Seawater desalination using the forward osmosis process by

synthesized 𝐅𝐞𝟑 𝐎𝟒 magnetic nanoparticles as a draw solute

Amir Moniri Hamzekolaee 1, Daryoush Yousefi Kebria 2*, Maryam Taghizadeh 3

1- Master student, Environmental Department of Civil Engineering Faculty University of Technology, Babol,
Iran
2- Associate Professor, Environmental Department of Civil Engineering Faculty University of Technology,
Babol, Iran
3- PHD, Environmental Department of Civil Engineering Faculty University of Technology, Babol, Iran

Abstract
Forward osmosis (FO) process is a low-energy membrane technology that has received much
attention for water reuse and desalination. Choosing a suitable draw solution is one of the
important issues in this process. Uncoated and tri sodium citrate dehydrate (TSCD) coated
magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) Fe3 O4 were synthesized by co-precipitation method for
using as draw solution (DS). The performance of the forward osmosis process at different
concentrations of NaCl as feed solution (FS) and of uncoated and TSCD coated MNPs as DS
with cellulose triacetate (CTA) membrane was evaluated for 120 minutes on a laboratory
scale. Comparison of the two type DS showed that TSCD coated Fe3 O4 MNPs had lower
reverse flux, more efficiency flux water and more osmotic pressure than uncoated
Fe3 O4 MNPs. the maximum water flux is related to uncoated and TSCD-coated Fe3 O4
MNPs with a concentration of 70 g. l−1 as DS and 6 g. l−1 NaCl as FS at 2.2119 and 7.62
LMH, respectively. Uncoated MNPs with a recovery rate of 94.5 have been shown to have
good separation from freshwater due to their magnetic properties.

Keywords: Forward osmosis, Desalination, Draw solution, Fe3 O4 Magnetic nanoparticle,

Feed solution

1
1. Introduction
Today, decreasing the source of the fresh water is one of the important problems for
human beings to meet their daily needs, so desalination of seawater has been widely
considered as a solution to supply the fresh water [1]. There are various processes for
desalination such as Bio desalination[2], microbial desalination cells[3–5], membrane
process, instantaneous multi-stage distillation, multi-effect distillation, steam compression
distillation, etc., among these desalination processes, membrane processes have a more
share due to high efficiency and lower energy consumption. and has made significant
progress and can be referred to a variety of methods of membrane separation processes
such as microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), Nano filtration (NF), reverse osmosis
(RO) and forward osmosis (FO). Recently, membrane technologies such as reverse osmosis
and forward osmosis are among the most widely used methods in desalination in the world,
to compensate for water shortages to some extent by using alternative sources [6] The
reverse osmosis (RO) process is a kind of the membrane technologies used for desalination,
but due to high energy consumption, severe membrane fouling has been limited. The
forward osmosis (FO) process as a new emerging membrane process with less energy
consumption and less membrane fouling has been attracted more attention recently [7–9].
In the FO process, water normally passes from the feed solution (at a lower concentration,
FS) through a semi-permeate membrane to the draw solution (at a higher concentration,
DS) which is driven by an osmotic pressure difference. Therefore, osmotic pressure is very
important in the FO process [10–12].
Some potential applications of the FO process include desalination, wastewater
reclamation and power generation, osmotic engines in drug release, and food and beverage
processing. While, there are a lot of technical impediments to industrial application [13].
So, an ideal FO membrane high water permeability, mechanical strength, chemical
stability, high percentage of salt rejection, internal concentration reduction (ICP) [14,15].
Furthermore, the choice of a suitable draw solution has been one of the primary challenges
of FO in the commercial and industrial fields, so a suitable draw solution should have the
lowest reverse flux, high water flux -no toxicity, low cost and easy recovery [16,17]. Since
the mid-1960s, the use of inorganic salts sulfur dioxide [18] and aluminum sulfate [19]
opened a window to draw-solute design. By using ammonium bicarbonate (NH4 HCO3 )
mixtures for desalination, the Elimelech group triggered a new round of study on draw
solutes in the mid-2000s [20]. Achille et al. developed a protocol for the selection of
inorganic-based draw solutions for FO [21]. Extensive research has recently been
conducted on the choice of magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) as draw solutions in the FO
process [22]. MNPs have super paramagnetic properties, so by placing a magnet, the
separation from the produced water has been occurred easily. In addition, the use of
magnetic separation method requires less energy than other separation methods, and energy
reduction also reduces costs [23]. Modification of the surface of MNPs by coating a ligand
bond increases water solubility, osmotic pressure continuity, and also improves
performance during the FO process. But the smaller coated particles reduce DS efficiency
after each recovery [24]. In addition, agglomeration of the smaller MNPs during recovery

2
increases the particle size and deteriorates the FO performance significantly. It is a trade-
off between decreasing the particle size to improve the FO performance and the facile
recovery of the DS, which more difficult with a smaller particle size [25]. TomBacz et al,
investigated the synthesis of magnetic-core hydrophilic nanoparticles with an intermediate
ligand exchange reaction of stabilized oleic acid nanoparticles of siloxane hydroxy ligand
SiPEG and SiCOOH as coatings for MNPs in the forward osmosis process. The advantages
of magnetic draw solution are its easy separation from produced fresh water and reuse as
draw solution, which can reduce the great challenge of the forward osmosis process by
using disposable traction fluid [26]. Hongwei bai et al. Synthesized and modified the
surface of dextran-coated iron nanoparticles as a draw solution in the advanced osmosis
process to desalinate brackish water and recover the modified nanoparticles after the
process, they found that the dextran coating on the surface of magnetic nanoparticles can
cause high osmotic pressure and also found that modified iron nanoparticles due to
recovery using a magnetic field can be a new idea for the ideal draw solution [27].
Citrate is one of the products from the tri carboxylic acid cycle (TAC), a normal
metabolic process in the human body. TAC is a natural preservative and also, is
recognized as safe for use in food and drugs by all major national and international food
regulatory agencies. Yan Yangan Na et al, modified nanoparticles by co-precipitation
method and found that the surface modification of nanoparticles with sodium citrate
Dehydrate has a higher flux and osmotic pressure than oleic acid, the surface dispersion
of nanoparticles with sodium citrate Dehydrate rate has a very high coating capacity which
causes the osmotic pressure to be continuous throughout the process [28].
Based on past studies and researches, some changes have been made to improve the
performance of DS so far. The reason for choosing MNPs as DS in this study is that by
placing an external magnetic field, it is easily separated from fresh water at the end of the
process and used for the next process. Despite this good characteristic, it has low reverse
flux and high flux efficiency. In this study, for desalination in the FO process on a
laboratory scale, different concentrations of NaCl as FS and DSs and comparison of two
types of DS, namely uncoated MNPs and coated MNPs of tri sodium citrate dehydrate
(TSCD) were investigated. Osmotic pressure, water flux efficiency, rejection of salt,
reverse flux, membrane fouling and recovery were investigated. In order to evaluate the
above objectives, analyzes such as XRD, FTIR and to study the surface morphology of
electronic imaging FESEM and SEM, etc. were performed.

3
2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials
Iron (III) chloride hexa hydrate (FeCl3 ·6H2 O, 98%), ferrous sulfate hepta hydrate
(FeSO4 · 7H2 O), sodium citrate tribasic dehydrate(C6 H5 Na3 O7 · 2H2 O, 99%), ammonia
solution (NH3 , 33 wt. %) which were used in this study were purchased from the German
company Merck. All chemicals have a degree of analysis and are used upon receipt.
Deionized water (DI) used as solvent by all experiments One Milli-Q (Millipore) unit.

2.2. Preparation of MNPs

2.2.1. Uncoated MNPs Synthesis

Uncoated magnetic nanoparticles were synthesized using the co-precipitation method
[29–31]. The molar ratio is 2: 1 anhydrous iron chloride (FeCl3 ·6H2 O) and ferrous sulfate
hepta hydrate (FeSO4 · 7H2 O) in deionized water that was allowed to stir with a high-
speed mechanical stirrer for 20 minutes at 65 ° C. After adding a drop of ammonia of 25
cc, a dark color precipitate in solution was observed, then for Stir for another 30 minutes
under a vigorous mechanical stirrer to verify complete magnetite formation. While the
solution reaches room temperature, rinse several times with deionized water by placing
an external magnet, then dry at 80 ° C for 24 hours. The resulting sample was carefully
grinded and sieved using a USA standard mesh of 106 μm sieve (Newark Wire Cloth Co.,
USA) in order to decrease the average particle size and for the arrangements of the particle
size distribution.

2.2.2. TSCD-coated 𝐅𝐞𝟑 𝐎𝟒 MNPs synthesis

4.85 g of sodium citrate was dissolved in 10 ml of deionized water. 3 g of the prepared
MNPs (previously synthesized in the above method) were brought to a temperature of 95
° C in a sealed flask in a Ben Marie bath. TSCD solution was added drop to a sealed flask
under vigorous mechanical stirring at 95 ° C, this mixed for 60 minutes. It was placed in
a centrifuge at 10,000 rpm for 30 minutes. After pouring the supernatant, the resulting
precipitate was again placed in 200 ml of deionized water to disperse the particles in a
sonication ultrasonic water bath for 20 minutes. Then, after several times washing with
deionized water, it was separated by a 1.5 Tesla magnetic field. Dry in an 80-degree
almond oven for 24 hours [28]

