DESALINATION

ELSEVIER Desalination 160 (2004) 29-42

www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Mathematical modeling of reverse osmosis systems

Abstract

-J-hepresent investigation pertains to modeling of seawater desalination system. A simulation model was developed
and veriJied for a small-scale reverse osmosis system. The proposed model combines material balances on the feed
tank, membrane moclule and product tank with membrane mass transfermodels. Finally a comprehensive simulation
model has been developed incorporating the effect ofmass transfer inhibition The model is non-linear differential
equation representing the feed concentration as a function of operating time and space. The solution of the
simultaneous differential equations was obtained using the fourth order Runge-Kutta method, due to self starting
and stability. The model was veritied using the experimental data from the literature [17,24]. Parameter sensitivity was
carried out to select the proper step size. The simulation was run for over 1000 h enabling a prediction of operational
perfomrance at high overall system recoveries.

K~~vow!s: Mathematical modeling; Reverse osmosis: Mass transfer; Inhibition: Concentration polarization

1. Introduction most popular technology for seawater desalination.

During the last two decades hundreds of reverse
Membrane separation systems are gaining
osmosis seawater desalination plants have been
popularity in the food and bioprocessing industries
built worldwide. Each year the plant sizes and
due to its less energy requirement-, negligible
cost-effectiveness have increased. Recently the
denaturation of food product, retention of aroma
reverse osmosis has achieved growing acceptance
and flavours. This technique has also got numerous
as an economical and viable alternative to multi-
applications in processing industries such as
stage flash distillation (MSF) process for desalting
chemical, nuclear. biotechnology, petroleum and
seawater [.1.2,5]. A number of investigators have
petrochemical industries. Reverse osmosis is the
carried out the work on different aspects ofreverse
osmosis seawater desalination. Few models for
*Corresponding author.

001 l-91 WOG/S- See front matter 0 2004 Hsevier Science J3.V. All rights reserved
PII: SO0 I l-9 164(03)006 16-7
solventandsolutefluxes throughmembraneshave
beendevelopedandanalyzedneglectingthe effect
ofmasstransferinhibition. Concentrationpolariza-
tion and fouling of the membrane are the two
serious problems that would prevent the use of
RO into many of the processes.Both of these
phenomenaarc flux inhibiting boundary layer
effects and that -foulingis almost always a result
of*concentration polarization.Concentrationpolari-
zation may be defined asthe presenceofa higher
concentrationof rejected species.at the surface
of a membranethan in the bulk solution, due to
theconvectivetransportofboth soluteandsolvent
[ 10,331.It is generallyconsidereda totally revers-
ible effect that c.anbe describedin a first appro-
ximation. by a variety of analytical models. The
fouling in the membraneis thecondition,in which
membraneundergoespluggingor coatingby some
elementin the streambeingtreated,in sucha way
that its output or its flus is reduced.A model for
colloidal membranefouling hasbeenreportedby
GreenandBelfort [9], which allows thetheoretical
prediction of membraneflux declination.A lot of
work has been done on the membrane foulants
by thevariousinvestigatorsanda detailedanalysis
is availablein the literature[ 15.161.The measure-
ment and control in reverseosmosisdesalination
havebeenstudiedby Mindler and Epstein [22].
The reductionof concentrationpolarizationis
importantfor theimprovementof theperformance
of osmotic type membrane, which will lead to
reductionin thefouling ofthe membrane.Several
measuresto reducethe concentrationpolarization
to controlthe fouling havebeenadoptedand pro-
posed.The techniquesusedto reducethe concen-
tration polarization are increasing flow rate,
assemblinganintensifierfor turbulentflow, impulse
methods, agitating methods, periodic depres-
surizationof membranetube, flow reversal,pre-
coatingof membranesurfaces.enzymeimmobili-
zation, modification of membrane polymeric
structure,mechanicaland ultrasonic vibration o!
membraneshave been tried also but with little
success13.71.The turbulence promoter acts to
reduceconcentrationpolarization and therefore
fouling, by increasingthe friction factor andbulk
velocity.A model hasbeendevelopedby Chiolle
et al. [6] for the reverseosmosis with the turbu-
lencepromotingnetsfor theparallelwall channels
module. The model developed by Drioli and
Bellucci [8] showsthe effect of the interactionof
theconcentration polarizationandsolute-membrane
interactionon thepressuredrivenmembranewhen
working with multicomponent solution. The
modification ofthe membranepolymeric structure
plays animportantrole in thereductionof concen-
tration polarizationthroughthe tluidized bedwas
developedby van der Waal [:20].Bhattacharyya
et al. [25] developeda Galerkin finite elements
program to compute the concentration profile
throughouta reverseosmosismembranemodule
to predict the performanceof the module. The
finite elementmethodallowed rapidevaluationof
variousmembranemoduleconfigurations,suchas
taperedcell geometry and channelscontaining
spaces.Basedon the available work.,a compre-
hensivesimulation model hasbeendevelopedfor
seawaterdesalinationsystem.
2. Models for solvent and solute transport
in reverse osmosis
Variousmodelsandmechanismfor the solvent
and solute transport through reverse osmosis
membranehavebeendevelopedandproposedby
a number of investigators [12,19]. The flow of
solventthroughthe membraneis definedin terms
of flux:
J,,,= <Qj~s,>
Clv,:, (1)
The solvent flus of the permeatedependson
the hydraulic pressureapplied acrossthe mem-
brane,minusthedifferencein theosmoticpressure
of the solutions of the feed and permeateside of
the membrane[2].
J, =A@-An) (2)

