.K. Shon, S. Hong, Organic fouling
mechanisms in forward osmosis membrane process
This work used the computational resources of the Extreme under elevated feed and draw solution temperatures,
Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) Desalination. 355 (2015) 169–177.
through the National Science Foundation grant (TG- doi:10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.041.
CTS170051). Specifically, the Bridges system at the Pittsburgh [10] A.H. Hawari, N. Kamal, A. Altaee, Combined influence
Supercomputing Center (PSC) is used for simulations. of temperature and flow rate of feeds on the performance
of forward osmosis, Desalination. 398 (2016) 98–105.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.023.

7
[11] A.M. Alwatban, A.M. Alshwairekh, F. Alqsair, A.A.
Alghafis, A. Oztekin, P.C. Rossin, A. Alghafis, Effect of
membrane properties and operational parameters on
systems for seawater desalination using computational
fluid dynamics simulations, Desalin. Water Treat. 161
(2019) 92-107. doi:10.5004/dwt.2019.24275.
[12] M.F. Gruber, C.J. Johnson, C.Y. Tang, M.H. Jensen, L.
Yde, C. Hélix-Nielsen, Computational fluid dynamics
simulations of flow and concentration polarization in
forward osmosis membrane systems, J. Memb. Sci. 379
(2011) 488–495. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2011.06.022.
[13] M. Li, V. Karanikola, X. Zhang, L. Wang, M. Elimelech,
A self-standing, support-free membrane for forward
osmosis with no internal concentration polarization,
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 5 (2018) 266–271.
doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.8b00117.
[14] A.E. Anqi, N. Alkhamis, A. Oztekin, Numerical
simulation of brackish water desalination by a reverse
osmosis membrane, Desalination. 369 (2015) 156–164.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2015.05.007.
[15] M. Park, J.H. Kim, Numerical analysis of spacer impacts
on forward osmosis membrane process using
concentration polarization index, J. Memb. Sci. 427
(2013) 10–20. doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2012.09.045.
[16] Alshwairekh, A. M., Alghafis, A. A., Usta, M.,
Alwatban, A. M., Krysko, R., & Oztekin, A. "The Effect
of Porous Support Layer in Forward Osmosis
Membranes: A Computational Fluid Dynamics
Simulation." ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition. Vol. 52101.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018.
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.03.003
[17] Alshwairekh, A. M., Alghafis, A. A., Alwatban, A. M.,
Alqsair, U. F., & Oztekin, A. (2019). The effects of
membrane and channel corrugations in forward osmosis
membrane modules–Numerical analyses. Desalination,
460, 41-55. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2019.03.003.
[18] U.F. Alqsair, A.M. Alshwairekh, A.M. Alwatban, A.
Oztekin, Computational study of sweeping gas
membrane distillation process – Flux performance and
polarization characteristics, Desalination. 485 (2020)
114444. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2020.114444.

View publication stats