SHMT Project Report

Flux enhancement using vacuum

assisted Direct Contact Membrane
Distillation.

Group Members
Hifza Inam
Abubakar Khalid
Muhammad Aqib
Syed Hammad Andrabi

Due Date

Project Description
New membrane distillation configurations were investigated. The
performance of various membranes was analyzed, vacuum assistance was
provided to see if DCMD could be used to economically desalinate water
while keeping the feed water temperature around 40 C.

Introduction
Membrane Distillation (MD)
It is a separation process involving mass as well as heat transfer through a
porous hydrophobic membrane. Generally has four basic configurations are
used.

Air Gap MD(AGMD)

Vacuum MD (VMD)
Direct Contact MD (DCMD)
Sweeping
Gas
*MD=Membrane Distillation.

MD

(SWGMD)

In this process transfer of mass occurs due to evaporation of a volatile solute

(such as in Benzene toluene mixture benzene is MVC) or a volatile solvent
(water), if the solute is relatively less-volatile. The process of transfer of mass
is driven by the difference of vapor pressure across the microporous
membrane.

Direct Contact Membrane Distillation (DCMD)

Here we are discussing vacuum assisted direct contact membrane
distillation. In this case high temperature feed is in contact with membranes
one side and there is cold water in contact on the other side. Temperature
difference of liquids and solute concentration induce vapor pressure gradient
which serves as the driving force for the transfer of mass across the
membrane. Effect of temperature difference is more pronounced on mass
transfer rate. Mass transfer in DMCD involves following steps:

Molecular flux from feed water to the membrane boundary.

Convective and molecular transfer of vapors through pores (of
membrane).
Vapors are condensed on the product side.

Inefficiencies in Membrane Distillation

Energetic inefficiencies in membrane distillation are due to following reasons:

Temperature polarization across the membrane.

Resistance to mass transfer due to trapped air in the pores.
Heat loss by conduction through the membrane.

Temperature Polarization
In MD heat is transferred mainly through two channels. Transfer of latent
heat of evaporation with vapors across the microporous membrane being
one mode of heat transfer. The other is transfer of heat due to conduction
through the membrane and boundary of the system, this conductive heat
transport is a source of inefficiency as this energy cannot be reused for
evaporation and is simply dissipated to the environment as wasted.
Thermal boundary layer is developed on membrane surface due to above
mentioned phenomenon. Heat transfer through this thermal boundary layer
inflicts a limit on the transfer quantity i.e. (mass). Temperature polarization
coefficient (TPC) is calculated as, energy required for transport of vapors
divided by the energy supplied (total). The TPC can be increased by better
design of module used (configuration of equipment, material of construction
etc) or operating parameters. The value of TPC should be closer to unity for
better performance.

TPC =

Tmf Tmp
Tf Tp

All values are temperatures i.e.

Tp= Bulk permeate

Tmp =

Tmf = Interfacial feed

Interfacial permeate

Tf =Bulk feed

Resistance to Mass Transfer

Air molecules trapped in membrane pores offer resistance to vapors moving
across the membrane. Several studies showed that degasification of working
fluid and vacuum control of partial pressure of air in the pores increases the
(mass) flux of vapors. Moreover properties of membrane like (below) dictate
the resistance to mass transfer through membranes in MD.

Porosity
Pore size
Tortuosity
Membrane thickness

Therefore, selecting a membrane posing relatively less resistance to transfer

of mass is important.

Conductive Loss of Heat

Heat loss through conduction is difficult to control as a thicker membrane
provides better insulation while a thinner membrane offers relatively less
resistance to transport of mass across the membrane. This loss can be
reduced by using more porous membrane or membrane of higher porosity,
because air is an excellent insulator however, membranes with 80% or more
are available and nanotube technology when matures can allow for higher
porosity.

Design
Modules

Considerations

for

MD

6
We need a minimum pressure, in order to maintain a flow in a channel, at the
entrance of the membrane boundary. This pressure drop can be expressed
as:

Here
o f = friction factor
o d = Diameter of the pipe
o = Density of the fluid
o u = Velocity of fluid
Then there is another factor referred to as LEPW. It is the (minimum)
pressure required for water to penetrate the pores after overcoming the
hydrophobic forces of membrane.

Here
o
o
o
o

B = geometric factor depends on pore structure

L =liquid surface tension
rmax = largest pore size
= contact angle of liquid-solid.

Methods and Materials

Microporous Membranes
We analyzed performance of four membranes for this study. Out of four,
three membranes have thin active layer of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
and a sub support layer of polypropylene (PP). The other membrane is made
of polypropylene (PP) and is an isotropic and symmetric membrane.
Properties of membranes used are as follows:

Test Unit DCMD

We analyzed the performance of the DCMD processes by varying parameters
like impurity concentrations (solution chemistry) and conditions, in an
isolated (closed loop) small scale test unit. Various configurations evaluated
are shown below:
Solution

chemistries
salts
presence
observed by monitoring conductivities of permeate and feed.

like
is

Results and Discussion

The experiment was first carried out with a traditional DCMD (Direct Contact
Membrane Distillation) three times to establish an accurate baseline to serve
as the control. The control experiment was then compared with the new
configurations, each time only one of the three variables (velocity of various
streams, temperature gradient within microporous hydrophobic membrane,
and the overall positive pressure of the system) were altered and resulting
changes in flux were noted.

Stream Velocity Vs Flux

Figure 1 (shown on the left)
highlights the performance of 4
membranes as a function of the
feed and product flow channel
velocities.
Experiments
were
conducted at 40C of feed
temperature and 20C being the
permeate
temperature.
The
concentration of the feed was
kept constant for all experiments
at 0.6g/l NaCl. The rate of salt
rejection exceeded 99.9% in all
cases.

Feed Temperature Vs Flux

Figure 2 (shown on the left)
shows the relation between the
feed temperature and the flux (of
permeate)
for
the
three
membranes (TS45, TS22, PP22).
The permeate velocity being 1.75
m/s and temperature being 20C.
Salt rejection exceeded 99.8% in
all
cases.
The
fluxes
of
membranes TS22 and TS45 came
out as exponential functions of
temperature, which is reasonable
considering
the
Antoine
equation, where vapor pressure
varies exponentially with the temperature.
The membrane PP22 shows a linear variation with temperature; this is
probably due to increased effect of the thickness of the membrane over the
thermodynamic effects.

System
absolute
Pressure Vs Flux
Figure 3 (shown on the left)
represents
the
effect
of
system absolute pressure on
the permeate flux for the
composite membrane TS45
with feed at 40C and
permeate
temperature
of
20C
respectively.
Stream
velocity and concentration of
NaCl being, 1.05 m/s and 0.6
g/l respectively.
As the graph shows, positive
pressure has virtually no
effect on the permeate flux.

Performance of DCMD Setup (traditional)

Even in the traditional DCMD setup, the efficiency and the permeate flux
rates were significantly better as compared to those found in previous
studies using similar sized pores and operating under similar conditions. The
fluxes obtained (highest) in past studies for the TS22 (22 m pore size) at
20C and 40C were 13.5 and 41.1 kg/(m2hr)respectively while with the
current study the fluxes obtained were 24.7 and 81.5 kg/(m 2hr). This
represents a flux increase of almost 100%. Similar results were obtained
when testing the TS45 (45 m pore size). The improve in performance can be
attributed to a number of reasons

High agitation in the boundary layer (thermal) improving transfer of

heat via conduction and therefore maintaining a higher thermal
polarization within the membrane
Use of insulating plastic (specifically acrylic) as a construction material
to avoid heat losses to the surroundings
Use of thin active layer composite membranes, providing lower
resistance to flux of mass.

10

The new DCMD/Vacuum Configuration

Figure 3 compares the results of

Flow velocity on flux of the
membrane TS22 in a traditional
DCMD and a DCMD/Vacuum
configuration. The pressure on
the permeate side was reduced to
below atmospheric (from 108 kPa
to 94 kPa). The stream flow rate
increased to 2.1 from 0.7m/s. The
temperature of feed 40C and
20C
was
the
permeate
temperature. Thus flux was
increased up to reasonable value
of
15%
with
the
vacuum
configuration.

Figure
5
shows
the
implications
of
pressure
reduction (on the side of
permeate) on the flux. The
permeate flux is seen to
increase linearly with the
decrease in pressure and
increases 84% for the lowest
pressure (55 kPa).

