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

net/publication/325330439

Simulation and experimental study of an AGMD membrane distillation pilot

for the desalination of seawater or brackish water with zero liquid discharged

Article  in  Heat and Mass Transfer · December 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s00231-018-2383-6

CITATIONS READS

12 244

4 authors:

Mokhless Boukhriss Sofiene Khemili

Institute for Engineering Studies of Kairouan,Tunisia High School of science and technology
27 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohamed Bechir Ben Hamida Habib Ben Bacha

University of Ha'il - College of Engineering - Saudi Arabia Salman Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia - Ecole Nationale d'Ingenieurs de S…
73 PUBLICATIONS   572 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   750 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

energy optimisation View project

Physics of Plasmas View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Bechir Ben Hamida on 12 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Heat and Mass Transfer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-018-2383-6

ORIGINAL

Simulation and experimental study of an AGMD membrane distillation

pilot for the desalination of seawater or brackish water with zero
liquid discharged
Mokhless Boukhriss 1 & Sofiene Khemili 2 & Mohamed Bechir Ben Hamida 2 & Habib Ben Bacha 1,3

Received: 6 September 2017 / Accepted: 14 May 2018

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Our work consists in presenting the results of an invention for a membrane distillation system coupled to an efficient and robust
water solar collector. This system produces potable water with high quality and a small percentage of brackish discharge indepen-
dent of salinity of the water source. To optimize and characterize experimentally the installation unit of the air gap membrane
distillation (AGMD). During the tests, brackish water was used, ranging from 4.2 to 12.5 g/l of salt. The results show that the
permeate flux increases as the temperature and feed rate an increase, and the thickness of the air gap decreases (from 5.12 to
1.5 mm). Our AGMD system was modelled using Matlab programming on heat and mass transfer aspects. The 1D model is based
on the transfer equations and correlations of the literature present in the membrane distillation pilot. The maximum permeate flux
obtained was 7.4 kg /m2 h with the temperature of the hot fluid of 80 °C, a gap of 1.5 mm and water flow rates of 4.8 l/min for the hot
chamber and cold. For all measurements, the maximum relative difference between the experimental results and the simulated
results is observed at 10% errors. The results of low temperature hot fluids can be interested in the solar energy coupling project.

Nomenclature HVL Heat transfer rate of phase change (J/m2s)

A Area (m2) h Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
B Effective absorptivity I Intensity of solar radiation (W/m2)
Cp Heat capacity (J/kg K) K Thermal conductivity (W/m K)
D Diffusion coefficient (m2/s) Kc Proportional gain
Fj Objective functionj Ku Ultimate gain
H Height (m) k Mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
L Length (m)
M Mass (kg)
Mw Molecular weight of water kg/kmol)
* Mokhless Boukhriss
mokhlessiset@yahoo.fr
mf Fluid flowrate (kg/s)
mf,c Fluid collector flowrate (kg/s)
Sofiene Khemili N Mass flux (kmol/m2s)
sofiene_khemili@gamail.com OP Controller output
Mohamed Bechir Ben Hamida P Pressure (Pa)
bechirbenhemida@yahoo.fr Q Heat transfer rate (J/s)
QN Sensible heat transfer rate (J/s)
Habib Ben Bacha
hbbach@Ksu.edu.sa R Gas constant (J/kmol K)
S Collector absorber surface area (m1)
1
Laboratory of Electromechanical Systems, National School of Si Stream number i
Engineers Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia T Temperature (K)
2
Research Unit of Ionized Backgrounds and Reagents Studies U Overall heat transfer coefficient of the heat ex-
(UEMIR) Preparatory Institute for Engineering Studies of Monastir changer (W/m2K)
(IPEIM), University of Monastir, Kairouan street,
U’ Overall heat loss coefficient between the collector
5019 Monastir, Tunisia
3
absorber and the surroundings (W/m2K)
College of Engineering at Alkharj, Prince Sattam Bin Abdul-Aziz
W Width (m)
University, Alkharj, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
 Heat Mass Transfer

DHvap Heat of vaporization (J/kmol) membrane. This technique has the advantage of being coupled
D Thickness (m) with solar energy [2], which is the overall objective of the
e Membrane porosity study presented here. There are four major configurations of
m Viscosity (kg/m s) membrane distillation modules in the literature [3–6]. Direct
r Density (kg/m3) contact membrane distillation (DCMD), the air gap membrane
s Membrane tortuosity distillation (AGMD), the sweeping gas membrane distillation
sI Integral time (s) and the vacuum membrane distillation (VMD). The configu-
su Ultimate period (s) ration studied in this article for desalination of brackish water
L Liquid. is the AGMD. It is a thermal membrane process, the motive
G Gas. force of the transfer being a difference of partial pressure on
Sat Saturated either of the membrane created by of temperature difference.
AG Air gap Compared with other membrane distillation techniques,
A Ambient AGMD appears to be of interest for its aspects of low wetting
Air Air of the membrane and the fact that there is no additional energy
Avg Average consumption. In the recent years, the AGMD has undergone
c Solar collector more sustained development, mainly in research develop-
CL Cold liquid ment, thanks to the evolution of the membrane manufacturing
CONL Condensate liquid techniques. This paper presents the modelling of phenomena
F Condensing film surface in the air gap (mass and heat transfers) and the experimental and simulated
F Circulation fluid in the solar collector results of the parametric study of an installation of type PTFE,
fh Circulation fluid between the coil and the heat on the pilot scale (500 L) is shown in Fig. 1a and b.
exchanger
fs Circulation fluid between the internal coil and the
solar
Tf Fluid temperature (K)
2 The different desalination methods
Tc Collector temperature (K)
The Fig. 2 illustrates the desalination techniques. These tech-
GM Gas in the membrane
niques are classified in two broad categories: membrane
HL Hot liquid
MD Membrane module
MEM Membrane
MET Metal
Nu Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number
T Total
w Water
wa Water air

1 Introduction

As the world’s population increases from 7.5 billion in 2017 to

9.6 billion in 2050 [1], fresh water becomes increasingly im-
portant as. Drinking water is consumed daily for many pur-
poses. Thus, the three largest consumer sectors in the world
are agriculture, industry and domestic use. Moreover, the
shortage of drinking water is accentuated especially in arid
regions in Africa and the Near East. Desalination of seawater
or brackish water is the solution that makes it possible to
obtain fresh water. Among the processes used for desalination
of seawater or brackish water, we could mention MD. It is a
process in which the membrane is a thermal process in which
water vapour is transported through a hydrophobic porous Fig. 1 a Diagram of the proposed facility. b rear view
Heat Mass Transfer
Fig. 2 Processes of desalination
processes and thermal processes. The processes acting on the
chemical bonds and processes are being performed by phase
change. This method aims to separate salt water desalination
in two parts: fresh water containing a low concentration of
dissolved salts and concentrate brine. This process is energy-
consuming, for instance various desalination techniques have
been implemented over the years on the basis of the available
energy [5].
2.1 Principles of MD
MD is a thermal process in which water vapour is transported
through a hydrophobic porous membrane. The liquid phase to
be treated must be kept in contact with one face of the mem-
brane without penetrating the pores unless the transmembrane
pressure is greater than the inlet pressure. The hydrophobicity
of the membrane prevents the liquid entering the pores due to
the surface tension. Thus, liquid/vapour interfaces are created
in the vicinity of the pores.
2.2 Different configurations of MD
2.2.1 Direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD)
A colder aqueous solution and the feed solution are main-
tained in direct contact with the permeate membrane. In this
case, the transmembrane temperature difference induces a va-
pour pressure difference. (Fig. 3)
Feed in Liquid permeate
out
Membra
Liquid permeate
Feed out in
Fig. 3 DCMD
Consequently, the volatile molecules evaporate at the liquid
/vapour interface of the feed and recondensate at the liquid /
vapour interface of the colder permeate [7].
2.2.2 Air gap membrane distillation (AGMD)
In Fig. 4 there was an air space is interposed between the
membrane and the condensation surface. As a result, the evap-
orated volatile molecules will pass through the pores of the
membrane and the air space to final condensation a colder
surface inside the membrane module.
2.2.3 Sweep gas membrane distillation (SGMD)
The Fig. 5 above demonstrates presenting cold procedure side
of membrane swept air in order to carry away the transferred
steam. An inert cold gas sweeps the membrane on the side of
the permeate carrying with it the vaporized molecules. The
condensation then takes place outside the membrane module.
2.2.4 Vacuum membrane distillation (VMD)
The Fig. 6 shows a vacuum applied on the permeate side by
means of a vacuum pump. The applied vacuum pressure is the
saturating vapour pressure of the separated volatile molecules.
In this case, the condensation of the molecules takes place
outside the membrane module [8].
Air gap
Membran
Condensing plate
Feed out Coolant in
Production
Fig. 4 AGMD
 Heat Mass Transfer

Feed in Table 1 Lists of membrane parameters and solar collector

Condense
Membrane module

Membrane area (m2) 10

Membrane Width (m) 1.29
Product Length (m) 0.7
Thickness (mm) 0.14
Pore diameter (mm) 0.2
Porosity 0.77
Sweep gas in Tortuosity 1.9
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 0.173
Feed out Hot liquid channel thickness (mm) 0.77
Cold liquid channel thickness (mm) 0.77
Fig. 5 SGMD Air gap channel thickness (mm) 0.43
Metal foil thickness (mm) 0.98
3 Modeling of the membrane distillation unit Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 398

The 1-D model for individual AGMD is formulated and re-

solved numerically on the platform, where the membrane
module can be developed via a graphical interface. The model
components are linked and solved in an installation on the
equations. The specifications of the components analyzed in
this study are defined in Table 1 and by the following equa-
tions [4, 5, 9, 10]. (Fig. 7)
The system uses AGMD modules. For Module with size
specifications listed in Table 1.
The unfolded screen is shown in Fig. 8a and b.
The 1-D AGMD mathematical model developed was for
flat sheet membranes typically used in commercial MD pilot
units. The model is based on dividing the AGMD module
longitudinally into smaller elements. Within each element,
different zones exist, where a significant mass and energy
exchange occurs along the boundaries of these zones. As
depicted in Fig. 9, the zones, in order from left to right, are
as follows:
– The hot fluid channel
– The polymeric membrane layer
Feed in Vacuum
Condense
Membran
Product
– The air gap space
– The condensate film on the cooling plate
– The cooling plate sheet
– The cold fluid channel.
In Fig. 9, it is assumed that flow direction, x, is the
same as that of the hot feed flow, and each small ele-
ment is assumed to have a length of dx and a constant
width W. Moreover, the mathematical model calcula-
tions were simplified according to the following
assumptions:
1. The system is in a steady state condition.
2. The hot and cold fluids are assumed to flow in the x
direction only.
3. The pressure inside the air gap is constant (no pressure
drop along the air gap zone).
4. The condensation on the cooling plate is film-wise and the
thickness of the falling film inside the air gap is small in
comparison to the width of the air gap.
5. Within the air gap, there is no bulk velocity of the air-
vapour mixture. Heat is transferred by conduction while
mass is transferred through diffusion.
6. Pure water vapour is only transported through membrane
pores.
7. There is no heat being exchanged with the surroundings.

The main components are the solar collector and the MD

module. A heat exchanger can be added with a slack stor-
age in case of day and night work. The MD module is
Feed out featured with a design of energy [4, 5] recovery. The
System’s performance is determined by the profiles of
Fig. 6 VMD s ol a r ra d i at i o n , t he d es i gn of in d i v i d u a l sy s t e m
Heat Mass Transfer
Fig. 7 Membrane distillation unit
(AGMD) couples with solar
collector
components, component integration, the business model
and the control strategy. Modeling and control methods
of solar desalination, Ben Bacha et al. [11] and Roca et al.
[12] presented studies for a solar cycle system condensa-
tion and evaporation multiple hybrid fossil fuel powered
solar distillation system, respectively. Both groups have
developed reduced process for integrating their control
algorithms proposed on the basis of linear technology
control and feedback linearization technique, models
Fig. 8 AGMD model
respectively. Due to the intermittent and unpredictable
nature of solar radiation, the steady state operation of
the solar desalination process is not easy to achieve and
the application of modern control algorithms is difficult.
The purpose of this study is to develop a dynamic model,
including models for key components, and to investigate
the overall system optimization. The model is built on the
platform [13], which allows the analysis and control sys-
tem design.
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 9 A schematic diagram of

AGMD longitudinal zones used
in describing the model

The hot fluid and hot fluid are against the current. is taken into account. Mass and energy flows for all
For simplicity, seawater is used, along with hot and layers, including the hot fluid, the membrane gap, a
cold fluids in the model. The purpose of this study is cold fluid and metal sheet are illustrated by Fig. 10.
to investigate the optimization and control of the entire the model equations are summarized below.
system, this simplification will not cause significant dif- The mass balances
ferences in the test results. The mass transfers resistance dm f ;HL
of the hot fluid side which is insignificant in a previous ¼ −N GM;w Lw M w ð1Þ
dz
analysis [14] to the hollow fiber module. Transferring
dm f ;CONL
the mass flow is determined by taking into account ¼ −N AG;w LMD M w ð2Þ
the mass transfer resistance in the gap and membrane. dz
However, the heat transfer resistance of the whole layers N GM;w ¼ N AG;w : ð3Þ

Fig. 10 AGMD model for the

heat transfer and mass
Heat Mass Transfer

Balancing the energy For the condensing heat transfer to the film, the following
relationship is employed: [16].
∂T HL
2 L 3
∂t 2 3 ρw ρL ρV gΔH K L
m f ;HL ∂T HL ð w− w Þ
hCONL ¼ 0:9434 5:
vap;w w
ð25Þ
6 M HL ∂z 7 ð4Þ LMD μw ðT CONL −T MET Þ
6
7
6
¼ −W MD 6 þ L 7
h þ N GM;w C Lp;w M w 7
MD
4 M HL C p;HL HL 5
 
 T GM ð1Þ −T GM ð2Þ
2 3
m f ;CL ∂T CL 4 Results and discussion
∂T cL 6 M CL ∂z 7
¼ −W MD 64 LMD hCL 
7
5 ð5Þ
∂t þ T MET ð2Þ −T CL 4.1 Simulation for membrane distillation unit
M CL C p;CL
QHL þ QN;HL −H VL;HL ¼ QGM þ QN ;GM ð6Þ 4.1.1 Model validation at different operating parameters

QGM þ QN;GM ¼ QAG þ QN;AG ð7Þ The first set of experiments was conducted to test the repro-
QAG þ QN ;AG þ H VL;AG ¼ QCONL þ QN ;CONL ð8Þ ducibility and to determine the experimental errors. The mea-
sured water vapour flux at different feed water temperatures
QMET ¼ QCONL þ QN ;CONL ð9Þ was repeatable and the variation in flux was a maximum of
QMET ¼ QCL : ð10Þ ±0.12 kg/m2·hr. (2%). The mathematical model results were
validated against them different experimental data. Figure 11
Mass fluxes shows a comparison between the predicted mass fluxes and
k GM;w
sat  the measured water vapour fluxes for a range feed water tem-
N GM;w ¼ PGM ð1Þ;w −Psat
AGð1Þ;w ð11Þ peratures (40 °C-80 °C). The model of AGMD is predicted is
RT GM ;arg
an exponential behaviour of the flux as a function of feed
k GM ;w

water temperature. This behaviour is supported by our exper-
N AG;w ¼ AGð1Þ;w −P F;w :
Psat sat
ð12Þ
RT arg PIn;air δAG imental data reported in published AGMD literature [8, 15,
17]. However, the validity of the mathematical model should
Heat fluxes not be judged based on predicting the trend of the process, but
  also on how closely it predicts the absolute experimental data.
QHL ¼ hHL T HL −T GM ð1Þ ð13Þ
  Our new model that has been developed can be used as a tool
QGM ¼ ½εhGM þ ð1 þ εÞhMEM  T GM ð1Þ −T GM ð2Þ ð14Þ for in-depth analysis of the AGMD process and scaling it up.
  The objective may require relaxing a criterion towards which
QAG þ QN ;AG ¼ hAG −θθ T GM ð2Þ −T F
e ð15Þ we can judge the validity of our module. Nevertheless, the
Avec ¼ NCp=h prediction of the model was in the range of the experimental
 
