Performance evaluation of Aquaporin forward osmosis membrane using chemical

fertilizers as a draw solution

Mirshekar J.L1, Kamarehie B1*, Jafari A1, Ghaderpoori M1, Karami MA1, Sahebi S2, 3*

1
Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health and Nutrition, Lorestan University of Medical Science

Khorramabad, Iran
2
Environmental Engineering and Management Research Group, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
3
Faculty of Environment and Labour Safety., Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

*
Corresponding Authors: Email: b.kamarehie@lums.ac.ir (B. Kamarehie) and Soleyman Sahebi:

E-mail: soleyman.sahebi@tdtu.edu.vn

Abstract

The performance of a newly commercialized aquaporin (AQP)-based biomimetic forward

osmosis (FO) membrane was evaluated with several commonly used fertilizers ((CO (NH2)2,

KCl, CaCl2, (NH4)2SO4 and (NH4)2HPO4) as a draw solutions (DSs) to verifying the possible

implementation of this AQP-FO membrane in the fertigation industry. Also, DS and feed

solution (FS) concentrations were evaluated under FO and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO)

operation modes. The results showed that CaCl2 seems to be a more suitable DS in terms of the

tradeoff between water flux and salt permeability, compared to the other DSs used in this study.

However, KCl gained the highest performance in terms of water flux which was 13.9 Lm-2 h-1

and 24.1 Lm-2 h-1 in the FO and PRO mode, respectively. The performance of the AQP

membrane in terms of water flux and reverse solute flux can be improved by modifying the

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
10.1002/ep.13536

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

structural and the membrane inhibitor layer characteristics for utilizing in commercial scales to

compete with other available membranes of the FO process.

Keywords: Aquaporin, Biomimetic membrane, Forward osmosis, Desalination.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 1. INTRODUCTION

Increasing demands for freshwater along with a high standard of living and development in

industrial and agricultural sectors would make water a more important commodity even more

than oil in the near future [1]. According to World-watch Institute, by 2025, over two-thirds of

the earth's population will face water shortage which will put mankind's survival at risk [2].

Different desalination and wastewater reclamation methods have been developed during the last

century [3]. The state of the art of the Reverse Osmosis (RO) desalination process has dominated

the desalination technology. However, high energy consumption in this pressure driven

technology, membrane fouling, and brine discharge remain the main obstacles for the RO

process [4, 5]. Recently, researchers have paid more attention to newly emerged technology,

Forward Osmosis (FO), which requires much less energy with sensible advantages and can be

applied in different industries such as fertigation, food processing, pharmaceutical, and

wastewater treatment [6, 7].

FO requires no hydraulic pressure, is less prone to fouling, and more environmentally friendly

compared to other available pressure-driven membrane processes, especially RO [3, 6, 8-11].

This process occurs spontaneously like natural osmosis as osmotic agents generate osmotic

pressure which pulls water molecules from a side of a low concentrated solution across a semi-

permeable membrane [12, 13]. Generally, in the FO process, DSs are required to be separated

and recovered in an additional step when the main objective of the FO desalination process is to

produce potable water [13]. Thus, this may require energy. Nevertheless, an appropriate osmotic

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

agent for non-potable consumption in the FO process can reduce the energy requirement when

the DS recovery is not needed [14, 15]. For example, DS separation in the FO process for

agricultural purposes is not required when chemical fertilizers are used as DS [16, 17]. Diluted

DS can be used directly in the farm and by this, water and nutrients can be available together for

fertigation [16, 18, 19].

Typically, membranes used in FO are made of Cellulose Triacetate (CTA) or Thin Film

Composite (TFC), which makes the situation easy for water to cross the membrane from FS side

to DS side; however, these membranes reject organic matter and ions to permeate [20-23]. TFC

membranes as a new FO membrane type are widely used for FO applications in different

industries. For example, the FO process could be an alternative separation process for oily [24],

and radioactive wastewaters [25, 26]. Studies have reported that TFC due to high selective

property and permeability is preferred compared to conventional CTA membranes in the FO

process [27, 28].

Currently, applied membranes in the FO process are highly influenced by concentration

polarization, leading to less water flux [29]. Therefore, researchers are attempting to make use of

new and better membranes with high mechanical and chemical resistance to provide higher water

flux and saline compounds rejection and to minimize Internal Concentration Polarization (ICP)

[22, 30-33].

Taking inspiration from nature and in order to provide high water flux with the aid of natural

proteins, a notable innovation in membrane technologies is being developed. [34]. Aquaporin

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

channel proteins (AQPs) are integral membrane proteins and are found to be in most living cells

that act as channels to transfer water across cell membranes. Under the right and real conditions,

these proteins form water channels, which can exclude and reject salt ions while permeating

water molecules. Unique properties of AQPs with water permeability and salt rejection (SR)

have recently received much interest to apply as infrastructure for biomimetic membranes for

water desalination and reuse [35].