While the solute tlux depends on the concen-
t-ration gradient
J, = B,AC (3)
AC=C, -C, (4)
The membrane rejection is defined as the
difference between the feed concentration and
permeate concentration
R=(q -c& =[l-(c,/ci)j (5)
From the solvenr and soIute flux Eqs. (2) and
(3) it can be shown that the rejection is the function
of pressure and concentrations. Since the solvent
flux is dependent on pressure, an increase in
pressure will increase solvent flux at constant
solute flux. Consequently the percentage of the
re.jection will increase. Thus combining tlux models
and relating it with rejection, it can be shown that
the permeate concentration is equal to material
balance around the membrane
C, = C,,(Js/ Jw) (6)
so that the re.jection R is given by
R=l.Q-(J,C,,lJ,,C,j (7)
Substituting the expressions for the fluxes in
the expression of rejection we have:
From this expression5 it appears that if pressure
drop is increased to a large value then rejection
approaches towards unity. However this camiot
be achieved due to the limitation of membrane.
Nevertheless one can reach almost up to the
desired level. The model presented above is [he
model for ideal mass transfer which does not give
the exact picture of the reverse osmosis system.
The simple process case of continuous mode
of operation if once through as shown in Fig. 1 is
run most easily. Llnderthis type of operation, feed
?I
Cv Qr RETENIA~ Semi-Batch
ROMJZMBUNE
Continuau
FEED
TANK
c,. v,
Fig. 1. hIodes of reverse osnlosis system operation
characteristics remain the same and the retentate
or concentrate is collected separately, as is the
permeate. if an initial feed volume is used, feed is
run to exhaustion. fn the absence of mass transfcl
inhibition, rqjection. flux and stream concentrations
ideally remain the same with time. ‘The single pass
recovery for this type of operation relates per-
meate production to feed rate
Recovery (2) = QP / Qf (9
In a semi-batch, unsteady state mode ofopera-
tion, as was the basis for simulation [ 181. retentate
is recycled to the feed tank and permeate is
collected separately. This process is essentially a
closed loop concentrating system. As the operation
time increases, the volume of permeate collected
increases. The permeate produced at any instant
of time is called the instantaneous permeate.
The permeate or product collected in the
product tank over a span of time is called the
average product. Since the permeate is remov-ed
continuously from the feed, the volume ofthe feed
decreases, the feed becomes more and more
concentrated with time. The feed in this type of
process can also be referred to as the concentrate.
As feed volume diminishes and concentration The changein thevolume ofthe permeatewith
increases,the system will operateas if it were time is the production rateof the membrane.
running in sequential increments of increasing
concentration.in a semi-batch,steady statemode. dV,/dt=Q, (131
This type of processallows the systemto run at
By substitution of this in Eq. (12) we get
varyinglevelsof recoveryandlarge-scale simulation
can be operated. Recovery is defined in terms of
an overall systemrecovery as the total quality of QpCp= Q&m + (dc, ldt) V,
product generatedup to a given time divided by
or dC, 1dt = Qp (CP - C, )/ VP (14)
the initial feed volume:
The material balance around the membrane
Recovery (X) = VP / VfO (10) moduleis
At somepoint in the operationthe systemmust
be stoppedas the feed becomesso concentrated
that the flux drops significantly, due to a large In this balance an assumption is made that in
increasein the osmotic pressureof the feed. If this systemtheconcentrationwithin themembrane
the permeate flows in a semi-batch, unsteady-state doesnot changegreatlywith spatialdistribution.
system is returnedto the feed tank, the mode of A meanpermeateconcentrationfrom themembrane
operation is termed “semi-batch, steady state”. module was used.
Although the flow pattern is not an operational Similarly the balance around the feed tank
mode, it is usedto study the characteristicsofthe becomes
system.Sinceboth permeate and retentate stream
are recycled to the feed tank, the feed volume Q/G. -Q&J, = d(V’C,)/dt (16)
and concentrationdo not changewith time.
The system material balances,togetherwith In the model it was assumedthat the feedtank
thesemasstransfermodels,wereusedto simulate was well mixed. Thus the concentrationo-f the
system operation. Correlation of flux, solute feedto the membraneequalsthe concentrationin
concentrationsand re.jectionwith operating time the feedtank. Therefore,at any instantin time, t,
and overall system recovery arefunctions of the c =c
1’
model. This model also predicts operational Thdfcombination of Eqs. (15) and (16) with
performance c.haracteristics of the system at substitution of CTtfas C, gives
various times andrecoveries.The effectsof pres-
sure,feed concentration,volume and membrane - QpCp = (dV/, / dt)C, + (dC, / dt ) V$ (17)
characteristicson separationefficiency can also The changein the feed volutne with time can
be described. The material balances can be be taken as the productionrate, so
formulated for the system:
A materialbalancemadeon theproducttankyields -dV,/dt=Q, (18)

QpCp= d(V&m )I dt (11) lntegratingwith boundarycondition at t = 0,

I/r, = y/v
QPCP = (dVp /dt)C,, +(dC,, ldt)V, (12)
J’ji = Vfo - Qpt (19)
BoundaT conditions: at t = 0, V, = 0, Cpl” = C’P Substitutingthis value into Eq. ( 17)we get
- QpCp= -QpCr + (v,, - Qg) (dc, ldt) c-w

Rearrangement of Eq. (30) gives

dc., ldt = Qp(c, - C, )b(v,o - Q,t ) (21)

To get the solution of Eq. (21) we need the

relationship between Q!, and C,> with the
expression for c’, in terms of CL,
Approximating the equation through
To achieve this we have to get the relationship
,4%AI’lB, >z=-As,Y/B, and CT! >> CT!,for high
between osmotic pressure and feed concentration,
rejection,
which is done through the v$an’t Hoff‘expression

x:=(+dV)RT (32)

Eq. (22) shows that the osmotic pressure of w2

solution increses with the increasing concentration
and temperature directly. The osmotic pressure
coefficient must be determined for different
solutions. It has been determined by various (37)
researchers to be less than unity and slightly
increases with increasing solution concentration
1171. if the solute is not known or it is complex,
wc have to use mass concentration instead of By substitution of the expression for C’,, in
molar concentration. For convenience: this model Eq. (24) we get the expression for flux in terms
assumed a constant temperature and incorporated of ‘;
the other constant Y which simplifies osmotic
pressure to solute concentration coefticient. J, = 4, [@ - yCf + {(YC, )/(a3-a&‘,, )}] (281
n=YC substitution of Eq. (38) into Eq. ( 1)
(23)
AZ = YAC
The value of Y was assumed t-o be constant
over the operating range of the solute concen-
Putting the expression for C,;]and Opq Eqs. (27)
tration. Incorporation ofEq. (23) into the expres-
and (28). into the expression for the concentration
sion for the solute flux Eq. (2) yields:
change with time into Eq. (2 1), we get:
J,,. = A,, lap - \fl(c/ - C, )] (24)

J, =B,b, -cpl (3)

J.s= Jwkp /Cwp) (6)

Combining the above equations. we get: where the model constants are

J& = J,.C, a, = bW’~C,,


Eq. (30) is the non-lineardifferential equation,
which canbe solvednumerically. The solution of
this equation gives the relationship betweenthe
operatingtime andconcentrationof feed.Concen-
tration of feedis a functionofoperatingtime. Once
the C, is calculatedat any time, permeateconcen-
tration, rejectionandflux can be determined.The
overall recovery can be obtained by using feed
and permeate concentrations. In the mode of
operationused. the system is essentially closed:
that is the mass of the solute in the initial feed
must equalthe total ofthe variousprocessstreams
andtanksat any instantof time. The overall mass
balanceis
The overall recovery is expressedin terms of
C,&,CTiand t;jO,.:
VPlVfO = (c,. -c,J/(c, -qm) (33)
The equation for total dissolved solid (TDS)
concentrationin the producttank canbe obtained
by substitutingEq. (27) into Eq. (14)
dC,Jdf=
b‘D(c,
-qm.)llvp
or
dC,, ldt = [a, - a,C, + {a,Cf /(a3 - a,C,)}]
E(cdh
-~&C,1~ (34)
k/5 k, - c,o )@f - C,” II
Eqs. (30) and (34) can be solved simulta-
neouslywith thehelp of fourth orderRunge-Kutta
technique.
For the determination of model constantthe
six modelconstantsandtwo initial conditionswere
usedin the simulation program. The initial con-
ditions arefeedconcentrationcfi andfeedvolume
I$. Membranesurfacearea5’(,andoperatingpres-
sure gradient AP are two model constantsthat
representdesign variables, the solvent (water)
concentrationis C’
For distilled witer n, = 0, so .{,>= AIVAI’. The
slope of the plot betweenJ,,, vs. AP determines
A,,,.The solute permeability constantwas deter-
mined by operatingthe systemat severaldifferent
concentrationof the feed at constant pressure.
Since .J,= B\ACYand */,,,Cl,/CWj,= Us (C, - C:,), a
plot of JwCplC,, vs. (CIc- C’J yields B,y.
The osmotic pressurecoefficient can also be
determinedexperimentallyon thereverseosmosis
system. SinceA,,,was previously found for pure
water,the relationship
bNJ,uv)l =M,-c,)]
canbe plottedto determineyf.
3. Model for reverse osmosis system with
concentration polarization
The model developedin this study depictsthe
ideal masstransfer.doesnot include the concen-
tration polarizationandfouling of the membrane,
which causesthe significant declinein the solvent
flux. To avoid the concentration polarization,
creatingturbulencein the feed velocity is one of
the remedies.There is certain feed velocity, say
critical velocity, abovewhich flux declination is
slower than at lower velocities. The model
developedby Slateret al. [ 171consideredthe feed
concentrationchangeswith time globally.
To accomplishthe concentrationpolarization
andincorporatethefeedvelocity in the model we
consideredthe feed concentrationchangeswith
time locally. Sothatthetime andspacedependence
of feed conc.entrationwill be consideredin this
model.
Cr = C/. (time, space)
Differentiating C’::, partially with respect to time
and space coordinalc

dC, = (aC, / at)dt + (aC, / ay)dy . or

dcpidt=acpiat+(ac,iay)ub (35)
Using Eq. (2 i) for material balance around the
feed tank with the concentration as a function of
time and space, we get

dc, ldt = [e, k’, - C, )dv,o - Q,t))l (36) Fig. 9. Solute transfer on the boundary layer of the Inem-
Substitution of Eq. (35) into Eq. (36) gives brane.

(ac, iat)+ (ac, /a&7, = of the solvent. This urlfavourable phenomenon is

called concentration polarization [ 10,241.
Qp{(c, - C, )b(v,o- Q,t )I ’ Or The differential equation for mass conservation
in the process of reverse osmosis is as follows:
ac, / at = bp icy - C, )bb’p - Qpd - (’ 7) J, = F,,,C,,, - D (dC,,ldy)
3 (38)
4 bc, / 4
The solute flus is equal to the difference be-
Eq. (37) shows the time as well as spatial tween the total amount of solute Rowing towards
dependence of the feed concentration. To solve the membrane surface and the portion of solute
this equation we have to get the expression for diffusing back from the membrane s&ace to bulk
the spatial dependence of feed concentration. For solution.
a membrane under steady state condition. when
the solution flows through the system parallel to dC,ldy-[(Fw/D)c,] =-(J,y lD)
the membrane surface at a given rate, both the
This is a firsi order ordinq di Rerential equation
solute and the solvent are forced to pass through
which can be solved through the particular integral
the membrane owing to the action ofthe pressure
and complementary function.
difference, as depicted in Fig. 2. The solvent can
pass through the membrane completely but most
of the solute accumulates at the surface due to C, = P wbl exd@,, / D)vl + C, (39)
the rejection caused by the membrane. Thus a where CLand p are integration constants.
concentration gradient is built between the mem-
brane surface and bulk solution, which makes the Boundary conditions at
solute diffuse back towards the bulk solution. The J’ = 0 c,, = c‘, and at y = 6 Cl, = C’:,
higher the solute concentration at the rncmbrane
surface the lower will be solute permeation rate C, - C, = Pexp[a] (40)
 Brian [ 16,231approximatedthe averagevalue
C,,,- C, =Pexpblexp[(ic,,,
/ D>Sl (41) of concentrationpolarizationin thetubular mem-
Dividing Eq. (4 I) by (40) in order to get con- branewith the following equation:
centrationpolarizationratio
C, lC, = l.333exp[(y/0.75)(y/6)lCP
(Cw
-C, )/(C,-C, )=expk ~~>~I (42) CQ=(C,-C, )exddd>l+C, (48)
using the approximation limit (JI,<< C, < c’,*,so
Partialdifferentiation o,fEq. (48) with respect
that we can neglect C,>from Eq. (42).
to spacecoordinategives:
C, lC, = exp[(F, /II)&]. or
JC,QY =((c,- C,I/~bxdh @I (4%
C, lC, = exp[F, lk] (43) Substitutionof Eq. (49) into Eq. (37) will give
the expressionfor feedconcentrationchangeswith
k=D/6, time in thepresenceof concentrationpolarization
C, = C, exp[F, /k] (44) andbulk velocity.
Substitutingthesevaluesinto Eq. (39) we get: Xv /at = e-{U,(C, -C,)lG)yexp[y(ylG)] (50)
C, =(C,- C,)expk /kxy/ @I+C, (45) with 8 = QP(C, -C,)@/,, - Q,t).
‘I’0 calculate wall concentration we have to Concentrationpolarization can be minimized
calculatethe masstransfercoefficientandF,“. The by the turbulent promotion, with the increased
valueofF>,,can bedeterminedexperimentallyfor friction factor andbulk velocity.
a given membrane and operating condition. To In orderto simulatethis masstransferprocess
estimatethe value of k severalinvestigatorshave and to determine the mass transfer coefficient
proposeda schemeto determinethe masstransfer when boththe longitudinal and radial flows exist
coefficient. Majority of them doesnot includethe simultaneously 14,201,
XuesongWang[24]developed
major parameterparticularly the action of F,v in a new type of diffusion current method for the
radial tlow rate,i.e. solvent flux. The calculation determination of k. lie deduced the empirical
ofk throughthe expressiondevelopedearlier[ 14- formulae of the masstransfercoefficient for one
161givesthe following: andtwo dimensionsasfollows:
For laminar flow
j, =(k/Ub)Sc2’3 onedimension
for the casesof turbulent flow in roundtubes Sh = 1.66Re0,36
SC’.~~
(d, / L)o.42 (51)
j,=f/2 two dimensions
k = (~T&)/(~SC~‘~) (46)
Sh =4.72Re”.36SC’.~~(~,!L)o.42X”.25 (52)
The substitution0fEq. (46) into Eqs. (43) and Concentrationpolarization ratio for laminar
(45) gives us flow with two dimensions can be obtained by
substitutionof Eq. (52) into Eq. (43)
C,/C,=wM (47)
C,, / C, = exp[h]
withy= (2FwSc2” /fog).
A = [((,,l?V”.75)/(Reo.36
SCOJ~)~LIA,)~.~Z]
 Substitution of the value of k in Eq. (45) gives From the experiment carried out by Xuesong
Wang 1241 a dimensionless empirical equation for
c, = k - c, )expMY / a (53) the mass transfer coefficient for a tube type
fluidized bed under laminar flow conditions was
Differentiating Eq. (53) with respect to space obtained as follows:
coordinate, we will get:
Sh, = 2.58Rey SC’.*~(~, /L)“.08Xo/025 ((2,
JC, / dy = {(C, - C, )/ G}exp[h(y / S)] (54)
C, lC, = exp[z] (63)
Substituting Eq. (54) into Eq. (37). we will get:

acJat=e-{u,(c~ -c,)/6}~exp[h(y/6)](55) T = [(0.388V$‘98)/(Re~36 SC~‘~)~L/~, )oos]

This represents the system equation when the The expression for the space dependence of
concentration ofthe feed is taken as the function feed concentration can be obtained by subslitution
of time and space with the value ofmass transfer of Eq. (63) in Eq. (45).
coefficient k. Similarly the system equation can
be obtained for turbulent flow: Cp = (C, - Cp )exp[& / S)] + C, W
Turbulent flow: Differentiating Eq. (64) with respect to space
one dimension coordinate gives:
Sh = 0.073 Re0.74 SC’.~~(d, / L)o.32 (56)
aC, /+={(C, -C,)/6bexp[r(~~/S)] (65)
two dimensions
By substitution of Eq. (65) into the master
Sh = 0.147Re0.74 SC’.~~(LI,/L)o.32Xo l9 (57) Eq. (37) for the system we get:
The concentration polarization ratio in the case ilC, /at = e-(u,(C, -C,)/Gbexp[z(yl6)] (66)
ofturbulent flow is
Eq. (66) represents the master system equation
C,/C,=ewhl (58) which includes the spatial as well as time depend-
ence of feed concentration with inclusion of feed
writh q = [((6.8~“.s1)/(Reo.74 ,sc’.‘~ )XL/~~ ,,.Q] . velocity and concentration polarization by a remedial
factor to reduce concentration polarization, with
the help of l-luidized bed.
The equation for feed concentration is
Once the above equation is solved then the
Cw=(Ch- C,)expMy
/@I+C, (59) value of solvent flux with compaction correction
factor. recovery, rejection and concentration of
Dit‘ferentiating Eq. (59) with space coordinate: permeate can be calculated by substituting the
value of Cc,,in the corresponding equations, dis-
dc, / dy = k, - C, )/ Sh ddy / @I (60) cussed earlier.

Substitution ofEq. (60) into the master Eq. (37)

4. Models verification
gives:
Experimental data for aqueous salt (NaCl)
ac, 1 at = 0 - (uh (c, - c, )/ S)ll exp[q(y / S)] (6 I ) solution form the literature [17&l were used to
38 K Jand Ed al. ,’ Iksniincrfion I60 (2004) 29.---/2

verify the model. The constants and initial con- 17

ditions for the simulation are given as:

c;? = 2.00 kghd VfO = 1.50 13, Cl? - 1.0~ lti k&l?; IS

s, = 0. I8 1 111:.
AZ' = 4.02x 10" kg/m h’, A,,, = 4.2~ 10 I7 h/m, 13
Bc= l.l2rlO-.lm/h,
Y = 1.02x IO” m2/h2, Re = 30 -1 OjT~71f/Z.,
= 0.0 15,
0.62 mm < d I: 0.9 mm, 450 < SC < 2650,
0.55 <E -C0.9&0.0623 <X,< 1.455

5. Results and discussion

7
Fig. 3 shows the variation of permeate flux with
time. Initially as operating time increases, the
permeate tlux decreases slowly. After the attain-
ment of around 400 h, the flux decreases sharply.
The simulation results suggest that the permeate ^,
flux decreases slowly at first, but as time advances, 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 loo0
the concentration gradient increases and the flux Time, t (hr)
falls more sharply. Fig. 4 shows the simulation
results of solute concentration in feed with time. Fig. 3. Simulation results of permeate flux vs. time.
As predicted by the model, the feed concentration
increases linearly with time at a slow rate during
the early hours (i.e. up to 400 h) of operation.
Beyond this, the feed concentration increases
exponentially with time. During the initial period
of operation of the reverse osmosis system, an
initial feed volume was used. Retentate concen-
tration is always incrementally greater than the
feed concentration; and the retentate is recycled
to the feed tank as shown in Fig. 1. The feed volume
decreases continuously with time because of
permeate production, hence feed concentration
increases with time. If I/;, was larger? the curve
would remain linear for a longer time as described
earlier.
Both plots of permeate and average product
concentrations, as predicted by the model, is sho\vn
in Fig. 5. The permeate concentration increases
gradually with time (around up to 400 h of opera-
tion) and beyond this time the permeate concen-
tration increases rapidly with time. At the end of 0 loo FJO 300 400 54Jo 600 7cn I)00 900 loo0

simulation, the permeate concentration reaches to Tim* t (b0

a value of I.027 kg/m: after 1000 h. The average Fig. 4. Simulation results of feed concentration vs. time.
 1.2 ..-

a
b.6
8c
E
‘:
.j”’
;
P
$0.2

I
e”

0
0 loo 200 300 400 500 ml 700 800 %M ml0
Time, t (br) 2 ^ .

0 100 ii 300 400 SO0 600 700 SW 900 1000

Fig. 5. Simdation resdts of permeate concentration and Timt, t (ar)
average permeate concentration vs. time.
Fig. 6. Simulation results of permeate flnx vs. time with
concentration polarization.
permeate concentration also increases more gra-
dually, reaching 0.178 kg/m’ due to the effects of 25

dilution in the product tank.