4
2.2.3. Characterization
Infrared Fourier transform measurements were performed using an infinity Gold FT-IR
spectrometer (Thermo Mattson, USA) for approval The MNPs were coated with citrate.
Scan range from 600 to 4000 cm −1 . The samples were dried for 24 hours. X-ray
diffraction (XRD) studies on a Small Angle X-ray Spectroscopy (D / MAX 2500, Rigaku,
Japan) At 8 kW (40 kV and 200 mA). Scanning range from 0 to 100 degrees and the
measurement speed is 2 degrees per minute. Surfaces TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs were
observed by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM, Joel JSM-6340F),
for the sample preparation of FESEM, one droplet of the TSCD coated Fe3 O4 MNPs was
dipped on the carbon tape attached on the sample holder for Pt coating in a sputter coating
machine.
Osmotic pressure of draw solutions prepared from MNPs were measured by using
Osmomat 030 model Osmometers (Gonotec, Germany). Also, osmotic pressure of feed
solution (NaCl) was measured by using OLI Analyzer Studio software. For measure the
reverse flux, it is necessary to measure the concentration of draw solution of MNPs in the
feed solution. For this purpose, atomic absorption spectrophotometer (thermo-electron,
USA) by acetylene diffusion method is used. To compare the fouling of the active surface
of cellulose triacetate (CTA) membrane at different concentrations of salinity of feed
solution in FO process by scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Hitachi, Japan) with
normal operating voltage 8 kV was used. In order to measure total dissolved solids of
draw solution and feed solution from TDS meter model HANNA, hi 98301 was used.

2.3. FO system performance

The performance of water flux, osmotic pressure, reverse flux and recovery was
evaluated with TSCD coated and uncoated Fe3 O4 MNPs as a draw solution in different
forward osmosis tests in a laboratory scale. Cellulose triacetate (CTA) membrane
(prepared by sigma Aldrich USA( was used in this process. According to Fig. 1, the system
required for the pilot FO experiments consisted of two main Plexiglas chambers made
from two separate chambers each with a volume of 96 cm 3 for inlet and outlet flow and
separated by a CTA membrane for independent water conduction. On the membrane side
and in order to recirculate water from each tank, two diaphragm pumps (made by
HEADON Company) are used [32] In experiments, FS with 6, 13 and 35 g. l−1 salt and
two type of DS with concentrations of 15, 25, 70, g. l−1are used. Each test was also
performed in a room for 120 minutes.

5
 Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the laboratory-scale cross-flow membrane system.

The FO water flux ( 𝐽𝑊 ) , was obtained by using the following equation [33].
∆𝑊𝐷𝑆
𝐽𝑊 = (1)
𝐴𝑚 × ∆𝑡

In Equation (1), ∆𝑊𝐷𝑆 is the weight changes of the draw solution, 𝐴𝑚 is the effective area
of the membrane, Δ𝑡 is the test time.
The FO reverse flux (J𝑆 ) was determined by calculating the change of MNPs
concentration in the feed solution based on conductivity measurement [32]
𝑉𝑡 𝐶𝑡 − 𝑉0 𝐶0
𝐽𝑆 = (2)
∆𝑚 × ∆𝑡

In Equation (2) Where Vt and V0 are the final and initial volumes of feed solution; Ct and
C0 are the final and initial MNPs concentrations of the feed solution, respectively. 𝐴𝑚 is
the effective area of the membrane, ∆𝑡 is the test time? In this series of experiments,
deionized water was used as a feed solution to accurately measure the reverse flux of the
draw solution in the feed solution.
Rejections were determined by conductivity measurement of both the feed and permeate
as follows salt rejection R was assessed using three concentrations of 6, 13, 35 g. l−1 NaCl
feed solution measurements of salt rejection are as follows [32]
𝐶P
(𝑅%) = (1 − ) × 100
𝐶f (3)

In Equation (3) Where 𝐶P the concentration of the flow salinity is permeated to the DS and
𝐶f is the salt of the FS.

6
3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characterization of TSCD-coated and uncoated magnetic nanoparticles

According to Fig. 2, the X-Ray diffraction structure of magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles
represents a crystalline structure. The diffraction peaks of 30.46, 35.62, 43.28, 53.60,
57.21, 62.82 degrees correspond to the levels of 220, 311, 400, 422, 511, 440 in cubic
spinel phase of Fe3 O4 MNPs, respectively. These results have been validated based on
the XRD pattern of MNPs of other reported articles [34]

Fig. 2. X-ray diffraction patterns of magnetic nanoparticles synthesized using co precipitation. The sites
and intensity of the diffraction peaks are consistent with the standard pattern of synthetic magnetite for
JCPDS card no. 19-0629

In order to investigation the surface properties of uncoated and TSCD coated MNPs,
FT-IR spectroscopic analysis was performed for both cases as shown in Fig. 3. Pattern (a)
is for uncoated Fe3 O4 MNPs with absorption bands 538 and 1091 cm −1 is attributed to
Fe-O stretching mode and C-H vibration other wide absorption the bar at 3410
cm −1 corresponds to the O-H stretching mode and this suggest that the surface of the
MNPs had a large, the number of hydroxyl groups with an overall positive effect on pure
water flux during the FO process [35] Therefore, such findings confirm the formation of
Fe3O4 MNPs[36].
Pattern (b) shows TSCD coated Fe3 O4 MNPs. In 1350 cm −1 and 1636 cm −1 bands,
which are related to two new absorption peaks of characteristic of the carboxylate
functional group. The vibrational mode appearing in 1350 cm −1 can be attributed to the
symmetric stretching of the Coo− citrate group and vibration of the C-O (asymmetric
stretching) of the carboxylate. A group of citrates is displaced as an intense band of about
1560 cm −1 , which confirms the radical binding of citrate to the surface of Fe3O4 MNPs
by chemical adsorption of carboxylate ions. [37,38].

7
 Fig. 3 FT-IR spectra of Fe3 O4 MNPs

The Surface of TSCD coated Fe3 O4 MNPs was observed by FESEM as shown in
Fig. 4 TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs appears spherical, as our FESEM sample is prepared
by immersing a drop of a well-mixed TSCD solution Fe3 O4 MNPs are coated on the
sample holder before platinum coating, therefore, from the FESEM images in Fig. 4, it
can be seen that TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs showed good dispersion ability in water Also,
these particles have high osmotic pressure, large special surface, high energy level and
easily aggregated in the drying process [36]

(a) (b)

Fig. 4 FESEM images (a) TSCD-coated, (b) uncoated Fe3 O4 MNPs

8
3.2. Forward osmosis process evaluation

3.2.1. Variations of Osmotic pressure

The measurement method of Osmotic pressure generated by aqueous solution of
Fe3 O4 MNPs based on freezing point depression measurement technique; as shown in
Fig. 5 (a) for uncoated and TSCD coated MNPs as DS at concentrations of (15, 25, 70
g. l−1 ). The main components conduct the osmotic pressure of the DS are hydrophilic
shells on the surface of MNPs. The osmotic pressure of both draw solutions increases
linearly with increasing solution concentration. The maximum osmotic pressure at the
concentration of 70 g. l−1 in the uncoated and TSCD coated Fe3 O4 MNPs was 39.0143
and 61.35229 atm, respectively.
The draw solution of uncoated Fe3 O4 MNPs has a lower osmotic pressure than TSCD-
coated Fe3 O4 MNPs. Therefore, TSCD-coated MNPs will have more flux. These results
suggest that MNPs affect the surface number of surface hydrophilic agents the number of
ion groups such as TSCD -MNPs ion bonds. Also, the reports from the article [36],
confirm the accuracy of these results. According to this report, with ionic bond changes
such as SiCOOH-MN, the surface area of cyclo-hydrophilic shells and the osmotic
pressure increased [23]
Osmotic pressure of NaCl as a feed solution was measured at concentrations of
(6,13,35 g. l−1) using OLI Analyzer Studio software and Fig. 5 (b) shows that osmotic
pressure of NaCl is increased linearly by increasing salinity concentration. The maximum
osmotic pressure was obtained in the concentration of 35 g. l−1 NaCl.
70 30
(a) (b)
60
Osmotic pressure (atm)

25
Osmotic pressure (atm)

50
20
40
15
30
10
20

10 5

0 0
15 25 70 6 13 35
MNPs Concentration (g.l^−1 ) Nacl concentration (g.l^−1 )
Uncoated MNPs TSCD coated MNPs

Fig. 5 (a) Osmotic pressure of uncoated and TSCD-coated 𝐹𝑒3 𝑂4 MNPs in draw solution, (b) osmotic
pressure of NaCl in feed solution FO process.

9
3.2.2. The water flux efficiency in the FO process
Fig. 6 (a), (b), (C) show pure water flux measurement when using saline water with
different salinities (6, 13, and 35 g. l−1 NaCl), as the FS, and uncoated and TSCD-coated
Fe3 O4 MNPs at concentrations of (15, 25 and 70 g. l−1) as the DS. The gradual decrease
in the pure water flux with time is expected due to the concentration decrease in the DS
tank by the permeated pure water with subsequent reduction in the osmotic pressure at the
DS tank. However, decreasing of DS concentration has a limited effect on the pure water
flux over 2 h during the FO process. First for 30 min, the water flux of uncoated-MNPs
and TSCD coated-MNPs in concentrations of 70 g. l−1 as DS and 35 g. l−1 NaCl as FS was
2.01 LMH and 4.6 LMH, respectively. This is due to the fact that TSCD coated-MNPs
has more effective hydrophilic functional groups than uncoated- MNPs as is indicated in
Fig. 6 (c). Even so, a rapid decline of water flux for TSCD coated-MNPs occurred within
30 min, after which the water flux curve fell smoothly in both the cases. This was due to
reduction osmotic pressure of the MNPs due to dilution by the water drawn across the
membrane. Interestingly, this result is not consistent with those for PAA-MNPs, PEG-
MNPs and dextran-MNPs in previous studies [27,39]

9
8 (a)
7
Water Flux (LMH)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (Min)
Uncoated MNPs (15 g/l) Uncoated MNPs (25 g/l)
Uncoated MNPs (70 g/l) TSCD coated MNPs (15 g/l)
TSCD coated MNPs (25 g/l) TSCD coated MNPs (70 g/l)

10
 9
8 (b)
7

Water Flux (LMH)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (Min)
Uncoated MNPs (25 g/l) Uncoated MNPs (70 g/l)
TSCD coated MNPs (15 g/l) TSCD coated MNPs (25 g/l)
TSCD coated MNPs (70 g/l)

9
(c)
8
7
Water Flux (LMH)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Time (Min)
Uncoated MNPs (70 g/l) TSCD coated MNPs (25 g/l)
TSCD coated MNPs (70 g/l)

Fig. 6 (a) for NaCl solution at a concentration of 6 g. l−1 , (b) NaCl solution at a concentration of 13 g. l−1 ,
NaCl solution at a concentration of 35 g. l−1 in FS

Fig. 7 shows a comparison of the water flux of two types of DS uncoated and TSCD-
coated Fe3 O4 MNPs at concentration of and 70 g. l−1 for FS at different concentrations.
The result of FO performance which used uncoated MNPs as a DS is compared to water
flux compared to TSCD coated MNPs, the initial water flux was relatively low (2.01
LMH), but was very stable during the experiment. This is because of the nanoparticles
were bounded by magnetic fields so there was minimum contact between the particles and
the membrane. The TSCD coated MNPs improved concentration of particles in the DS by
magnetic fields increased their osmotic pressure and thus improved the water flux.

11
Obviously, the FO magnetic field control (MFC) module was useful for the function of
magnetic nanoparticles as DS in the FO process [28]
The maximum flux is related to uncoated and TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs with a
concentration of 70 g. l−1 as DS and 6 g. l−1 NaCl as FS at 2.2119 and 7.62 LMH,
respectively. The minimum flux is related to uncoated and TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs
with a concentration of 70 g. l−1 as DS and 35 g. l−1 NaCl as FS at 4.6 LMH. And 2.01
LMH respectively.

Uncoated MNPs (70 g/l) TSCD coated MNPs (70 g/l)

9
8 7.62
WATER FLUX (LMH)

7 6.23
6
5 4.6
4
3 2.2119 2.125 2.01
2
1
0
6 g/l Nacl 13 g/l Nacl 35 g/l Nacl

Fig. 7 Comparison of water flux of uncoated and TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs as DS with concentration 70
g. l−1

3.2.3. Salt Rejection and CTA membrane in FO process evaluation.

The reverse relationship between the obtained pure water flux and the NaCl as FS
concentration indicate the difference in osmotic pressure throughout the membrane
between FS and DS is the key driving force, Therefore, by increasing NaCl concentration
as FS, membrane fouling increase, thus reducing the flow rate of water. In fact, an ideal
membrane should have a high percentage of salt rejection, so that the quality of the
extracted fresh water is high and there is a small amount of salt in it.
Fig. 8 shows percentage of salt rejection at different concentrations (6,13,35 g. l−1 ,
NaCl) as FS and two types of DS with different concentrations 70 g. l−1. The percentage
of salt rejection at concentration of 35 g/l compared to the concentration of 13 g. l−1 as FS
and the concentration of 70 g. l−1 DS of uncoated magnetic nanoparticles are 87.4% and
94.5%, respectively. The results of this experiment show that by increasing NaCl
concentration in FS, the percentage of salt rejection decreases, because by increasing NaCl

12
concentration, water flux decreased and salt particles passed through the membrane with
water and the quality of fresh water extracted at the end of the FO process is reduced [40]

Uncoated MNPs (70 g/l) TSCD coated MNPs (70 g/l)

100
98.6
98 97.3

SALT REJECTION (%)

96 94.5
94 93
92
89.7 89.36
90
88
86
84
6 g/l 13 g/l 35 g/l

Fig. 8 Percentage of salt rejection in different concentrations 6,13, 35 g. l−1 NaCl in FS. Fe3 O4 MNPs as
DS with a concentration of 70 g. l−1.

As Fig. 9 (a) and (c), respectively, the surface and porosity of the clean CTA membrane
are shown. In the early minutes of the FO process, the flux increases, because the
membrane is clean and not fouling yet. Therefore, over time, with the fouling of the
membrane by NaCl particles, the flux decreases. As mentioned in the previous section,
NaCl particles as FS are reverse relationship to the water flux because with increasing
salinity concentration, in the active side of the membrane is fouling and also the flux
decreases, as in Fig. 9 (b) and (D) indicates the presence of NaCl particles on the surface
and membrane porosity, respectively[40,41].

13
 Fig. 9 Image of SEM the surface and porosity of the CTA membrane are clean and fouling

3.2.4. Investigation reverse flux of uncoated and TSCD coated 𝐅𝐞𝟑 𝐎𝟒 MNPs as DS
When the osmotic pressure of the sides of the solution are equal, the water flux is
constant and does not change. The osmotic pressure of the Fs continues to increase until
this time the liquid DS passes through the membrane and enters the FS, eventually
contaminating the FS and the reverse flux occurs. To measure the reverse flux, it was
necessary to measure the concentration of MNPs in FS. Therefore, deionized water was
used as Fs to measure the concentration of MNPs more easily and accurately.
As shown in Fig. 10, the reverse flux of uncoated MNPs has a more reverse flux than
that of TSCD coated because TSCD coated MNPs have a particle size larger and therefore
difficult to cross the membrane [42] The maximum reverse flux is related to uncoated and
TSCD coated MNPs with 0.209 and 0.11 g. 𝑚−2 . ℎ−1 ,respectively, and the minimum
reverse fluxes are related to uncoated and TSCD coated MNPs with 0.0736 and
0.046 g. 𝑚−2 . ℎ−1 , respectively.

14
 0.25
Uncoated MNPs TSCD coated MNPs 0.209

REVERSE FLUX (G/M^2.H)

0.2

0.15 0.1394
0.11
0.1 0.0736 0.082

0.046
0.05

0
15 g/ l 25 g/l 70 g/l

Fig. 10 Reverse flux of different concentrations of Fe3 O4 MNPs as DS

3.2.5. Investigation recovery of uncoated and TSCD coated 𝐅𝐞𝟑 𝐎𝟒 MNPs as DS

As mentioned, one of the main advantages of this type of DS was that by placing a
magnetic field, MNPs can be easily separated and reused for another process. In fact, high
percentage recovery and easy recovery are the important criteria for choice MNPs as a
DS.
Fig. 11 shows, recovery rate of uncoated and TSCD coated MNPs as DS in
concentrations (15,25,70 g. l−1 ). Recovery rate of 25 g. l−1 Compared with 70 g. l−1
MNPs was shown that the higher the DS concentration, the lower the recovery rate.
Recovery rate of uncoated Fe3 O4 MNPs is higher than that of TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs,
because TSCD coated increases the hydrophilicity level for MNPs by establishing a ligand
bond with the carboxylate group. Therefore, it is more difficult to separate from fresh
water and a neodymium magnet with a stronger magnetic field needs to be used for
separation. In general, a percentage of MNPs adhere to the pilot wall and inside the pump
and reduce the recovery efficiency and process efficiency by increasing the repetition of
the experiment[43–45]

15
 100
Uncoated MNPs TSCD coated MNPs

RECOVERY RATE (%)

98
96
93.4
94 92.1
92 91 90.5 90 89.6
90
88
86
84
82
80
15 g/l 25 g/l 70g/l

Fig. 11 The recovery rate different concentrations of uncoated and TSCD coated MNPs as DS

4. Conclusion
The use of Fe3 O4 MNPs as a DS for desalination in the FO process on a laboratory
scale was shown that the choice of this type of DS has many advantages over other DS.
Comparison of the two types of DS showed that TSCD coated MNPs had lower reverse
flux, more efficiency flux water and more osmotic pressure than uncoated MNPs, also had
lower recovery because the presence of a carboxylate group increases its hydrophilicity,
causes hard separation of the throne by a stronger magnetic field. The percentage of salt
rejection also increases by increasing FS concentration [40]. As long as the osmotic
pressure of DS is more than FS during the FO process, the permeability of water through
the membrane to the DS occurs and the membrane fouling occurred by increasing time
and the flux efficiency decreasing. Water flux increases by increasing DS concentration
and decreases with increasing FS concentration, the maximum flux is related to uncoated
and TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs with a concentration of 70 g. l−1 as DS and 6 g. l−1 NaCl
as FS at 2.2119 and 7.62 LMH, respectively, the minimum flux is related to uncoated and
TSCD-coated Fe3 O4 MNPs with a concentration of 70 g. l−1 as DS and 35 g. l−1 NaCl
as FS at 4.9 LMH, And 2.01 LMH respectively.

16
 5. References

[1] A.D. Khawaji, I.K. Kutubkhanah, J.M. Wie, Advances in seawater desalination
technologies, Desalination. 221 (2008) 47–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESAL.2007.01.067.
[2] Majid Zamani Beidokhti, Daryoush Yousefi Kebria*, Biodesalination and biodegradation
of crude oil in aqueous solutions by Halobacillus halophilus, Desalination and Water
Treatment. 39865 (2021) 1944.
[3] Atieh Ebrahimi, Ghasem D.Najafpour, DaryoushYousefi Kebria, Performance of
microbial desalination cell for salt removal and energy generation using different
catholyte solutions, Desalination. 432 (2018) 1–9.
[4] Atieh Ebrahimi, DaryoushYousefi Kebria, Ghasem D.Najafpourc, Co-treatment of septage
and municipal wastewater in a quadripartite microbial desalination cell, Chemical
Engineering Journal. 354 (2017) 1092–1099.
[5] Atieh Ebrahimi, Daryoush Yousefi Kebria, Ghasem Najafpour Darzi, Improving
bioelectricity generation and COD removal of sewage sludge in microbial desalination
cell, Environmental Technology. 39 (2017).
[6] S. Zhao, L. Zou, C. Tang, D.M.-J. of membrane science, undefined 2012, Recent
developments in forward osmosis: Opportunities and challenges, Elsevier. 396 (2012) 1–
21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.12.023.
[7] S. Phuntsho, H.K. Shon, T. Majeed, I. el Saliby, S. Vigneswaran, J. Kandasamy, S. Hong,
S. Lee, Blended fertilizers as draw solutions for fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis
desalination, Environmental Science and Technology. 46 (2012) 4567–4575.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ES300002W.
[8] L.A. Hoover, W.A. Phillip, A. Tiraferri, N. Yin Yip, M. Elimelech, Forward with
osmosis: emerging applications for greater sustainability, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011)
9824–9830. https://doi.org/10.1021/es202576h.
[9] R. Semiat, Energy issues in desalination processes, Environmental Science and
Technology. 42 (2008) 8193–8201. https://doi.org/10.1021/ES801330U.
[10] T. Kim, S. Park, K.Y.- Desalination, undefined 2013, Cost-effective design of a draw
solution recovery process for forward osmosis desalination, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916413003512 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[11] R. McGinnis, M.E.- Desalination, undefined 2007, Energy requirements of ammonia–
carbon dioxide forward osmosis desalination, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916407000367 (accessed April
19, 2022).

17
[12] S.M. Shim, W.S. Kim, A numerical study on the performance prediction of forward
osmosis process, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology. 27 (2013) 1179–1189.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S12206-013-0305-6.
[13] S. Loeb, LOEB-SOURIRAJAN MEMBRANE: HOW IT CAME ABOUT., ACS
Symposium Series. 08 (1981) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/BK-1981-0153.CH001.
[14] N. Akther, A. Sodiq, S. Daer, N. Akther, A. Sodiq, A. Giwa, S. Daer, H.A. Arafat, S.W.
Hasan, Recent advancements in forward osmosis desalination: A review, Elsevier. (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.080.
[15] M.D. Guiver, E.M. v. Hoek, V. Nikonenko, V. v. Tarabara, A.L. Zydney, Membrane
Terminology, Encyclopedia of Membrane Science and Technology. (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118522318.EMST133.
[16] Q. Ge, M. Ling, T.C.-J. of membrane science, undefined 2013, Draw solutions for forward
osmosis processes: Developments, challenges, and prospects for the future, Elsevier.
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.046.
[17] Y.C.- Desalination, undefined 2016, A critical review on draw solutes development for
forward osmosis, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916416301357 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[18] 14. G.W. Batchelder, Process for the demineralization... - Google Scholar, (n.d.).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=14.+G.W.+Batchelder%2C
+Process+for+the+demineralization+of+water%2C+U.S.+Patent+3%2C171%2C799%2C
+1965&btnG= (accessed April 19, 2022).
[19] B.S. Frank, Desalination of sea water, (1972).
[20] J. McCutcheon, R. McGinnis, M.E.- Desalination, undefined 2005, A novel ammonia—
carbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916405000226 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[21] A. Achilli, T. Cath, A.C.-J. of membrane science, undefined 2010, Selection of inorganic-
based draw solutions for forward osmosis applications, Elsevier. 364 (2010) 233–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.010.
[22] S. Adham, M. Oppenheimer, M.M. Kumar, Dewatering Reverse Osmosis Concentrate
from Water Reuse Applications Using Forward Osmosis WateReuse Foundation,
Engineering. (2007).
[23] Y. Mino, D. Ogawa, H.M.-A.P. Technology, undefined 2016, Functional magnetic
particles providing osmotic pressure as reusable draw solutes in forward osmosis
membrane process, Elsevier. (n.d.).

18
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921883116302072 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[24] Q. Ge, J. Su, T. Chung, G.A.-E.C. Research, undefined 2011, Hydrophilic
superparamagnetic nanoparticles: synthesis, characterization, and performance in forward
osmosis processes, ACS Publications. 50 (2011) 382–388.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie101013w.
[25] P. Dey, E.L. Izake, Mixed Polymer-Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles as Forward Osmosis
Draw Agents of Tuned Hydrophilicity, Chemistry - A European Journal. 22 (2016)
11253–11260. https://doi.org/10.1002/CHEM.201600144.
[26] E. Tombácz, Z. Libor, E. Illés, A. Majzik, E.K.-O. Geochemistry, undefined 2004, The
role of reactive surface sites and complexation by humic acids in the interaction of clay
mineral and iron oxide particles, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638003002493 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[27] H. Bai, Z. Liu, D.S.-S. and P. Technology, undefined 2011, Highly water soluble and
recovered dextran coated Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles for brackish water desalination,
Elsevier. (n.d.). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383586611004588
(accessed April 19, 2022).
[28] Y. Na, S. Yang, S.L.- Desalination, undefined 2014, Evaluation of citrate-coated magnetic
nanoparticles as draw solute for forward osmosis, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916414002471 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[29] Y. Mino, D. Ogawa, H.M.-A.P. Technology, undefined 2016, Functional magnetic
particles providing osmotic pressure as reusable draw solutes in forward osmosis
membrane process, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921883116302072 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[30] O.A. Attallah, M.A. Al-Ghobashy, M. Nebsen, M.Y. Salem, Adsorptive Removal of
Fluoroquinolones from Water by Pectin-Functionalized Magnetic Nanoparticles: Process
Optimization Using a Spectrofluorimetric Assay, ACS Sustainable Chemistry and
Engineering. 5 (2017) 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACSSUSCHEMENG.6B01003.
[31] P. Hariani, M. Faizal, … R.R.-I., undefined 2013, Synthesis and properties of Fe3O4
nanoparticles by co-precipitation method to removal procion dye, Repository.Unsri.Ac.Id.
(n.d.). https://repository.unsri.ac.id/22671/ (accessed April 19, 2022).
[32] M. Taghizadeh, D. Kebria, F.Q.-W. Supply, undefined 2020, Effect of biosurfactant as a
novel draw solution on photocatalytic treatment and desalination of produced water by
different forward osmosis membranes, Iwaponline.Com. (n.d.).
https://iwaponline.com/ws/article-abstract/20/1/240/70404 (accessed April 19, 2022).

19
[33] D. Emadzadeh, W. Lau, … T.M.-C.E., undefined 2014, A novel thin film composite
forward osmosis membrane prepared from PSf–TiO2 nanocomposite substrate for water
desalination, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385894713012746 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[34] Y. Zhai, F. Liu, Q. Zhang, G.G.-C. and S.A. Physicochemical, undefined 2009, Synthesis
of magnetite nanoparticle aqueous dispersions in an ionic liquid containing acrylic acid
anion, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927775708005992 (accessed April
19, 2022).
[35] AJ Ujam, KO Enebe, Am J, Experimental analysis of particle size distribution using
electromagnetic sieve, Eng. Res. 77–85 (2013).
[36] R. Hong, B. Feng, L. Chen, G. Liu, … H.L.-B., undefined 2008, Synthesis,
characterization and MRI application of dextran-coated Fe3O4 magnetic nanoparticles,
Elsevier. (n.d.). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369703X08002519
(accessed April 19, 2022).
[37] M.R.-C.A. Physics, undefined 2009, Synthesis protocol influence on aqueous magnetic
fluid properties, Elsevier. 9 (2008) 1062–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cap.2008.12.003.
[38] Y. Sahoo, A. Goodarzi, M.T. Swihart, T.Y. Ohulchanskyy, N. Kaur, E.P. Furlani, P.N.
Prasad, Aqueous ferrofluid of magnetite nanoparticles: Fluorescence labeling and
magnetophoretic control, Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 109 (2005) 3879–3885.
https://doi.org/10.1021/JP045402Y.
[39] Q. Ge, J. Su, T. Chung, G.A.-E.C. Research, undefined 2011, Hydrophilic
superparamagnetic nanoparticles: synthesis, characterization, and performance in forward
osmosis processes, ACS Publications. 50 (2011) 382–388.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ie101013w.
[40] D. Emadzadeh, W. Lau, A.I.- Desalination, undefined 2013, Synthesis of thin film
nanocomposite forward osmosis membrane with enhancement in water flux without
sacrificing salt rejection, Elsevier. (n.d.).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916413004748 (accessed May 22,
2022).
[41] M. Ling, K. Wang, T.C.-I.& Engineering, undefined 2010, Highly water-soluble magnetic
nanoparticles as novel draw solutes in forward osmosis for water reuse, ACS Publications.
49 (2010) 5869–5876. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie100438x.
[42] W.A. Phillip, J.S. Yong, M. Elimelech, Reverse draw solute permeation in forward
osmosis: Modeling and experiments, Environmental Science and Technology. 44 (2010)
5170–5176. https://doi.org/10.1021/ES100901N.

20
[43] A. Tayel, P. Nasr, H.S.-C.T. and Environmental, undefined 2019, Forward osmosis
desalination using pectin-coated magnetic nanoparticles as a draw solution, Springer. 21
(2019) 1617–1628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01738-5.
[44] A. Tayel, P. Nasr, H. Sewilam, P. Nasr, Enhanced water flux using uncoated magnetic
nanoparticles as a draw solution in forward osmosis desalination, (2020).
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2020.25827.
[45] S. Park, H. Ahn, J. Chung, S.K.- Desalination, undefined 2016, Magnetic core-hydrophilic
shell nanosphere as stability-enhanced draw solute for forward osmosis (FO) application,
Elsevier. (n.d.). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916416306440
(accessed April 19, 2022).

21