The first attempt to fabricate an AQPs incorporated membrane were focused on strategies that

include fixing proteins on a template as free-standing polymer films or lipid [36, 37]. Kumar et

al. 2007, developed the first biomimetic membrane for the FO process by bursting AqpZ-

embedded triblock copolymer vesicles on an acrylate functionalized polycarbonate [38]. Later

on, Tang research group used conventional interfacial polymerization method for making the

AQPs-FO membrane which opened a scalable approach to making the AQPs-FO membrane on a

roll-to-roll basis on an industrial scale [39, 40]. The capability of the commercial AQPs-FO

membrane had been evaluated for the removal of heavy metals in industrial wastewater [41].

This study aims to investigate the performance of newly commercialized AQP membranes in the

FO process using commonly used fertilizers. This is the first study on evaluating five commonly

used fertilizers as DS for desalination of feed water with different TDS for AQP FO membrane.

Water flux and Reverse Solute Flux (RSF) for FO and Pressure Retarded Osmosis (PRO) modes

were carefully investigated. The post-treatment process and volume of water required for further

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

dilution of DS to meet standard nutrition concentration levels suitable for fertigation is not

presented in this work as it has been investigated in earlier studies [19, 42].

2. EXPERIMENTAL

2.1. FS and DS preparation

Five different chemical fertilizers typically applied for agricultural purposes including,

((NH2)2CO, KCl, CaCl2, (NH4)2SO4, (NH4)2HPO4 were used as concentrated DS. All materials

used in this study were of analytical grade and provided from (SAMCHUN, Korea). Four

different concentration levels (0.5, 1, 2, and 3 M) of concentrated DS were prepared by

dissolving the chemical fertilizers in deionized water. Deionized water (DI) and NaCl in

concentrations of 5-35 g/l was used as FS. NaCl solution with different concentration levels was

used as brackish and seawater, indicating the FS total dissolved solids (TDS).

2.2. Substrate Characterization

The FO membrane used in this study was AQP-based (Aquaporin Asia Pte. Ltd, Singapore)

membranes. The rejection capacity of the membranes was > 99.0% ± 0.5 % according to the

company’s report for Calcein. The membrane cross-section and top surface morphologies were

studied using a high-resolution Schottky Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-

SEM, MIRA3-LMU model, Czech Republic, Million times magnification). For this purpose,

membrane substrates were first dried carefully at room temperature for 24 h. The samples were

cracked by immersing in liquid nitrogen and thereafter coated with thin layers of gold using

Balzers Sputter coater (SCD 050, BAL-TEC, Germany) before SEM imaging.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Thickness of the substrates was measured by a digital micrometer (293-330 Mitutoyo, Japan).

Membrane porosity (ε) was also measured by weighing the wet mass (W1) and the dry mass (W2)

of samples based on the following equation [43]:

(𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 − 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊)/𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌
𝜀𝜀 = × 100%
𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 − 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊
� 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 � + [𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊/𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌]
(1)

where is the density of the wetting solvent and is the density of the membrane.

2.3. Measurement of Biomimetic-FO membrane intrinsic separation properties

The SR (Rs) and water permeability coefficient (A) of the Biomimetic-FO membrane were

determined based on the pure water fluxes obtained in the RO mode using the same membrane

cell at different pressures ranging from 0 to 5 bar. SR property of the Biomimetic-FO membrane

was determined by measuring the electrical conductivity of the feed (1000 mg/L NaCl) and the

permeate water at 5 bar applied pressure. The salt permeability coefficient (B) was then

determined based on the following equation:

1− R B
= (2)
R A(∆P − ∆π )

Where Δπ is the net osmotic pressure difference between the feed and the permeate and ΔP is the

applied hydraulic pressure difference.

2.4. Forward osmosis experimental setup and FO performance evaluation

The membranes were examined in both FO (active layer in contact with the FS and supported

layer with concentrated DS) and PRO modes vice versa. A lab-scale FO process cell similar to

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

previous studies was made with 3.1 cm in length, 2 cm in width and 0.3 cm in depth on both

sides, providing a useful area of 6.2 cm2. The experiments were made in a batch mode in which

FS and concentrated DS were constantly recirculated to their corresponding containers. The

flows of FS and DS were maintained at 400 ml/min. A two-way pump (Pumpdrive 5001,

Heidolph-Germany) was applied to recirculate feed and DS through both sides of the membrane.

Each experiment was set for 30 min with an equal initial volume of 250 ml for FS and DS.

Figure 1 shows the schematic of the lab-scale experimental setup for the FO process.

