Encyclopedia of Membranes

2016 Edition
| Editors: Enrico Drioli, Lidietta Giorno

Forward Osmosis (FO)

  • Abaynesh Yihdego Gebreyohannes
  • Lidietta Giorno
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44324-8_237
In literature, osmotic pressure-driven membrane processes are known as direct osmosis (DO) or forward osmosis (FO). FO dating back to the early 1960s is a membrane contactor process that utilizes osmotic pressure difference (Δπ) across the membrane for water transport through a semipermeable membrane (Cartinella et al. 2006; Cath et al. 2006) than a hydraulic pressure as in RO. The osmotic pressure difference across the membrane arises from the use of concentrated solution called draw solution (DS) on the permeate side of the membrane (Fig. 3a). Apparently FO may be a viable and sustainable alternative to thermal-driven (membrane distillation) and pressure-driven (reverse osmosis) concentrating methods, which are highly energy intensive, hence very expensive. In the presence of natural sources of concentrated DS, e.g., seawater, FO can be very attractive due to its significantly lower energy demand for pumping (Tang et al. 2010). The equation below is generally used to describe water...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Achilli A, Cath TY, Childress AE (2010) Selection of inorganic-based draw solutions for forward osmosis applications. J Membr Sci 364:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaudry EG, Herron JR, Peterson SW (1999) Direct osmosis concentration of waste water: final report. Osmotek, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartinella JL, Cath TY, Flynn MT, Miller GC, Hunter KW, Childress AE (2006) Removal of natural steroid hormones from wastewater using membrane contactor processes. Environ Sci Technol 40:7381–7386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cath TY, Childress AE, Elimelech M (2006) Forward osmosis: principles, applications, and recent developments. J Membr Sci 281:70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cath TY, Hancock NT, Lundin CD, Hoppe-Jones C, Drewes JE (2010) A multi-barrier osmotic dilution process for simultaneous desalination and purification of impaired water. J Membr Sci 362:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicci A, Stoller M, Bravi M (2013) Microalgal biomass production by using ultra- and nanofiltration membrane fractions of olive mill wastewater. Water Res 47:4710–4718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornelissen ER, Harmsen D, de Korte KF, Ruiken CJ, Qin J-J, Oo H, Wessels LP (2008) Membrane fouling and process performance of forward osmosis membranes on activated sludge. J Membr Sci 319:158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gebreyohannes AY, Curcio E, Poerio T, Mazzei R, Di Profio G, Drioli E, Giorno L (2015) Treatment of olive mill wastewater by forward osmosis. Sep Purif Technol 147:292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holloway RW, Childress AE, Dennett KE, Cath TY (2007) Forward osmosis for concentration of anaerobic digester centrate. Water Res 41:4005–4014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hydration Technologies Inc. (n.d.) Hydration bags-technology overview: http://www.hydrationtech.com/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&StoreCode=MHTI&CategoryCode=TECH-FOGoogle Scholar
  11. Karaouzas I, Skoulikidis NT, Giannakou U, Albanis TA (2011) Spatial and temporal effects of olive mill wastewaters to stream macroinvertebrates and aquatic ecosystems status. Water Res 45:6334–6346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klaysom C, Cath TY, Depuydt T, Vankelecom IFJ (2013) Forward and pressure retarded osmosis: potential solutions for global challenges in energy and water supply. Chem Soc Rev 42:6959–6989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lutchmiah K, Verliefde ARD, Roest K, Rietveld LC, Cornelissen ER (2014) Forward osmosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res 58:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCutcheon JR, Elimelech M (2006) Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis. J Membr Sci 284:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCutcheon JR, McGinnis RL, Elimelech M (2005) A novel ammonia—carbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process. Desalination 174:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Osmotek Inc. (2003) Landfill leachate treatment http://www.rimnetics.com/osmotek.htm
  17. Petrotos KB, Quantick P, Petropakis H (1998) A study of the direct osmotic concentration of tomato juice in tubular membrane – module configuration. I. The effect of certain basic process parameters on the process performance. J Membr Sci 150:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tan CH, Ng HY (2008) Modified models to predict flux behavior in forward osmosis in consideration of external and internal concentration polarizations. J Membr Sci 324:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tang CY, She Q, Lay WCL, Wang R, Fane AG (2010) Coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes during humic acid filtration. J Membr Sci 354:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yong JS, Phillip WA, Elimelech M (2012) Coupled reverse draw solute permeation and water flux in forward osmosis with neutral draw solutes. J Membr Sci 392–393:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhang J, Loong WLC, Chou S, Tang C, Wang R, Fane AG (2012) Membrane biofouling and scaling in forward osmosis membrane bioreactor. J Membr Sci 403–404:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhao S, Zou L (2011) Relating solution physicochemical properties to internal concentration polarization in forward osmosis. J Membr Sci 379:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abaynesh Yihdego Gebreyohannes
    • 1
  • Lidietta Giorno
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute on Membrane TechnologyNational Research Council of Italy, ITM-CNRRendeItaly