11

Figure 6 studies the effect of varying concentration of the salt NaCl on the
flux. The concentration being increased from moderate 0.6 g/l to relatively
higher 73 g/l. While the
temperature of feed
maintained at 40C and
20C was the permeate
temperature. The feed
and permeate velocity
were maintained at
previous value i.e. 1.4
m/s and the pressure of
permeate was
kept
around 68 kPa. Study
showed a flux decrease
of
9%
over
the
concentration
range
specified. In all cases
the salt rejection rate
was above 99.85% with
large
chunk
over
99.9%. This is one of the most important advantages of the DCMD/Vacuum
system, As it is barely effected by salt concentration it can be easily and very
effectively used in large scale desalination projects to obtain fresh water
from seawater.

DCMD with vacuum-vacuum configuration

The main aim of the this arrangement was to distinguish between
implications of convective transfer of mass because of total pressure
gradient and the results of decreased flux in the membranes pores because
of incomplete removal of air film in the pores. The new configuration having
both sides under vacuum was worked with concurrent mode so that at all
points, similar pressures are produced.

12

The figures show the results of the experiments conducted with membranes
While the temperature of feed maintained at 40C and 20C was the
permeate temperature. From the figure it is deduced that the water fluxes
were greater in counter current arrangement as opposed to concurrent
mode. And the vacuum-vacuum configuration adds to the decrease in flux.
The thickness of the membrane is the most important to the flux of water
vapor through the partially permeable membrane. Hence the properties of
the membrane such as its thickness are a barrier to the effects of improving
the operating conditions and therefore mass transfer increases very slightly.

Economic benefits
It is difficult to judge overall performance of the enhanced DCMD process;
there are some advantages of the enhanced DCMD process over the RO
process that are worth considering
For an accurate economic analysis, pilot scale tests can be conducted by
using the large module operating in the enhanced DCMD process. When the
manufactures performance data for sea water desalination using RO
(reverse osmosis) process is analyzed, the flux ranges between 18/(m 2 h)
and 341/ (m2 h). The enhanced DCMD process has an advantage as it
provides flux greater than 351 m2/h at 40C feed temperature considering
that most RO processes have a flux lower than the stated range. More over
the graph relating flux and feed temperature shows that for an increase in

13
1C of feed temperature, the flux increases considerably by more than 21/
(m2 h).
Among major benefits, of this process used to desalinate water, one is that
the performance of the system is minutely altered by the concentration of
salt in the feed. In the process, if the concentration of salt is increased it only
negligibly decreases the vapor pressure of water and leads to minimal
decrease in the mass transfer driving force. Comparatively in the RO process,
increasing the salt concentration greatly reduces the mass transfer driving
force as the membrane allows the salt to pass through it.
Since the feed is heated to a specific temperature, hence using the DCMD
plant with any power plant or waste heat ejection plant may be useful and
would reduce the cost for heating the water. Other ways of energy can also
be reduce to make the process cost effective such as the renewable solar
energy and geothermal energy. The use of these renewable sources may
require a high capital investment for setting up the equipment but in future
would result in lower operating costs.
An RO process uses only one pump as opposed to 2 pumps required in DCMD
process, the pumps used in DCMD process operate at low pressure. These
pumps have lower capital and operating costs than those operating at high
pressures. A vacuum permeate pump may be used if enhanced DCMD
process is employed but the costs will still be less because of low pressure
gradient.
The percentage of recovering permeate in a single RO element is about 1015%. The small scale tests of the enhanced process show that recoveries are
no more than 1%. With the scaling up of the unit, it is expected that recovery
level will also rise.
In processes involving membranes, membrane cleaning is considered to be
important. Making membranes which are chemical agents resistant is vital.
Membranes made of polymers which can tolerate oxidizing agents such as
chlorine etc. reduce the need for replacing membranes regularly and makes
them more robust.

Conclusion
This investigation was for an improved approach for construction and
operation of the direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD) system used

14
for the purpose of desalination. It was shown that an appropriate choice and
configuration can reduce obstructions in permeability as well as polarization
of temperature in the distillation (membrane) of salt solutions. Fluxes of
more than double than the original DCMD mode of operation can be
achieved at lower temperatures. The concentration of salt in the solution of
feed does not affect the elimination of salts which is always high. With
improving the research in nanotechnology, newer materials and surfaces
with unvarying pores of nano size can be produced which would boost
membrane absorbency and enhance the membrane distillation process.

THE END