Performance of the membrane was analyzed in terms of water flux (Jw), reverse solute flux

(RSF), and specific reverse solute flux (SRSF). Water flux (Jw) was measured immediately via

connection of the concentrated DS container to scale and computer. Water flux (Jw) was

calculated from the changes in the weight of the DS during each run of the experiment,

expressed as follows:

∆m / ρ w (3)
Jw =
Am .∆t

where JW is water flux (L/m2h), is the weight difference of DS as it increases during the time

of each run of the experiment (g), denotes the useful membrane area (m2), is the time of

each run (h) and is the density of water.

Once deionized water was considered as feed water, RSF was measured using a multimeter

(Lutron-CD4303, Germany) to measure electrical conductivity (EC) of the FS at the end of each

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

experiment. RSF (Js) was determined using DI water as the feed according to the following

formula:

∆(CtVt )
Js = (4)
Am ∆t

where Vt and Ct are feed solution volume and salt concentration, respectively. Am and Δt are

active membrane surface and experiment time. Reverse solute flux (Js) is expressed as g/m2h.

<Figure 1>

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Substrate characterization

Fig. 2 shows the SEM images of the AQPs membrane substrate for the cross-section, membrane

top, and back surface. Fig. 2(a) shows the AQPs membrane top surface. It is interesting to see

that AQPs membrane rejection layer which is formed by AQPs proteins is similar to thin film

composite membrane polyamide layer in terms of topology [31]. This AQPs-FO membrane is

developed by aquaporin incorporation into the polyamide layer during interfacial polymerization.

Fig. 2(b) also shows the back surface of this membrane with non-woven backing fabric support.

The commercial TFC FO and CTA FO membrane have woven polyester mesh backing fabric

and SEM images can be found in other studies [44]. Fig. 2(c) shows the membrane cross-section

which contains a large number of finger-like pore structures, which produce relatively higher

porosity, for better water passage and a lesser ICP.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Basically, finger-like morphology is customized for FO membranes and it can be achieved by

choosing the right polymer concentration and solvent/non-solvent during phase inversion [22].

Table 1 also shows other membrane characteristics. The contact angle of AQPs membrane top

surface has a contact angle of 45°, while the contact angle for the bottom surface, which is non-

woven backing fabric is 75°. Relatively lower contact angle in the top surface may be related to

the proteins and lipids created water channels; the increased hydrophilicity is a desirable factor

for the FO process.

<Figure 2>

<Table 1>

A recent study showed by CFD modeling that the porosity (support layer) has an effect on both

RSF and forward water flux. Considering this, increasing support layer porosity or reducing

tortuosity within is not always and necessarily desirable since it may also result in higher RSF

[45].

3.2. Intrinsic properties of AQP FO membrane tested in RO mode

The A, R, and B values of the AQP FO membrane were determined in the cross-flow RO

operation as described earlier (Table. 2). Pure water permeability was determined using DI water

as the feed in RO mode at applied pressures ranging from 0 to 5 bars. R was tested using

simulated brackish water (1000 mg/L NaCl) at an applied pressure of 5 bar.

High water permeability can be achieved while R sacrificed and this can be vice versa as well.

This means by having tighter and well-formed rejection layer, R substantially improved with

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

sacrificing the water permeability. R in this membrane is lower than the conventional TFC

membrane for the FO process which relates to the different nature of the rejection layer in

biomimetic embedded into polyamide membrane compare to the conventional polyamide layer

in the TFC-FO membrane.

<Table 2>

3.3. Performance of the AQP membrane in the FO process

3.3.1. Using deionized water as FS

The membrane performance was tested in terms of water flux in the FO mode with different DS

concentrations while DI water was used as FS. (NH4)2SO4, KCl, CaCl2, (NH4)2HPO4 and

(NH2)2CO (Urea) fertilizers were selected as DSs (Standard error bars are applied). Fig. 3 shows

the performance of 5 different DS as obtained water flux using DI water in the FO process were

in the following order: KCl>(NH4)2SO4>CaCl2>(NH4)2HPO4>Urea. According to the results,

KCl with 18.019 Lm-2 h-1 and urea with 7.381 Lm-2 h-1 at concentration of 3 M were recognized,

respectively to be with the highest and lowest flux among 5 different solutions. In a study

conducted on the TFC membrane, a flux of 27.89 Lm-2 h-1 was reported when KCl 1M and DI

water were considered as DS and FS [46], respectively, which is significantly higher than that of

the AQP-based membrane in the present study.

Regarding the low performance of urea, it is a natural compound and generates much lower

osmotic pressure at a similar molar concentration compared to monovalent fertilizer such as KCl

or divalent compounds such as CaCl2 (monovalent anion and divalent cation). Prediction made

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

using OLI Stream Analyzer 3.2 shows that Urea osmotic pressure at 3 M concentration is around

55 (atm) while for CaCl2 with similar molar concentration is 342 (atm) [46]. Furthermore,

another reason for low water flux for urea can be attributed to the hydrophobic characteristic

which plays an important role to limit the connection between urea and support layer of the

membrane [17, 46]. Therefore, it is noteworthy that the type of DS is a crucial factor in the FO

process for fertigation. Also as shown in Fig. 2, at higher concentration levels of DS, the pure

osmosis pressure as the main factor for passing water cross membrane is higher. Therefore,

higher water flux is obtained.

