Advertisement

Experimental investigation on the performance of a small reverse osmosis unit

  • M. Elsayed
  • H. A. Refaey
  • O. E. Abdellatif
  • R. Y. Sakr
  • R. I. Afify
Technical Paper
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

In the present work, the performance of a small reverse osmosis RO (house scale) desalination unit is experimentally investigated. The influence of test parameters such as salinity of the feed water (2000–3000 ppm), feed water temperature (29–41 °C), and feed flow rate (1.25–1.75 L/min) is considered. The results illustrate that the increase in feed water salinity by about 50% leads to an increase of permeate salinity by about 50%, while permeate flow rate and recovery ratio percent decreases by about 25 and 30%, respectively. Furthermore, for feed salinity less than 2500 ppm, as feed flow rate increases from 1.25 to 1.75 L/min, the salt rejection ratio and permeate flow rate increase from 5 to 7%, respectively, while feed pressure decreased by 16% and recovery ratio percent decreased by 37%. The results demonstrate that increase in feed temperature from 29 to 41 °C leads to an increase in the permeate salinity, while feed pressure and salt rejection ratio percent decrease by about 4 and 6%, respectively. Finally, empirical correlations for permeate salinity, permeate flow rate, feed pressure, recovery ratio percent, and salt rejection ratio percent as functions of feed water flow rate, feed temperature, and feed concentration are obtained.

Keywords

Reverse Osmosis (RO) Flow rate Temperature Salinity Recovery ratio Salt rejection 

Abbreviations

NDP

Net-driving pressure

RO

Reverse osmosis

TDS

Total dissolved solids

PWT

Pelton wheel turbine

PEX

Pressure exchanger

TFC

Thin film composite

BWRO

Brackish water revers osmosis

ppm

Part per million

PVC

Polyvinyl chloride

UDF

Ultrafine depth filtration

SEC

Specific energy consumption

List of symbols

p

Pressure

R

Recovery ratio percent

SRR

Salt rejection ratio

T

Temperature

v

Flow rate

x

Salt concentration

Es

Specific energy consumption of the high pressure pump, kWh/m3

Am

Membrane surface area, m2

Aw

Membrane permeability, L/m2 h bar

Kf

Membrane flow rate factor, L/h bar

Subscripts

f

Feed

p

Permeate

b

Brine

Greek

α

Hydraulic pressure losses factor (α = Pc/Pf)

ϕ

Concentration polarization (CP) factor

π

Osmotic pressure, bar

σ

Membrane reflection coefficient

References

  1. 1.
    Greenlee LF, Lawler DF, Freeman BD, Marrot B, Moulin P (2009) Reverse osmosis desalination: water sources, technology, and today’s challenges. Water Res 43:2317–2348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abbas A, Al-Bastaki N (2005) Modeling of an RO water desalination unit using neural networks. Chem Eng J 114:139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Bastaki NM, Abbas A (1999) Modeling an industrial reverse osmosis unit. Desalination 126:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Bastaki NM, Abbas A (2000) Predicting the performance of RO membranes. Desalination 132:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lu Y-Y, Hu Y-D, Xu D-M, Wu L-Y (2006) Optimum design of reverse osmosis seawater desalination system considering membrane cleaning and replacing. J Membr Sci 282:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lu Y-Y, Hu Y-D, Zhang X-L, Wu L-Y, Liu Q-Z (2007) Optimum design of reverse osmosis system under different feed concentration and product specification. J Membr Sci 287:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurihara M, Yamamura H, Nakanishi T, Jinno S (2001) Operation and reliability of very high-recovery seawater desalination technologies by brine conversion two-stage RO desalination system. Desalination 138:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Djebedjian B, Gad H, Khaled I, Rayan MA (2006) An experimental investigation on the operating parameters affecting the performance of reverse osmosis desalination system. In: Proceedings of IWTC10, pp 703–715Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goosen MF, Sablani SS, Al-Maskari SS, Al-Belushi RH, Wilf M (2002) Effect of feed temperature on permeate flux and mass transfer coefficient in spiral-wound reverse osmosis systems. Desalination 144:367–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mattaraj S, Phimpha W, Hongthong P, Jiraratananon R (2010) Effect of operating conditions and solution chemistry on model parameters in crossflow reverse osmosis of natural organic matter. Desalination 253:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yuan W, Zydney AL (1999) Effects of solution environment on humic acid fouling during microfiltration. Desalination 122:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho J, Amy G, Pellegrino J (1999) Membrane filtration of natural organic matter: initial comparison of rejection and flux decline characteristics with ultrafiltration and nanofiltration membranes. Water Res 33:2517–2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kilduff JE, Mattaraj S, Belfort G (2004) Flux decline during nanofiltration of naturally-occurring dissolved organic matter: effects of osmotic pressure, membrane permeability, and cake formation. J Membr Sci 239:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruiz-García A, Nuez I (2016) Long-term performance decline in a brackish water reverse osmosis desalination plant. Predictive model for the water permeability coefficient. Desalination 397:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kotb H, Amer E, Ibrahim K (2015) Effect of operating conditions on salt concentration at the wall of RO membrane. Desalination 357:246–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atab MS, Smallbone A, Roskilly A (2016) An operational and economic study of a reverse osmosis desalination system for potable water and land irrigation. Desalination 397:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharif AO, Merdaw AA, Al-Bahadili H, Al-Taee A, Al-Aibi S, Rahal Z et al (2009) A new theoretical approach to estimate the specific energy consumption of reverse osmosis and other pressure-driven liquid-phase membrane processes. Desalination Water Treat 3:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merdaw A, Sharif A, Derwish G (2010) Water permeability in polymeric membranes, Part II. Desalination 257:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haluch V, Zanoelo EF, Hermes CJ (2017) Experimental evaluation and semi-empirical modeling of a small-capacity reverse osmosis desalination unit. Chem Eng Res Des 122:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gupta VK, Hwang S-T, Krantz WB, Greenberg AR (2007) Characterization of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane performance for aqueous salt solutions using irreversible thermodynamics. Desalination 208:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spiegler K, Kedem O (1966) Thermodynamics of hyperfiltration (reverse osmosis): criteria for efficient membranes. Desalination 1:311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringHigher Technological InstituteTenth of Ramadan CityEgypt
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering at ShoubraBenha UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations