FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY REPORT
WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT ENGINEERING
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY
COURSE CODE AND NAME BNA 31203 / WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

EXPERIMENT NO. 7

EXPERIMENT TITLE REVERSE OSMOSIS PROCESS [RO UNIT]

DATE OF EXPERIMENT (Performed) 6 NOVEMBER 2022 [SUNDAY]

NAME MATRIX NO.

1. NUR AFIQAH BINTI RAMLI CN200098

GROUP NO.
2. KOGULA CHEILVEAN A/L
CN200162

2 THAMILSELVAN

3. AININ SOFIYA BINTI MOHAMMAD

CN200102
FAIZAL

4. SHAREENA SIAN ANAK INNIT CN200017

1. DR NOR HAZREN BINTI ABDUL HAMID

LECTURER / INSTRUCTOR
2. DR MIMI SULIZA BINTI MUHAMAD

DATE OF EXPERIMENT (Submitted) 13 NOVEMBER 2022 [SUNDAY]

TOTAL MARK (FROM RUBRIC

ASSESSMENT)
 Faculty: Faculty of Engineering Technology
Programme: BNA
Course: Water Treatment Technology
Code: BNA 31203

REPORT ASSESSMENT RUBRICS

Integrate in group effectively to the given tasked related to the No
CLO 4: Participation Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent
water treatment technology. (LOD7, A4, PLO9)
Rate Weight Score
Assessment PO SK Criteria Sub criteria Level 0 1 2 3 4 5

Lack or not related Minimal description Some description shown Adequate description Comprehensive
Ability to description description 5 0.2
describe the lab
work
Description A1
of Lack understanding of Minimal understanding Show some understanding Show adequate Show detail
Follow the the correct working of the correct working of the correct working understanding of the understanding of the 5 0.2
Respect and experiment
correct working procedure procedure procedure correct working correct working
accept
procedure procedure procedure
opinion
Unable to answer all Unable to answer some Able to answer some Able to answer all Able to answer all
Question and Ability to answer A2 No question question question correctly question correctly question correctly and 5 0.6
answer question answer informatively
at all
Working in Dispute between
group members and/or not Minimal teamwork Mediocre teamwork Good teamwork effort Very good teamwork
PO9: working together in effort 5 0.4
effort effort
group
Lab work Individual Foster good Demonstrate
(Interview) & relationships teamwork Group Lack of group Minimal (1-2 person) Average (1-3 person) All group member All group member
Teamwork A3
participation in participation between group participation group participation participates participates with
the lab work members enthusiasm 5 0.4

Group Appearance and Improper appearance Proper appearance but Proper appearance Proper appearance Proper appearance with
organization preparedness (not wearing less enthusiastic but not ready and ready enthusiastic and fully 5 0.6
lab work attire) prepared

Alternate
Display Poor eye contact and Minimal eye contact and Mediocre eye contact and Good eye contact and Very good eye contact
roles A4
Delivery communication vocal expression vocal expression vocal expression vocal expression and vocal expression 5 0.6
confidence

TOTAL (%)
 Faculty: Faculty of Engineering Technology
Programme: BNA
Course: Water Treatment Technology
Code: BNA 31203

CLO3: Adapt the appropriate methods for conducting investigation in task given in solving problems related to No Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Rate Weight Score
water treatment successfully. (LOD5, P6, PLO5, SK1, SK3, SK4, SK6, SP1, SP3, SP4) Participation