Fig. 4 shows the results of water flux performance in FO and PRO modes for all DSs at 1 M

concentration (Standard error bars are applied). As can be seen from Fig.4, the amount of water

that passed through the membrane in PRO mode is considerably higher than that of FO

condition, which is in line with other documented studies [46-49]. This is due to less ICP in PRO

mode and having higher osmotic pressure thanks to the higher concentration level of DS on the

membrane surface close to the active layer, which can generate more driving force and finally

make more water flux. In addition, as DS in FO operative condition is connected to membrane

porous support layer and FS in touch with membrane active layer, the water flux passing through

FS dilutes the DS on the membrane surface and the porous support layer, which finally reduce

the osmotic pressure and water flux. Given that the osmotic pressure of DS on the active layer is

more important and is a determining factor for the FO process, the water flux can be extremely

influenced by dilutive ICP [22]. The inverse CP can occur when the process is in PRO mode,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

which is due to the connection between the DS and membrane active layer. Although

concentrated ICP occurs in the side of FS, the effect of this function is less compared to dilutive

ICP, as the water flux in PRO state is accordingly higher than FO mode [49].

PRO condition, although in lab-scale experiments and under controlled conditions generates

more water flux, but in reality, as the porous support layer of the membrane is more prone to

scaling elements, the membrane is subjected to more fouling and this state is not applicable for

water desalination [46]. This is especially important in the FO process for fertigation where

blended fertilizer as DSs was used. Although sever membrane scaling was not observed in this

study, however, using a blend of conventional fertilizer for farming as DS can potentially contain

several monovalent and divalent ions. This can increase the chance of physical scaling by

reacting with the RSF ions coming from the FS side [50].

<Figure 3>

<Figure 4>

For evaluating the further role of PRO mode, KCl as the best fertilizer in terms of water flux

performance was chosen to be tested under both FO and PRO modes at different molar

concentrations. Fig. 5. Shows, although higher flux increases by increasing the molar

concentration of DS, this trend doesn’t follow a linear correlation, meaning increases in DS

concentration will not necessarily increase the proportionally estimated water flux (Standard

error bars are applied). Non-linear correlation between water flux and DS concentration indicates

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

that the effects of ICP and ECP at higher DS concentration in the FO process is more significant,

which are in agreement with other similar studies [46, 47, 51].

Figs. 6 and 7 represent the performance of membrane for the FO process in terms of reverse

solute flux (RSF) and specific reverse solute flow (SRSF), respectively (Standard error bars are

applied). The ranked performance of 5 different DS for the FO process in terms of RSF was:

Urea>KCl>(NH4)2SO4>(NH4)2HPO4>CaCl2, while in terms of SRSF were the same.

Urea>KCl>(NH4)2SO4>(NH4)2HPO4>CaCl2. The highest RSF was found for urea (31.462 gm-2h-
1
in the concentration of 3 M) and the lowest was CaCl2 (6.210 gm-2h-1 in the concentration of

3M). The amount of RSF depends on the type of solute, the value of hydrated ions, membrane

structure, and operating parameters such as temperature and water flux [52]. Lower RSF is

desirable especially when fertilizer will be used as DS.

<Figure 6>

<Figure 7>

As shown in Fig. 6, urea as DS causes the highest amount of wasting solute through RSF among

the 5 different DS used in the present study. The high RSF of urea can be attributed to low

inhibition of urea through the membrane because urea has the lowest molecular size compared to

other types of DS used in this study. Following urea, the highest RSF can be regarded as KCl.

When compared with bivalent compounds, KCl as a monovalent is likely to have a lower

inhibition rate [16, 17, 53]. (NH4)2SO4 and (NH4)2HPO4 with monovalent cations and bivalent

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

anions were placed at later ranks. The lowest RSF was found for CaCl2 due to the presence of a

divalent cation and monovalent anion in its chemical structure, which limits its reverse solute

flow through the membrane active layer. The RSF plays an important role in the economic

assessment of the FO process because the less reverse solute reduces the wasting amount of DS.

The ratio of reverse solute flux to water flux passing through a membrane is recognized as a

specific reverse solute flux (SRSF). Fig. 7 shows SRSF of DS at different concentrations using

DI water as FS in the FO mode. SRSF can show the membrane selectivity regardless of the

concentration of DS. SRSF along with two other parameters of water flux and salt inhibition are

used for the assessment of membrane performance in the FO process. The lesser the SRSF value,

the higher the efficiency and selectivity of the membrane that will be achieved [3]. According to

the results presented in Fig. 6, RSF increases with the concentration levels of DS for all

experimented DS. This is because the high concentration levels of DS cause more differences of

reverse osmotic pressure, which make ions to extremely return to FS. In other words, by

reduction of DS concentration and driving force which occur in series, RSF is decreased [53].

However, SRSF almost stays constant irrespective of the increase in DS molar concentration as it

is measured based on RSF and water flux ratio.

3.3.2. Using NaCl as FS

In the present study, 2 different concentration levels of NaCl were used for FS to stimulate the

brackish and seawater. Different concentration levels of 5 g/L and 35 g/L NaCl (BW 5, BW35)

were prepared in terms of TDS in water. The TDS concentration levels of FS can directly affect

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

pure osmotic pressure or driving force in the FO process [54]. The performance of membrane in

terms of water flux in different concentration levels of each 5 DS by using NaCl as FS in FO is

shown in Fig. 8. The performance and efficiency of 5 different DS in terms of water flux and

NaCl as FS in the FO process are ranked as follows:

KCl>CaCl2>(NH4)2SO4>(NH4)2HPO4>Urea. The order of water flux (using brackish water as

feed) is slightly different compared to DI water used as a feed. CaCl2 showed better performance

in comparison with (NH4)2SO4 when BW water was used as feed. While most fertilizers

containing monovalent ions did not result in any scaling when used as an FO draw solution (DS),

fertilizer with divalent ions resulted in scaling due to RSF interaction with ions in the feed

solution. A previous study by Sherub et al. confirmed that fertilizers with divalent ions such as

(NH4)2HPO4 caused significant scaling, which contributed to flux decline and poor performance

[50]. CaCl2 is recognized as the second DS with high water flux after KCl. The high solubility

and osmotic pressure are considered as two distinct properties of an appropriate DS [3]. The type

of DS and its osmotic pressure together affect considerably the performance of the membrane in

the FO process [46]. Achili et al. studied the performance of DS from the perspective of

performance and ranked them as follows: CaCl2> KHCO3>NaHCO3> MgCl2> MgSO4>

NaHCO3 and concluded that of these DS, CaCl2 had the highest efficiency [53].

When BW5 was used as FS, KCl (15.990 LMH at a concentration of 3 M) and urea (5.223 LMH

at a concentration of 3M) were found to DS with the highest and lowest water flux, respectively.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

In another study, the performance of TFC membrane was evaluated by using KCl 1 M as DS and

NaCl 5 g/L as FS for the FO process, and water flux of 18.95 LMH was reported [46].

The results revealed that when BW was used as FS, concentrated ECP which occurred on the

side of the active layer reduced the effective driving force more than DI and finally minimizes

the water flux. Therefore, it can be considered as a point of reducing the water flux when BW is

applied as DS compared to DI. The results obtained in the present study favor other similar

studies [46, 47, 52].

At a constant concentration level of DS, increases in TDS of FS cause reduction of pure osmotic

pressure and subsequently, reduction in water flux. Indeed, these results indicate that the effect

of the degree of concentrated ECP on FS increases when FS of high TDS is used. It is assumed

that this increase can result from increases in the viscosity of FS with high TDS, which decreases

the mass transport coefficient for concentrated ECP.

Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the water flux of the same five fertilizers as a DS at different

concentrations using 35000 mg/L NaCl as FS resembling seawater in FO mode of operation.

Similar to the RO process, FS concentration has a major role in the performance of the FO

process as the osmotic pressure of the FS can affect the driving force or net osmotic pressure.

Comparing Figs. 8 and 9, the water flux decreased with the increase in feed TDS in all DS level

of Molar concentrations due to a decrease in the net osmotic pressure caused by high FD TDS

(Standard error bars are applied). For example, at the 3 molar DS concentration in Fig. 8 where

the with BW5 as FS, water flux of 16.1 Lm-2h-1 was achieved for KCl, however, Performance for

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

KCl at the same DS molar concentration declined to 6.9 Lm-2h-1 when the FS concentration of

BW35 resembling seawater was used. Thus, increasing FS TDS can reduce the net driving force

for FO performance, substantially. In this regard, choosing an appropriate source as FS is even

more important. Thus, brackish water or wastewater is more attractive for fertigation as seawater

has lower performance.

<Figure 8>

<Figure 9>

4. Conclusions

The performance of an AQP-based FO membrane for 5 different fertilizers as DS was examined.