QCONLL ¼ hCONL T F −T MET ð1Þ ð16Þ error.
  To validate the model further, we replaced the deionized
QMET ¼ hMET T MET ð1Þ −T MET ð2Þ ð17Þ water (feed) with Red Sea water to see how the model predicts
 
QCL ¼ hCL T MET ð2Þ −T CL ð18Þ the water vapor flux for a seawater salinity of 4.2 wt%. The
 
QN;HL ¼ N GM;N C Lp;w T HL −T GM ð1Þ ð19Þ 7
  simulated
QN;GM ¼ N GM;N C Lp;w T GM ð1Þ −T GM ð2Þ ð20Þ 6
flux at 70°c
Water vapor flux (kg/m2.hr)

  5
QN;CONL ¼ N AG;w C Lp;w T F −T MET ð1Þ ð21Þ measured
4 flux at 70°c
H VL;HL ¼ H GM ;w ΔH vap;w ð22Þ 3
simulated
H VL;AG ¼ H AG;w ΔH vap;w ð23Þ 2
flux at 60°c

1 mesaured
The heat transfer coefficients for hot and cold fluid sides flux at 60°c
are estimated using the correlations reported by Schock and 0
0 5 10 15
Miquel [15] for the module flat plate wound membrane. Air gap width (mm)

Nu ¼ 0:065:Re0:875 :Pr0:25 ð24Þ Fig. 11 Simulated and measured water vapor fluxes at different deionized
feed water temperatures
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 12 Predicted and measured

water vapor fluxes at different predicted
seawater feed temperatures 6,5 flux for 0.2
mm pore size
membrane
5,5

water vapur flux (kg/m2.hr)

predicted flux for
4,5 0.45 mm pore size
membrane

3,5

2,5 mesured flux

for 0.2 mm
1,5 pore size
membrane"
0,5
mesured flux
for 0.45 mm
-0,5
25 45 65 85 pore size
feed intel tempurature(°C
C) membrane"

distillate conductivity was continuously measured to check for
any pore wetting that may take place and the distillate con-
ductivity was always below 20 μS. As shown in Fig. 12, the
predicted water vapor flux was also within the range of exper-
imental error.
The effect of air gap width was also investigated. As it is
shown in Fig. 13, the model predicted decay in flux as the air
gap increased. This result agrees with the results reported by
Kimra et al. [7] and Jonsson et al. [8]. However, the model
predictions for water vapour flux at different air gap widths
was not as good as were the predictions for variations in
feed temperature. Analysis of the results showed that the
water vapour flux was very sensitive to the change of air
gap width, especially when it is very small. A reduction in
air gap width results in higher production capacity and
higher errors. These errors are more significant when the
air gap width is very small. Therefore, any small error in
measuring the gap width (i.e., by 0.1 mm) will affect the
water vapor flux significantly. The error of our measure-
ments to the gap width was about ±0.5 mm. Our investiga-
tion showed that this was due to the deformation of the
parafilm tape used in sealing the module. Further experi-
mental tests with a modified module are required in the
future to better evaluate the model prediction at small air
gap width.
Finally, the model was validated against experimental data
using different membrane pore sizes. The model prediction
was good enough (±10%), although it didn’t predict well the
data (15%) at feed temperature of 70 °C for the 0.45 μm
membrane (Fig. 14). The flux increases significantly as the
feed temperature is increases as well, so variations in the inlet
temperature will have a larger effect on the measured flux
compared to measurements at lower feed temperatures, and
the error of 15% appears reasonable.

90
80
70 7
Tempurature(°c)

coolant
60
water vapor flux (kg/m2 .hr)

tempurat 6 flux
50 ure
5 for0.45mm
40 pore size
4 membrane
30
feed 3
20
tempurat
10 ure 2 flux
for0.2mm
0 1 pore size
0 5 10 15 20 membrane
0
module length (m) 0 20 40 60 80
Feed inlet tempurature (°c)

Fig. 13 Predicted and measured water vapor fluxes as a function of air Fig. 14 Predicted and measured water vapor fluxes using different
gap membrane pore sizes
Heat Mass Transfer

8 4.2 SEM Images and Membrane Properties

predicted
7 flux
The SEM observation indicated that the PDFE membrane
Water vapor flux (kg/m2.hr)

for0.2mm
6
pore size (according to Table 1) studied is characterized by a foam
5 membran
e structure and is symmetrical. Some differences in pore size
4
measured occurred only on the outer surface (Fig. 16 a and b). The
3 flux for0.2 maximum pore size observed on the inner membrane surface
mm pore
2 size did not exceed a few microns.
membran Mass transfer in the MD process is diffuse. Therefore, the
1 e
permeate flux is strongly affected by the wall thickness of the
0
membrane and the pore diameter. The results of the study
0 50 100
feed inlet temperature °C confirmed that the type of membrane used has a significant
Fig. 15 The influence of feed temperature and kind of used membranes
influence on the efficiency of the MD process (Fig. 17).
on the permeate flux and thermal efficiency. Feed–distilled water. TD = Given the membranes with similar wall thickness, a higher
20 °C, mF = mD = 0.014 dm3/s flux was obtained, having a larger pore size in a membrane.
Molecular diffusion and Knudsen influence mass transfer in
the MD process, therefore, the permeate flux increases with an
4.1.2 Effect of the flow regime increase in pore diameter.

The developed model can simulate flow rates against the cur-
rent flat sheets of the AGMD modules. The Fig. 15 shows the
temperature profile of the hot feed water and the temperatures
of the coolant inside the module. The counter-current regime
is characterized by a constant temperature difference along the
module (this fact may not be true if the flow rate of coolant is
not equal to the flow rate of supply.
Mass transfer in the MD process is diffuse. Therefore,
the permeate flux is strongly affected by the wall thickness
of the membrane and the pore diameter. The results of the
study confirmed that the type of membrane used has a sig-
nificant influence on the efficiency of the MD process
(Fig. 15).
Given the membranes with similar wall thickness, a higher
flux was obtained, having a larger pore size in a membrane.
Molecular diffusion and Knudsen influence mass transfer in
the MD process, therefore, the permeate flux increases with an
increase in pore diameter.
4.3 FTIR technical
On Fig. 18, the FTIR shows the wave photographs corre-
sponding to Na cl. These functional groups indicate the pres-
ence of components on the surface of the membrane and or-
ganic substances in general in the membrane fouling layer.
The PFDF membrane is shown in the photos correspond-
ing to fluorine. Here, it shows sharp peaks of about
1200 cm−1, while the photos of the clogged membranes over-
lapped, presumably because of the fouling layer. FTIR of the
entire membrane of the salts showed interference, probably
due to the extent of the casing. Here, the peak corresponding
to the wavelengths of the fluorine is superposed by other
photos, indicating that the embellishment layer covers the sur-
face of the membrane. The membrane also demonstrates
peaks in the area corresponding to the phosphate, which re-
vealed that the inorganic encroachment also occurred.