Assessment PO SK Rubric elements Criteria Sub criteria SP Level 0 1 2 3 4 5

Explanation of Perform lab work with Description of the lab Lack or not Minimal description Some description Adequate description Comprehensive
principles and correct procedure and work: objective and P1 related shown shown description 5 0.6
theories equipment introduction
description
Show the correct Equipment or Incorrect Correct Correct equipment Correct equipment
SK3 equipment SP1 procedure not equipment or equipment but and adequate procedure and comprehensive
and procedure shown procedure shown procedure briefly shown procedure shown
P2 5 0.8
shown
(PO5: Modern
Data collection, Correct and precise Lack of data Complete data Complete data Complete data Complete and correct
Tool Usage) analysis, and data collection: results collection and no collection but no collection but collection and data collection and
Select and apply conclusion and calculation calculation shown calculation shown incorrect correct calculation calculation
appropriate 5 0.5
calculation shown
techniques,
resources, and SK4 SP3 P3 Not concluding Minimal Some conclusion of Adequate conclusion Concise conclusion
modern
Concise conclusion the whole conclusion of the the report shown of the whole report of the whole report
engineering and IT None at all
Discussion of whole report
Lab work tools, including report 5 0.5
prediction and the result, analysis,
(Written modelling, to Demonstration of and conclusion Analyze and discuss Incorrect Correct analyses Correct analyses Correct analyses Correct
report) broadly- defined analysis using the data trends using analyses and with minimal with some with adequate analyses with
engineering related
SK6 correct graphs SP1 P4 discussion discussion discussion discussion comprehensive 5 1.2
problems, with an
technology and/or discussion
understanding of
software
the limitations;
Appraisal of the Solve the question Incorrect answers Correct answers Correct answers Correct answers with Correct answers with
SK3 suitable and with correct answers P5 and discussion with minimal with some adequate discussion comprehensive 5 1.6
efficient solutions. and discussions discussion discussion
SP4 discussion
Selection of Adapt to the correct Incorrect Correct Correct Correct equipment Correct equipment
suitable analytical used of equipment equipment and equipment used equipment used used with adequate used with well-
techniques. and measurement measurement measurement versed measurement
SK1 but minimal with average 5 0.9
technique technique used
measurement measurement technique shown technique shown
technique shown technique shown
Lab work Adapt appropriate SP3 P6
(practical) method and solutions
Well-versed with relate to the lab work Adapt to the correct Incorrect Correct procedure Correct procedure Correct procedure Correct procedure
SK3 the correct and procedure procedure shown shown but minimal shown with average shown with adequate shown with 5 0.9
safe operational with lack of understanding understanding understanding
enthusiasm and well-
procedures understanding
versed understanding

TOTAL (%)
 STUDENT CODE OF ETHICS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

I hereby declare that I have prepared this report with my own efforts. I also admit to not accept or

provide any assistance in preparing this report and anything that is in it is true.

GROUP LEADER Signature

Name : NUR AFIQAH BINTI RAMLI

Matrix No. : CN200098

MEMBERS

Name : KOGULA CHEILVEAN A/L THAMILSELVAN

Matrix No. : CN200162

Name : AININ SOFIYA BINTI MOHAMMAD FAIZAL

Matrix No. : CN200102

Name : SHAREENA SIAN ANAK INNIT

Matrix No. : CN200017
OBJECTIVES

i. To study how well the RO membrane performs under various feed pressures.
ii. To determine the membrane resistance, 𝑅𝑚 by using deionized water.

INTRODUCTION

A partly permeable membrane is used in the Reverse Osmosis (RO) method of water filtration
to extract major contaminants like chlorine, salt, and soil from drinking water. Natural osmosis
takes place without the need for energy since molecules have a tendency to flow from high too
low to attain equilibrium. Reverse osmosis, on the other hand, uses pressure to overcome
osmotic pressure; dirty water is forced against the semi-permeable membrane, which only
permits tiny water molecules to flow through. The output stream with a low ion concentration
in this instance is the permeate flow. The concentrate exit stream has a high concentration.

One of the most affordable and efficient methods for desalinating water today is RO.
Seawater desalination, the creation of ultrapure water for the pharmaceutical industry, and
industrial wastewater treatment are all possible uses for RO. A variety of crucial factors,
including as permeate flow, salt rejection, transmembrane pressure, and the propensity of feed
concentration, affect how well the RO process works. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend
the interaction between transmembrane pressure and salt rejection and permeate flow rate in
order to improve the reverse osmosis process. Additionally, feed stream concentration is an
important component to take into account for RO process inclination.

The goal of the experiment is to ascertain how the reverse osmosis unit's permeate flow
and salt rejection are impacted by feeding concentration and transmembrane pressure. The
experiment's initial phase looks at the effects of transmembrane pressure on the pure water
permeate flow. The second section acknowledges the impact of transmembrane pressure on
permeate flow and saltwater purity. The experiment's last step involves observing the effects
of feed stream concentration on permeate flow and permeate purity mechanisms. With the use
of experimental data, the reverse osmosis principle, a mass transfer and diffusion model, and
experimental data, the permeate flux will be computed and compared from the flux definition.
The salt rejection coefficient, which is determined from the solution conductivity in the
experimental data, will be associated with the permeate purity. Numerous hypotheses can be
examined throughout this experiment, as mentioned above.

1
 The permeate flux will first rise when transmembrane pressure rises. Second, when
transmembrane pressure rises, the salt rejection coefficient will as well. Third, lowering the
salt rejection coefficient will result in an increase in salt content in the feed tank. Finally, as
the concentration of feeding salt increases, the permeate flux will decrease.

EQUIPMENT

Figure 7.2 shows the process flow diagram for RO unit and Figure 7.3 shows the RO Unit that
consist of:

i. FT01-FT02: Flow meter (Range: 0-28 LPM)

ii. TT01-TT05: Temperature Sensor (Range:0-100˚c)
iii. PT01-PT03: Pressure Transmitter (Range: 0-60 bar)
iv. PI01-PI03: Pressure Gauge (Range: 0-60 bar)
v. B1: Product Tank
vi. B2: Feed Tank

Item Description Type

V2 Product tank outlet flow into the pump P1 Ball valve
V3 Feed tank outlet flow into the pump P1 Ball valve
V4 Feed tank drainage valve Ball valve
V5 Shut off valve for feed line Ball valve
V6 Drainage valve Ball valve
V7 Controls of the retentate flow rate and to vary feed pressure Needle valve
V8 Retentate sampling valve Ball valve
V9 Permeate sampling valve Ball valve
V10 Inlet cooling water supply to the product tank Ball valve
V11 Inlet cooling water supply to the feed tank Ball valve
V12 Outlet cooling water supply from product tank Ball valve
V13 Outlet cooling water supply from the feed tank Ball valve

2
Figure: Process flow diagram for RO unit

Figure: RO unit

3
For salt rejection from water:

i. Sodium chloride
ii. Measuring cylinder
iii. Beaker
iv. Spatula
v. Conductivity Meter
vi. Distilled water
vii. Tissue

(i) (iii) (iv)

(v) (vi) (ii)

4
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

A. General Start-Up Procedures.

1. All the tubing and fittings were properly connected and sufficiently tightened.
2. All pipe sections, temperature sensors, pressure transmitters, inlet and outlet tubing
were connected to the module are properly installed.
3. All valves have been closed. The hose pipe to the cooling water inlet and outlet for
continuous cooling of feed and product solution were connected. The water supply and
the valves for V10, V11, V12 and V13 were then opened to allow the water to flow
inside the cooling coil.
4. The power for the control panel were turned on. All the indicators on the panel were
functioning and displaying the correct values.

Figure 1: The power for the control panel were turned on

5. The feed tank B2 were filled up with 50 litres of water. Then, V3 and V5 valve were
opened.

Figure 2: The feed tank B2 were filled up with 50 litres of water

5
 6. The plunger pump P1 was turned on to circulate the liquid through the whole system.
7. The flow pressure was set at 30 bar by adjusting the pressure regulator PR1.

Figure 3: The flow pressure was set at 30 bar

8. The needle valve V7 were adjusted to the desired operating pressure.

B. General Shut-Down Procedures.

1. The P1 pump were switched off.
2. The product tank B1 has been drained, tank B2 fed and V1, V4, V6, V8 and V9 valves
were opened by reverse osmosis module.
3. The power for the control panel were turned off.

Figure 4: The power for the control panel were turned off

6
 4. All valves were restored to the initial position.
C. Cleaning Procedures.
1. Deionized water was filled up into the tank approximately 50 litres.
2. Valve V3 and V5 were opened.
3. Plunger pump P1 were switched on.
4. The system was run with clean water for about 15 minutes with the pressure of 30 bar.
5. All water from the equipment were drained.

EXPERIMENT 1: Determination of membrane resistance, Rₘ

Procedures:

1. All valves were closed. The hose was connected to the cooling water inlet and outlet
for continuous cooling of feed and product. The water tap supply opened then followed
by open valve V10, V11, V12 and V13.
2. The power for control panel was turned on.
3. The feed tank B2 was filled up with 50 litres of deionized water. V3 and V5 valve were
opened followed by the plunger pump P1. The needle valve V7 was fully closed.
4. The feed pressure PT01 to 30 bar were set by adjusting the pressure regulator PR1. The
feed pressure PT01 to the desired working pressure were used the adjustable to set.
5. The deionized water was started to circulate into the system from feed line and pass
through the retentate and goes back to feed tank B2. After a few seconds, the deionized
water was passed through permeate and goes into the product tank B1.
6. The water flow was let for 2 minutes until the flowrate is stable before taking any
reading.

7
 7. The sampling valve V9 were opened and the flowrate of permeate were measure by
100mL simultaneously with stopwatch counting to calculate time for volumetric
measurement to calculate the flux. Then, data for timing was recorded.

Figure 5: The valve opened simultaneously with stopwatch counting. Data of time recorded.

8. The feed pressure PT01 were reduced by decrement of 2 bar by adjusting the valve V7
and the flowrate of the permeate were measured at the desired working pressure.

Figure 6: Adjusting the valve V7.

9. Step 8 were repeated until there no more flux can be obtained.

8
EXPERIMENT 2: Salt rejection from water

Procedures:

1. 50 litres of salt (NaCl) solution were weighted and prepared. (concentration: 2g/litre)

Figure 7: (NaCl) solution were weighted and prepared

2. Ensure that all valve was initially closed. The hose pipe was connected to the cooling
water inlet and outlet for continuous cooling of feed and product. The water tap supply
and then valve V10, V11, V12 and V13 were opened.
3. The power for the control panel were turned on.
4. The feed tank B2 were filled up with 50 litres of prepared salt solution and the initial
conductivity value of salt solution were measured in the feed tank B2.

Figure 8: Initial conductivity value of salt solution were measured

5. Valve V3 and V5 were opened and the plunger P1 were turned on. Make sure the needle
valve V7 were fully closed.
9
6. The feed pressure PT01 were set to 30 bar by adjusting the pressure regulator PR1. The
feed pressure PT01 were used adjustable to set.

Figure 9: The flow pressure was set at 30 bar

7. The system was let to operate for 10 minutes.

8. After 10 minutes, the sampling valve V9 were opened to measure the flowrate of the
permeate. The conductivity value of the permeate were measured in the beaker.

Figure 10: The conductivity value of the permeate were measured

9. Then, the value of FT01, FT04, TT05 and the conductivity at the feed tank were
recorded after the 10 minutes.

10
10. The plunger pump P1 were turned off.
11. The experiment with different values of feed pressure PT01 were repeated by adjusting
the needle valve V7.
12. Step 7 until 9 were repeated.
13. The data were tabulated into the experimental data sheet.

Figure 11: The data were tabulated into the experimental data sheet

11
RESULTS

Experiment 1: Determine of RO membrane resistance, 𝑹𝒎

Length of membrane = 1220mm

Diameter of membrane = 90mm

Membrane Total Surface Area = 0.9𝑚2

Volume of permeate collected = 100mL = 0.1L

Table 7.1: Measurement of flux at different pressure

PT01 Volume Taken Time Flow Flux

(Bar) (ml) (Sec) (L/min) (L/min. 𝑚2 )

4 100 28:25 0.21 0.24

6 100 21:92 0.27 0.30

8 100 16:58 0.36 0.40

10 100 15:73 0.38 0.43

12 100 10:69 0.56 0.62

14 100 08:85 0.67 0.74

16 100 08:56 0.71 0.79

18 100 07:83 0.77 0.85

20 100 07:24 0.83 0.93

22 100 06:63 0.91 1.01

24 100 06:32 0.91 1.01

26 100 06:17 1.00 1.11

28 100 05:53 1.09 1.21

30 100 05:39 1.11 1.23

12
Sample Calculation

1. Change Unit: sec to min

28:25
60
= 0.47min

2. Find Flux (L/min. 𝒎𝟐 )

𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 (𝑳/𝒎𝒊𝒏)
Flux =
𝑴𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒆 𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑺𝒖𝒓𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂 (𝒎𝟐 )

0.21 𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛
=
0.9 𝑚2

= 0.24𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛. 𝑚2

13
 Experiment 2: RO membrane salt rejection from Water

Table 7.2: Measurement of Flux@T and Flux@25ºC at different pressure

Pressure Feed Permeate Salt Theta Dynamic Flux@T Flux@25ºC

PT01 Flowrate Conductivity Temperature Flowrate Conductivity Temperature Rejection (θ) Viscosity (L/min. 𝑚2 ) (L/min. 𝑚2 )
(bar) (FT01) (μS/cm) (TT04) (volumetric (μS/cm) (TT05) (%) (Ƞ)
(L/min) [CFeed] (ºC) method,100mL) [CPermeate] (ºC) [R]
(L/min)

30 7.40 13590 29.8 5.96 85.47 28.4 99.37 0.36 0.001 8.22 8.22
99.47
25 11.19 14280 30.9 6.59 75.04 28.7 0.37 0.001 12.43 12.43
99.41
20 11.22 14990 31.6 8.05 88.70 28.9 0.38 0.001 12.47 12.47
99.36
15 11.25 17800 32.1 10.08 114.60 29.0 0.39 0.0009 12.50 11.25
99.20
10 11.25 19780 32.5 17.20 158.40 29.1 0.39 0.0009 12.50 11.25

14
Sample Calculation 3. Finding Theta (θ) for Flux@25ºC at different feed
pressure, with T in 25ºC (normalize temperature)

1. Finding Salt Rejection (%) 𝑇

θ = 3.6610 ×
273.1 + 𝑇
𝐶𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 − 𝐶𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒
R= × 100%
𝐶𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑
25
θ = 3.6610 × = 0.31
273.1 + 25

13590 − 85.47
R= × 100%
13590

R = 99.37%

2. Finding Theta (θ) for Flux@T at different feed pressure,

with T in ºC

𝑇
θ = 3.6610 ×
273.1 + 𝑇

29.8
θ = 3.6610 × = 0.36
273.1 + 29.8

15
4. Dynamic Viscosity, Ƞ for Flux@T

𝟑)
Ƞ = 𝟏𝟎−𝟑 × 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝟎.𝟓𝟖𝟎−(𝟐.𝟓𝟐𝟎 × 𝛉) +(𝟎.𝟗𝟎𝟗 × 𝛉)−(𝟎.𝟐𝟔𝟒 × 𝛉

3)
Ƞ = 10−3 × 𝑒𝑥𝑝0.580−(2.520 × 0.36) +(0.909 × 0.36)−(0.264 × 0.36

Ƞ = 0.001

5. Dynamic Viscosity, Ƞ for Flux@25ºC

𝟑)
Ƞ = 𝟏𝟎−𝟑 × 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝟎.𝟓𝟖𝟎−(𝟐.𝟓𝟐𝟎 × 𝛉) +(𝟎.𝟗𝟎𝟗 × 𝛉)−(𝟎.𝟐𝟔𝟒 × 𝛉

3)
Ƞ = 10−3 × 𝑒𝑥𝑝0.580−(2.520 × 0.31) +(0.909 × 0.31)−(0.264 × 0.31

Ƞ = 0.001

16
6. Find Flux for Flux@T (L/min. 𝒎𝟐 )

𝑭𝒍𝒐𝒘 (𝑳/𝒎𝒊𝒏)
Flux =
𝑴𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒆 𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑺𝒖𝒓𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂 (𝒎𝟐 )

7.40 𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛
=
0.9 𝑚2

= 8. 22𝐿/𝑚𝑖𝑛. 𝑚2

7. Find Flux for Flux@25℃

𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑥𝑇 × Ƞ𝑇
𝑭𝒍𝒖𝒙𝟐𝟓℃ =
Ƞ25℃

8.22 × 0.001
𝑭𝒍𝒖𝒙𝟐𝟓℃ =
0.001

𝑭𝒍𝒖𝒙𝟐𝟓℃ = 8.22

17
 Experiment 1: Graph flux vs feed pressure

Flux Vs Feed Pressure

1.4

1.2

1
Flux (L/min. 𝑚^2)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pressure PT01 (bar)

18
 Experiment 2: Graph salt rejection vs feed pressure

Salt Rejection Vs Feed Pressure

99.5

99.45

99.4
Salt Rejection,R (%)

99.35

99.3

99.25

99.2

99.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pressure PT01 (bar)

19
 Experiment 2: Graph flux vs feed pressure

Flux Vs Feed Pressure

14

12

10
Flux (L/min. 𝑚^2)

Flux@T
6
Flux@25ᵒC

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pressure PT01 (bar)

20
QUESTIONS

1. Calculate membrane resistance, Rm the slope of the graph which is equal to.

𝑦2 − 𝑦1
Rm from the slope of the graph =
𝑥2 − 𝑥1

0.93 − 0.30
=
20 − 6

0.63
=
14

= 0.045

2. Comment on the results - Graph salt rejection vs feed pressure

At 20 bar pressure was found to be an optimum value, with salt rejection of 99.41%.
Whereas, for the highest pressure was found to be 25 bar pressure with the salt rejection
of 99.47%. It is concluded to run the RO plant at an optimum design feed pressure than
high feed pressure in order to reduce the energy consumption of pump and membrane
scaling due to high pressure drop.

3. Comment on the results - Graph flux vs feed pressure

Flux is often normalized to a standard temperature of 25℃ to account for fluctuation in

the water viscosity. Flux is inversely proportional to dynamic viscosity, which is 12.50
L/min. 𝑚2 Flux@T increase as dynamic viscosity, 0.0009 decrease. Since dynamic
viscosity is temperature dependent, the dynamic viscosity of water decreases from
0.001 to 0.0009 by the increasing temperature as shown in the table 7.2, which
temperature is 32.5℃. The flux is increased by 3% for each degree of temperature rise,

21
 that’s why all data must be normalized to a standard temperature of 25℃ in order to
compare between the obtain results. As shown in graph, the value is still the same for
both fluxes. But once dynamic viscosity of Flux@T change to 0.0009 different from
Flux@25℃ which is 0.001 the value starts to change. This is because as dynamic
viscosity of Flux@25℃ use the normalize temperature value, the Theta is statically
0.31 for all temperature. Unlike Flux@T that use different temperature, which makes
different Theta value resulted into decrease dynamic viscosity value.

DISCUSSION

Based on the Experiment 1: Graph flux vs feed pressure it can be seen that value of Flux (L/min.
𝑚^2) increase with the increasing value of pressure. This because, the more pressure from the
region of high solute concentration through a membrane to a region of low solute concentration,
the Flux keeps increasing in value. As, Flux is the amount of permeate produced in a given
period of time by the semipermeable membrane that only allows passage of solvent but not
solute. So, the hypothesis about the performance of RO membrane at different feed pressure is
accepted as it can be seen through the Flux value that was taken from permeate tank and
analyses. The mistakes that can be seen form the experiment is that the synchronizing action
of opening valve of permeate tank and the count of seconds in the stopwatch does not keep up.
This will cause a time reading error that can affect the formation of the graph. Another one is
the meniscus reading error on the measuring cylinder that causes over or under 100 mL of
solvent volume from the permeate tank. This will also affect the reading in the experiment. The
thing that can be improved in this experiment is to reduce the meniscus reading error, that is,
let only one person read instead of taking turns with others. This is also the same as the person
who opens the permeate tank valve and also the person who records the stopwatch time. If
possible, try to use a device that will automatically stop counting the time and the valve can be
closed by itself, once the volume of permeate reaches the desired level.