6. Simulation results of reverse osmosis

system with concentration polarization
Fig. 6 shows the variation ofpermeate flux vs.
time with concentration polarization. The permeate
flux gradually increases up to 450 h reaching
16.00 kg/m2h. After this period, the flux decreases
rapidly up to 650 h of operation and then it
decreases linearly. In Fig. 3. the flux decreases
up to around 450 h without incorporating the
concentration polarization, whereas in Fig. ii the
flux increases gradually due to change in feed
concentration. After 650 h of operation. the change
in flux is slow with concentration polarization.
The variation of feed concentration with time 0 100 200 300 400 500 6Mf 700 800 900 10

has been shown in Fig. 7. The feed concentration Time, t (br)

decreases almost linearly at a slow rate with time Fig. 7. Simulation results oE feed concentration vs. rime
up to around 400 h of operation of the system. with concentration polarization.
After this period,the feedconcentrationincreases
exponentially with time. In Fig. 4, the feed con-
centrationgot increasedup to 400 h of operation
without concentrationpolarization, which is the
contrastwith concentrationpolarization.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of permeatecon-
centrationand averageproduction concentration
with time. The permeateconcentrationC?P remains
almost constantwith time up to around450 h of
operation as is the case without concentration
polarization. Beyond time t - 450 11,the CP
increaseslinearly at a high rate. This trend was
observedalmost sameasexplainedin Fig. 5. The
variation of averagepermeateconcentrationwith
time remains same as observedfor the case of
without concentrationpolarization.
7. Conclusions
The following conclusionscan bedrawn from
the presentstudy:
0 loo .200 300 4lm 500 600 700
Time, t (iv)
Fig. 8. Simulation results of permeate concentration and
average permeate concentration vs. time with concen-
tlation polarization.
1. The model developedwithout concentration
polarizationwaseffectively usedfor the prediction
of feed concentration,permeateconcentration,
rejection andflux asa function of operatingtime.
2. The proposedmodel developedwith con-
sideration of spatial dependenceof solute feed
concentration(hencethe permeateconcentration,
averagepermeateconcentrationand rejection as
a functionoftime andspace)on simulationshowed
good agreementwith the actual reverseosmosis
processand improved the permeateflux.
3. In theproposedmodel thebulk feedvelocity
shows the important role which is the remedial
factor for improvementof permeateflux.
Symbols
u,-n, - Constantsin model equations
4” - Solventpermeabilityconstant.h/m
B.% - Solutepermeabilityconstant.m!h
c - Concentration,kg/m’
c, - Solutebulk concentrationflow, kg/m)
C; - Solute feedconcentration,kg/m’
C,, - Initial solutefeedconcentration,kg/m?
c;, - Solute concentrationin the feed tank,
kg/m”
c - Solutepermeateconcentration,kg/m’
c:”,,Y” - Averagepermeateconcentration,kg/m3
CT - Soluteretentateconcentration,kg/m”
C/J - Concentrationasa flinction of time and
space,kg/m’
q,, - Solutewall concentration,kg/m:’
c w/r - Solventpermeateconcentration(water):
kg/m3
D - Diffusion coefficient,m/h
de - Equivalent diameter,(Wtl;)i’(H+ WY),m
4,. - Equivalent diameter of fluidized bed,
d,/[ 1 + (3/2) (1 --E)(djc$J]t m
- Diameterof the fluidized particles,m
flcn 900 loo0 $ - Tube diameterof the fluidized bed.m
.p’ - Volumetric flux rate,m-ilm2li
- Friction factor
H - Height of the channel,m
j,, - Chilton-Colbumj factor, (/&?‘)lU,,
 A’. .Jand et al. ,” Iksaiinrrlion 160 (2004) 29. -/2 31