Fig. 16 SEM images of PTFE

membranes

Fig. 17 The influence of feed
temperature and kind of used
membranes on the permeate flux
and thermal efficiency Feed–
distilled water TD = 20 °C, mF =
mD = 0.014 dm3/s
The results presented for an initial estimation of possible
MD applications in the water treatment industry. A very good
separation of a series of solutions is indicated. However, the
results of the present work show that embedding problems
must be overcome before the commercial implementation of
this process is viable on flow. The performance of AGMD
decreased with increasing salt concentration. However, the
flow and content of achievable sea water or brackish water
can be increased by improving hydrodynamic factors such as
feed and permeate flow.
5 Conclusions
This study presents the experimental and simulated character-
ization of a membrane distillation unit. A theoretical model
was developed and validated using pilot-scale experimental
data. This model will make it possible to dimension a proto-
type of a solar collector coupled to an AGMD unit. The most
Fig. 18 The FTIR showed the
wave photographs corresponding
to Na cl
Heat Mass Transfer
influential parameters studied in this study are the feed tem-
perature, the flow rate of the hot fluid and the thickness of the
air gap. The effect of the type of flow is more visible with the
variations of the flow rates than with the variation of the tem-
perature of the supply of the hot fluid. This effect disappears
when the thickness of the air gap is high. The maximum per-
meate flux obtained was 7.4 kg / m2 h with a fluid temperature
of 80 °C., air gap of 1.04 mm and hot and cold flow rates of 5 l
/ min. This work reveals that even at the low hot fluid supply
temperature of 25 °C, the AGMD configuration is capable of
producing desalinated water. This aspect of the process may
be useful in coupling with low temperature heat sources.
The membrane was then characterized by the SEM and
FTIR technique to locate the presence of salt on the
membrane.
Other tests will be carried out soon on the long-term use
and the clogging effect of the membrane which is the main
lock to the development of this kind of desalination
technique.
Heat Mass Transfer
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Lloyd DR, Lawson KW (1997) Membrane distillation. J Membr
Sci 124:1–25
2. Bourawi MS, Ding Z, Ma R, Khayet MA (2006) framework for
better understanding membrane distillation separation process. J
Membr Sci 285:4–29
3. Kalogirou SA (2005) Seawater desalination using renewable ener-
gy sources. Prog Energy Combust Sci 31:242–281
4. Banat F, Jwaied N, Rommel M, Koschikowski J, Wieghaus M
(2007) Performance evaluation of the Blarge SMADES^ autono-
mous desalination solar-driven membrane distillation plant in
Aqaba, Jordan. Desalination 217:17–28
5. Boukhriss M, Gharbi R, Zhani K, Ben Bacha H (2012) Studyof
thermophysical properties of a solar desalination system using
solair energy desalination and water treatment science and engi-
neering, Received: 01 Mar 2012, Accepted: 18 Jul 2012, Version
of record first published: 04 Sep 2012
6. van Medevoort J, Jansen A, Hanemaaijer JH, Dotremont C,
Nelemnas B, van Sonsbeek E et al (2008) Memstill: seawater de-
salination a solution to water scarcity. In: BMG-NMG membrane
Symposium. Antwerp, Belgium
7. Chen CX, Yu LX, Dai TY (1996) Review of new membrane and
membrane process. Technol Water Treat 22(6):307–313
View publication stats
8. Liu LY, Ding CW, Chang LJ et al (2008) Progress in membrane
separation enhanced by ultrasound. Chemical Industry and
Engineering Progess 27(4):32–37
9. Ben Bacha H, Damak T, Bouzguenda M, Maalej AY, Ben DH
(2003) A methodology to design and predict operation of a solar
collector for a solar-powered desalination unit using the SMCEC
principle. Desalination 156:305–313
10. Boukhriss M, Zhani K, Ben Bacha H (2015) Optimization of mem-
brane distillation (MD) technology for specific application desali-
nation, Int J Adv Manuf Technol Received: 21 October 2015,
Accepted 8 Apr. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-8756-4 2016
11. Ben Bacha H, Bouzguenda M, Damak T, Abid MS, Maalej AY
(2000) A study of a water desalination station using the SMCEC
technique: production optimization. Renew Energy 21:523–536
12. Roca L, Berenguel M, Yebra L, Alarcón DC (2008) Preliminary
modeling and control studies in AQUASOL project. Desalination
222:466–473
13. Aspen Technology, Inc (2006) Aspen custom modeler.Version.
Aspen Technology, Inc, Cambridge
14. Chang H, Liau JS, Ho CD, Wang WH (2009) Simulation of mem-
brane distillation modules for desalination by developing user’s
model on Aspen Plus platform. Desalination 249:380–387
15. Schock G, Miquel A (1987) Mass transfer and pressure loss in
spiral wound modules. Desalination 64:339–352
16. Boukhriss M, Ben Bacha H, Zarzoum K, Zhani K (2015) Study of
modeling and simulation of direct contact membrane distillation.
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research 6(1):
1317 ISSN 2229-5518
17. Koshchikowski J, Wieghaus M, Rommel M (2003) Solar thermal-
driven desalination plants based on membrane distillation.
Desalination 156:295–304