22
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we able to achieve the objective of this experiment. From the result obtained, as
the feed pressure (PT01) increase, the flux (L/min.m²) also increases. Thus, the time has more
shorten and flow of water were faster when feed pressure (PT01) directly proportional to flux
(L/min.m²). Hence, reverse osmosis is pressure dependent. Raising the feed pressure produces
more product water while lowering the pressure produces less product water. Meanwhile, for
the salt rejection represents the percent ratio of the reject stream concentration to the feed
stream concentration. It is a remainder of the salt passage value. Because the two values must
add up to 100%, they function inversely. As the salt passage value increases, the salt rejection
increases. A higher salt rejection value is preferred, as this represents a large purge of salt in
the reject stream, thus a smaller salt passage percent. We identified that feed pressure (PT01)
versus salt rejection (%) from 10 to 25 bar increasing, but at 25 to 30 bar decreasing. In contrast,
the membrane pressure should be as high as possible, ensuring an increasingly selective
separation of the salt ions from feed stream. In addition, at 25 bar produces greatest salt
rejection which was 99.47% and does the flux @T (L/m²min) having 12.43. Moreover, the
more the feed pressure (PT01), the more the flux @T (L/m²min) in reverse osmosis membrane
salt rejection from water. On the other hand, feed pressure (PT01) of 25 until 30 bar suddenly
drop with the flux@25˚C (L/m²min) was 12.43 and 8.22. This can be due to the changes in
temperature. An increase in temperature will lead to an increase in rate of osmosis so does with
the flux @25˚C will increase. But we realized in our experiment that the permeate temperature,
TT05 from feed pressure (PT01) 25 to 30 bar has decreased from 28.7 ˚C to 28.4 ˚C. Thus, the
permeate temperature TT05 (˚C) affecting flux@25 ˚C result as well.

23
REFERENCES

i. Chemical Engineering Laboratory CHEG 4137 Osmotic Separations: Reverse and

Forward Osmosis. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2021, from
https://cbe.engr.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1814/2017/08/ROFO2017.pdf
ii. Ansari, M., A. AL-OBAIDI, M., & Hadadian, Z. (2021, May). Performance evaluation
of a brackish water reverse osmosis pilot-plant desalination process under different
operating conditions: Experimental study [Review of Performance evaluation of a
brackish water reverse osmosis pilot-plant desalination process under different
operating conditions: Experimental study]. Research Gate; Research Gate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351835919_Performance_evaluation_of_a_
brackish_water_reverse_osmosis_pilot-
plant_desalination_process_under_different_operating_conditions_Experimental_stud
y
iii. Yasmeen Elkony. (2020, June). Novel Grafted/Crosslinked Cellulose Acetate
Membrane with N-isopropylacrylamide/N, N-methylenebisacrylamide for Water
Desalination (El-Sayed Mansour, Amel Elhusseiny, & Hammed H. A. M. Hassan, Eds.)
[Review of Novel Grafted/Crosslinked Cellulose Acetate Membrane with N-
isopropylacrylamide/N, N-methylenebisacrylamide for Water Desalination]. Research
Gate; Research Gate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342268033_Novel_GraftedCrosslinked_Cel
lulose_Acetate_Membrane_with_N-isopropylacrylamideNN-
methylenebisacrylamide_for_Water_Desalination
iv. Muhamad, M. S. (2022). Lab Work Module of Water Treatment Technology (UTHM,
Ed.; First Edition, Vols. 08–0307, p. 60) [Review of Lab Work Module of Water
Treatment Technology]. UTHM Publisher.

24
25