Based on the results, CaCl2 had better performance on average when compared with other DSs

evaluated in this study, which refers to its chemical characteristics and/or generating more

osmotic pressure as a driving force. In the PRO mode of operation, the net gain water flux was

more compared to the FO condition which shows more severe effect of ICP in the FO mode of

operation. Although it seems that the water flux produced from this membrane is lower

compared to other typically applied membranes with polyamide inhibitive layer for the FO

process, however, this may be a step in the right direction to bring natural transporters such as

aquaporins to membrane industries. Further research on the AQP-based membrane with regard to

fouling to know more about the characteristics of the membrane to be applied in the specific

application seems necessary.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by Lorestan University of Medical Science. The authors are deeply

grateful for their financial and spiritual supports.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES

1. Charcosset C, A review of membrane processes and renewable energies for desalination.

Desalination, 2009; 245: 214-231.

2. Karagiannis I C,Soldatos P G, Water desalination cost literature: review and assessment.

Desalination, 2008; 223: 448-456.

3. Zhao S, Zou L, Tang C Y,Mulcahy D, Recent developments in forward osmosis:

opportunities and challenges. J mem sci, 2012; 396: 1-21.

4. Linares R V, Li Z, Sarp S, Bucs S S, Amy G,Vrouwenvelder J S, Forward osmosis niches

in seawater desalination and wastewater reuse. Wat Res, 2014; 66: 122-139.

5. Jafari A, Rezaee R, Nasseri S, Mahvi A H, Maleki A, Safari M, Shahmoradi B,Daraei H,

Application of micellar enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF) for arsenic (v) removal from

aqueous solutions and process optimization. J Disp Sci Tech, 2017; 38: 1588-1593.

6. Mi B,Elimelech M, Chemical and physical aspects of organic fouling of forward osmosis

membranes. J mem sci, 2008; 320: 292-302.

7. Liu X, Wu J, Hou L-a,Wang J, Removal of Co, Sr and Cs ions from simulated

radioactive wastewater by forward osmosis. Chemosphere, 2019; 232: 87-95.

8. Hoover L A, Phillip W A, Tiraferri A, Yip N Y,Elimelech M, Forward with osmosis:

emerging applications for greater sustainability. Environ sci tech, 2011; 45: 9824-9830.

9. Ng H Y, Tang W,Wong W S, Performance of forward (direct) osmosis process:

membrane structure and transport phenomenon. Environ sci tech, 2006; 40: 2408-2413.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

10. Lay W C, Chong T H, Tang C Y, Fane A G, Zhang J,Liu Y, Fouling propensity of

forward osmosis: investigation of the slower flux decline phenomenon. Wat Sci Tech,

2010; 61: 927-936.

11. Zhang S, Wang K Y, Chung T-S, Chen H, Jean Y,Amy G, Well-constructed cellulose

acetate membranes for forward osmosis: minimized internal concentration polarization

with an ultra-thin selective layer. J mem sci, 2010; 360: 522-535.

12. Logan B E,Elimelech M, Membrane-based processes for sustainable power generation

using water. Nature, 2012; 488: 313.

13. Sahebi S, Developing thin film composite membranes for engineered osmosis processes.

2015.

14. McGinnis R L,Elimelech M, Energy requirements of ammonia–carbon dioxide forward

osmosis desalination. Desalination, 2007; 207: 370-382.

15. Achilli A, Cath T Y, Marchand E A,Childress A E, The forward osmosis membrane

bioreactor: a low fouling alternative to MBR processes. Desalination, 2009; 239: 10-21.

16. Phuntsho S, Shon H K, Hong S, Lee S,Vigneswaran S, A novel low energy fertilizer

driven forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation: evaluating the performance of

fertilizer draw solutions. J mem sci, 2011; 375: 172-181.

17. Phuntsho S, Shon H K, Majeed T, El Saliby I, Vigneswaran S, Kandasamy J, Hong S,Lee

S, Blended fertilizers as draw solutions for fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis desalination.

Environ sci tech, 2012; 46: 4567-4575.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

18. Majeed T, Sahebi S, Lotfi F, Kim J E, Phuntsho S, Tijing L D,Shon H K, Fertilizer-

drawn forward osmosis for irrigation of tomatoes. Desalin Wat Treat, 2015; 53: 2746-

2759.

19. Sahebi S, Phuntsho S, Kim J E, Hong S,Shon H K, Pressure assisted fertiliser drawn

osmosis process to enhance final dilution of the fertiliser draw solution beyond osmotic

equilibrium. J mem sci, 2015; 481: 63-72.

20. Hancock N T, Xu P, Heil D M, Bellona C,Cath T Y, Comprehensive bench-and pilot-

scale investigation of trace organic compounds rejection by forward osmosis. Environ sci

tech, 2011; 45: 8483-8490.

21. Linares R V, Yangali-Quintanilla V, Li Z,Amy G, Rejection of micropollutants by clean

and fouled forward osmosis membrane. Wat Res, 2011; 45: 6737-6744.

22. Sahebi S, Phuntsho S, Woo Y C, Park M J, Tijing L D, Hong S,Shon H K, Effect of

sulphonated polyethersulfone substrate for thin film composite forward osmosis

membrane. Desalination, 2016; 389: 129-136.

23. Zyaie J, Sheikhi M, Baniasadi J, Sahebi S,Mohammadi T, Assessment of a Thermally

Modified Cellulose Acetate Forward‐Osmosis Membrane Using Response Surface

Methodology. Chem Eng Tech, 2018; 41: 1706-1715.

24. Sahebi S, Sheikhi M, Ramavandi B, Ahmadi M, Zhao S, Adeleye A S, Shabani

Z,Mohammadi T, Sustainable management of saline oily wastewater via forward osmosis

using aquaporin membrane. Process Safe Environ Protect, 2020; 138: 199-207.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

25. Liu X, Wu J, Liu C,Wang J, Removal of cobalt ions from aqueous solution by forward

osmosis. Sep Purifi Tech, 2017; 177: 8-20.

26. Liu X, Wu J,Wang J, Removal of Cs (I) from simulated radioactive wastewater by three

forward osmosis membranes. Chem Eng J, 2018; 344: 353-362.

27. Yip N Y, Tiraferri A, Phillip W A, Schiffman J D,Elimelech M, High performance thin-

film composite forward osmosis membrane. Environ sci tech, 2010; 44: 3812-3818.

28. Sahebi S, Shon H K, Phuntsho S,Ramavandi B, Fabricating robust thin film composite

membranes reinforced on woven mesh backing fabric support for pressure assisted and

forward osmosis: A dataset. Data in brief, 2018; 21: 364-370.

29. Kahrizi M, Lin J, Ji G, Kong L, Song C, Dumée L F, Sahebi S,Zhao S, Relating forward

water and reverse salt fluxes to membrane porosity and tortuosity in forward osmosis:

CFD modelling. Sep Purifi Tech, 2020; 241: 116727.

30. Qasim M, Performance of forward osmosis using various membranes. 2013.

31. Sahebi S, Phuntsho S, Tijing L, Han G, Han D S, Abdel-Wahab A,Shon H K, Thin-film

composite membrane on a compacted woven backing fabric for pressure assisted

osmosis. Desalination, 2017; 406: 98-108.

32. Mansor E S, Jamil T S, Abdallah H,Shaban A, Highly thin film nanocomposite

membrane based metal organic complexes for brackish water desalination. J Environ

Chem Eng, 2018; 6: 5459-5469.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

33. Sahebi S, Sheikhi M, Ramavandi B, Zhao S, Baniasadi J, Fadaie N,Mohammadi T,

Developing novel thin film composite membrane on a permeate spacer backing fabric for

forward osmosis. Chem Eng Res Desig, 2020.

34. Giwa A, Hasan S, Yousuf A, Chakraborty S, Johnson D,Hilal N, Biomimetic membranes:

A critical review of recent progress. Desalination, 2017.

35. Tang C, Zhao Y, Wang R, Hélix-Nielsen C,Fane A, Desalination by biomimetic

aquaporin membranes: Review of status and prospects. Desalination, 2013; 308: 34-40.

36. Xia L, Andersen M F, Hélix-Nielsen C,McCutcheon J R, Novel commercial aquaporin

flat-sheet membrane for forward osmosis. Ind Eng Chemist Res, 2017; 56: 11919-

11925.

37. Wagh P,Escobar I C, Biomimetic and bioinspired membranes for water purification: A

critical review and future directions. Environ Prog Sustain Energy, 2019; 38: e13215.

38. Kumar M, Grzelakowski M, Zilles J, Clark M,Meier W, Highly permeable polymeric

membranes based on the incorporation of the functional water channel protein Aquaporin

Z. Proceed Nat Acad Sci, 2007; 104: 20719-20724.

39. Zhao Y, Qiu C, Li X, Vararattanavech A, Shen W, Torres J, Helix-Nielsen C, Wang R,

Hu X,Fane A G, Synthesis of robust and high-performance aquaporin-based biomimetic

membranes by interfacial polymerization-membrane preparation and RO performance

characterization. J mem sci, 2012; 423: 422-428.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

40. Sahebi S, Sheikhi M,Ramavandi B, A new biomimetic aquaporin thin film composite

membrane for forward osmosis: Characterization and performance assessment. Desalin.

Water Treat, 2019; 148: 42-50.

41. Naghdali Z, Sahebi S, Mousazadeh M,Jamali H A, Optimization of the Forward Osmosis

Process Using Aquaporin Membranes in Chromium Removal. Chem Eng Tech.

42. Phuntsho S, Hong S, Elimelech M,Shon H K, Forward osmosis desalination of brackish

groundwater: Meeting water quality requirements for fertigation by integrating

nanofiltration. J mem sci, 2013; 436: 1-15.

43. Sukitpaneenit P,Chung T-S, Molecular elucidation of morphology and mechanical

properties of PVDF hollow fiber membranes from aspects of phase inversion,

crystallization and rheology. J mem sci, 2009; 340: 192-205.

44. Qiu C, Setiawan L, Wang R, Tang C Y,Fane A G, High performance flat sheet forward

osmosis membrane with an NF-like selective layer on a woven fabric embedded

substrate. Desalination, 2012; 287: 266-270.

45. Kahrizi M, Lin J, Ji G, Kong L, Song C, Dumée L F, Sahebi S,Zhao S, Relating forward

water and reverse salt fluxes to membrane porosity and tortuosity in forward osmosis:

CFD modelling. Sep Purifi Tech, 2020: 116727.

46. Phuntsho S, Sahebi S, Majeed T, Lotfi F, Kim J E,Shon H K, Assessing the major factors

affecting the performances of forward osmosis and its implications on the desalination

process. Chem Eng J, 2013; 231: 484-496.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

47. Fam W, Phuntsho S, Lee J H,Shon H K, Performance comparison of thin-film composite

forward osmosis membranes. Desalin Wat Treat, 2013; 51: 6274-6280.

48. Lay W C, Zhang J, Tang C, Wang R, Liu Y,Fane A G, Factors affecting flux

performance of forward osmosis systems. J mem sci, 2012; 394: 151-168.

49. Gray G T, McCutcheon J R,Elimelech M, Internal concentration polarization in forward

osmosis: role of membrane orientation. Desalination, 2006; 197: 1-8.

50. Phuntsho S, Lotfi F, Hong S, Shaffer D L, Elimelech M,Shon H K, Membrane scaling

and flux decline during fertiliser-drawn forward osmosis desalination of brackish

groundwater. Wat Res, 2014; 57: 172-182.

51. Xu Y, Peng X, Tang C Y, Fu Q S,Nie S, Effect of draw solution concentration and

operating conditions on forward osmosis and pressure retarded osmosis performance in a

spiral wound module. J mem sci, 2010; 348: 298-309.

52. Nematzadeh M, Samimi A, Shokrollahzadeh S,Behzadmehr A, Performance of

Potassium Bicarbonate and Calcium Chloride Draw Solutions for Desalination of Saline

Water Using Forward Osmosis. Transp Phenom Nano Mic Scal, 2015; 3: 29-36.

53. Achilli A, Cath T Y,Childress A E, Selection of inorganic-based draw solutions for

forward osmosis applications. J mem sci, 2010; 364: 233-241.

54. McCutcheon J R, McGinnis R L,Elimelech M, Desalination by ammonia–carbon dioxide

forward osmosis: influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on process

performance. J mem sci, 2006; 278: 114-123.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Table Caption

Table 1. Characteristics of AQPs membrane substrate.

Table 2. Intrinsic properties and structural parameters of AQPs membrane sample.

Accepted Article

Table 1.

Thickness
Sample ID Porosity% Contact angle (º)
(µm)

Active layer Support layer

AQPs 132± 3.0 65 ± 1 45 ± 1 75 ± 1

Table 2.
a c
Sample ID Water permeability (A) b
Salt permeability B NaCl rejection (%) S value

L/m2 h-1 bar-1 ×10−12 m/s Pa (10−7 m/s) (mm)

AQPs 3.1 ± 0.15 8.6±0.2 2.6±0.3 73.2 0.796

a
Evaluated in the RO testing mode over an applied pressure of 5 bar with DI water as feed water.
b
Evaluated in the RO testing mode over an applied pressure of 5 bar for feed water containing 1000 mg/L NaCl.
c
Evaluated based on experiments under the FO mode using 2 M NaCl as the DS with DI water as feed water.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 1. Schematic of the lab-scale experimental setup for FO process.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 2. SEM image of the AQP membrane displaying (a) the top surface of the active layer (b) the bottom
surface and (c) the cross-section of the membrane.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 3. Comparison of water flux for DS at different M concentrations using DI water as a FS in the FO
mode of operation.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 4. Comparing water flux in FO and PRO mode using DI water as FS and for DSs at 1 M concentration.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 5. Comparing water flux in FO and PRO mode using DI water as FS at different M concentration for
KCl.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 6. Comparison of RSF of DS at different concentrations using DI water as FS in the FO mode.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 7. Comparison of SRSF of DS at different concentrations using DI water as FS in the FO mode.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 8. Comparison the water flux of different fertilizers as a DS at different concentrations using 5000
mg/L NaCl as FS in FO mode.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Figure 9. Comparison the water flux of different fertilizers as a DS at different concentrations using 35000
mg/L NaCl as FS in FO mode.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.