--......” Solute flux: kg/111~11 References

- Solvent (water flux). kg/m%
- Mass transfer coefficient: m/h
.-‘..--Length of the channel or height of the
bed, m
- Number of moles of species i
--...--Membrane pressure gradient, kg/,/m hZ
- Volumetric feed tlow rate, m’/h
- Volumetric permeate flow rate, m’/h
.--...-Volumetric retentate flow rate, m’/h
- Solute rejection
- Reynolds number, (pql,fjh!y,)
_--- Reyolds number (tluldlzed bed)
- Universal gas constant, kg mZ/h2 k
- Membrane surface area. m*
----..Schmidt num bcr (p/p n)
- Sherwood number (u’, k/D)
- Sherwood number (fluidized
- Absolute temperature, K
- Time, h
....-.--
HuIk feed velocitv: m/h
- Feed volume. m’
- Initial feed volume, my’
-..--.Feed tank volume. m’
- Permeate volume. m’
- W number (F,q,~~jl>)
..--.--Channel width, m
- Overall system recovery
- Space coordinate, m
---. Single-pass system recovery
Greek
- Thickness of the boundary layer. m
- Voidage
..----Absolute viscosity, kg h/m’
- Density. kg/m’
- Osmotic pressure, kg/m Ii’
......--Osmotic pressure coefticient, m*/h’
- Osmotic pressure to solute concen-
tration ratio, m2/h’
.....-....
X number (dC F:, p/p)
- X, number (fluidized bed). (4,. F,, p/p)
A.M. Al-Mudaiheem and H. Miyamura, Con-
struction and commissioning of Al Jobail Phase 11
desalination plant. DesaIinat-ion,55 (1985) IL.1 I.
S.E. Aly, Combined RO/VC desalination system.
Desalination, 58 (1986) 85-97.
D. Mahlab, N. Ben Yosef and G. Belfort, Concen-
tration polarization profile for dissolved species in
unstirred batch hyperfiltration (reverse osmosis).
II. Transient case.Desalination, 34 ( 1978) 297-303.
K.B. Bird,WE. Stewart and E.N.Li~htFoot.~I’ransport
Phenomena. Wiley International Edition. Yew York.
1960,663 p.
D.C. Brandt, Seawaterreverseosmosis:an economic
alternative to distillation. Desalination. 52 (1985 )
177-186
A. Chiolle, G Gianotti, M. Gramondo and G Parrini,
Mathematical model of reverse osmosis in paraliel-
wall channels with turbulence promoting nets.
bed) Desalination. 26 ( 1978) 3---16.
J.E. Cruver, 1JS Department of Interior, Office of
Saline Water Res. Dcvel. Progr. Rept., NTIS: PB
223 181, No. 882, Sept. 1973.
E. Drioli and F. Bellucci, Concentration polarization
and solute-membrane interactions affecting pres-
sure driven membrane processes. Desalination, 26
(1978) 17.--36.
G. Green and G. Belfort, Fouling of ultrafiltration
membranes: lateral migration and the particle
trajectory model, Desalination, 35 (1980) 129--147.
H. Ohya. Reverse Osmosis Method, Cltrafiltration
Method. 1. Theory. Sachu Publisher, Japan. 1976.
NM. Jackson, ;Llodel to simulate the structure and
performance of cellular polymeric membranes:
structure, flux and filtration characteristics. Filtr.
Separ.,Jan (199.5)69.
G. Jonsson, Overview of theories for water and
solute transport in UF!RO membranes. Desalination,
35 (198Oi2L38.
Y. Kurokawa, M. Lurashige and K. \iui. A visco-
elastic model for initial flux decline through reverse
osmosismembrane. Desalination, 52 (1981) 9--14.
E3.R.Min, AL. Gill and W.K. Gill,.4 note on fluoride
removal by reverseosmosis. Desalination, 49 ( 1984)
89-93.
DE Potts, R.C. i\hlert and S.S. Wang. .A critical
review of fouling of reverse osmosis membranes.
Desalination. 36 (198 1) 135-264.
[161 B. Ramachandaran and B.M. Mishra, Mechanism
and transport through reverse osmosis membranes.
Lecture Notes: Membrane and Its Application, Orga-
nized by Dept. Chem. Eng. and Dept. Biochem. Eng.
and Biotechnology, IlT Delhi, Feb. 13-l 5 (1996) 27.
1171 C.S. Slater. J.M. Zielinski, R.G. Wendel and C.Ci.
L&in, Modeling of a small scale reverse osmosis
systems. Desalination, 52 (1985) 267-284.
[18] M. Soltanieh and W. Gill, Review ofR0 membranes
and transport tnodels. Chem. Eng. Comm., I2 ( 198 1)
279,
[19] S. Sourirajan and T. Matsura, RO:‘Ultrafiltration
Principles. Ottawa, Canada, NRC. 1985.
[.?(I] M.J. van der Waal. P.M. van der Veiden, J. Koning,
CA. Smolders and W.P.M. van Swaay, Use of flui-
dised beds as turbulence promotors in tubular mem-
brane systems.I.>esalination,22 (19’77) 465 -483.
PI] W.J. Weber. Physicochemical Processesfor Water
Quality Control, Wiley, New York. 1972.
[22] A.B. Mindler and A.C. Epstein, Measurements and
control in reverse osmosis desalination. Desali-
nation. 59 (1986) 343-379.
[23] K. Jamal, Modeling of reverse osmosis membrane
system, M. Tech. dissertation. AMU Aligarh, 1996.
[24] X. Wang, Mass transfer and the fluidized bed inien-
sification ofreverse osmosis. Desalination, 62 ( 1987)
2 1 l-220.
[25] D. Bhattacharyya. S.L. Back and R.I. Kermode,
Prediction of concentration polarization and flux
behavior in reverse osmosis by numerical ‘analysis.
J. Membr. Sci., 48 (1990) 23 1.