Design of nanofibre interlayer supported forward osmosis composite membranes and its evaluation in fouling study with cleaning

Highlights

• A fine fibre (40–60 nm diameter) interlayer (~1 µm thickness) was electrospun.

• Fine fibre interlayer promoted formation of defect-free dense polyamide layer.

• FO membrane with dual-layer substrate had less organic fouling potential.

• High reverse salt flux accelerated organic fouling on FO membrane.

Abstract

Nanofibre-supported forward osmosis (FO) membranes have gained popularity owing to their low structural parameters and high water flux. However, the nanofibrous membranes are less stable in long-term use, and their fouling behaviours with foulants in both feed solution (FS) and draw solution (DS) is less studied. This study developed a nanofibrous thin-film composite (TFC) FO membrane by designing a tiered dual-layer nanofibrous substrate to enhance membrane stability during long-term usage and cleaning. Various characterisation methods were used to study the effect of the electrospun nanofibre interlayer and drying time, which is the interval after removing the M-phenylenediamine (MPD) solution and before reacting with trimesoyl chloride (TMC) solution, on the intrinsic separation FO performance. The separation performance of the dual-layer nanofibrous FO membranes was examined using model foulants (sodium alginate and bovine serum albumin) in both the FS and DS. The dual-layer nanofibrous substrate was superior to the single-layer nanofibrous substrate and showed a flux of 30.2 L/m²/h (LMH) when using 1.5 mol/L NaCl against deionised (DI) water in the active layer facing draw solution (AL-DS) mode. In the fouling test, the water flux was effectively improved without sacrificing the water/solute selectivity under the condition that foulants existed in both the FS and DS. In addition, the dual-layer nanofibrous TFC FO membrane was more robust during the fouling test and cleaning.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Forward osmosis / Electro-spinning / Interfacial polymerisation / Fouling / Polyvinylidene fluoride

With the fast-evolving global climate change, the energy and carbon neutral municipal wastewater treatment is under the spotlight. Different from the conventional activated sludge process and its variants which are primarily based on the concept of biological oxidation, anaerobic processes have been actively explored for direct COD capture from municipal wastewater, while maximizing the energy recovery and minimizing waste sludge generation (Liu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). However, it should be noted that anaerobic effluent contains considerable amount of dissolved methane whose release into the environment (Liu et al., 2014) would seriously compromise the energy recovery potential and contribute to significant greenhouse gas emission. As such, increasing effort has been devoted to developing dissolved methane recovery methods, e.g. mechanical degassing (Gu et al., 2017), membrane contactors (Li et al., 2019; Rongwong et al., 2018) etc. It should also be aware that the assessments of various recovery methods are primarily motivated by the energy recovery and consumption, without a thorough consideration of their environmental sustainability and economic viability. In this perspective, we intend to offer additional insights into the cost-benefit of dissolved methane recovery against its emission.

Given an anaerobic effluent with dissolved methane concentration of 21 g/m³ (solubility of methane at 25 °C) (Li et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2014), without proper recovery, the dissolved methane will inevitably be released into the environment. In consideration of a short lifetime of methane, its 20-year global warming potential has been recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be 84−87 folds of carbon dioxide. Thus, this amount of dissolved methane will cause a carbon emission of (21 g/m³) × 84=1.76 kg CO₂e/m³ wastewater treated, while compromising the overall energy recovery efficiency. In fact, such a carbon emission is equivalent to the carbon emission from generating (1.76 kg CO₂e/m³)/(0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh)=1.78 kWh/m³ of electricity through coal combustion, with a factor of 0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh of electricity produced from coal (U.S.-Energy-Information-Administration, 2020). It is obvious that dissolved methane in anaerobic effluent is becoming a barrier towards the energy- and carbon-neutral municipal wastewater treatment if a proper measure is not in place for its recovery.

So far, several methods have been developed for dissolved methane recovery. For example, an average dissolved methane concentration of 17.1 g/m³ was observed in an anaerobic effluent at 30 °C, of which nearly 90% could be recovered by means of a mechanical degasser at an energy cost of 0.12 kWh/m³ (Gu et al., 2017). Therefore, the recoverable energy could be calculated to be (15.4 g/m³)/(16 g/mol) × 22.4 L/mol ×37.8 MJ/m³ (methane energy content) × 35% (electricity conversion efficiency)/(3.6 MJ/kWh) = 0.079 kWh/m³ wastewater treated. Thus, the net energy utilized for degassing was estimated to be 0.041 kWh/ m³ wastewater treated, which could lead to a carbon emission by (0.041 kWh/ m³) × (0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh) = 40.6 g CO₂/m³, with coal as the fuel for electrical energy production. On the other hand, the residual dissolved methane after recovery eventually resulted in a direct carbon emission of (1.71 g/m³)×84 =144 g CO₂e/m³. As such, the overall carbon emission associated with dissolved methane after recovery could be determined to be 185 g CO₂e/m³ wastewater treated which was only about 13% of that in the scenario of the business-as-usual (i.e. without dissolved methane recovery: 17.1 g/m³ × 84 =1436 g CO₂e/m³).

In another study by Li et al. (2019), an omniphobic membrane process was proposed for harvesting dissolved methane from anaerobic effluent with a saturated dissolved methane concentration of 16.4 g/m³ at 35°C. Approximately 0.04 MJ/m³ of energy was needed for achieving recovery efficiencies beyond 90%, equivalent to 0.01 kWh/m³, which was close to the theoretical value reported for membrane-based methane recovery (Crone et al., 2017; Velasco et al., 2021). In this case, the energy recovered from dissolved methane could easily offset the processing energy, i.e. a net energy gain of (16.4 g/m³) × 90%/ (16 g/mol) × 22.4 L/mol × 37.8 MJ/m³ × 35%/(3.6 MJ/kWh)–0.01 kWh/m³ = 0.066 kWh/m³, which was equivalent to a carbon offsetting of (0.066 kWh/m³) × (0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh) = 65.3 g CO₂e/m³. However, the residual methane after 90% of recovery could contribute to (1.64 g/m³) × 84 = 138 g CO₂e/m³, suggesting a net methane-associated carbon emission of 72.7 CO₂e/m³ which was only about 5.3% of that in the case where dissolved methane recovery was not practiced (i.e. 16.4 g/m³ × 84 = 1378 g CO₂e/m³). In addition, methane solubility is inversely related to effluent temperature, indicating that the methane recovery would be more necessary at lower temperature.

It should be realized that chemicals are generally required during membrane degassing, e.g. alkaline in the omniphobic membrane process (Li et al., 2019), and the potential increases in the capital and operation costs associated with membrane degassing should also be taken into a serious account in assessing the environmental sustainability and economic viability. In fact, the dissolved methane recovery rate of membrane contactors had been reported to be 0.05 mol methane/(m²·h) (i.e. 0.8 g methane/(m²·h)) at a recovery efficiency of 96% (Velasco et al., 2021). For a middle-sized anaerobic process treating 200,000 m³/d of municipal wastewater with a 21 g/m³ dissolved methane at 25°C, the membranes needed for dissovled methane recovery would be (200,000 m³/d) × (21 g/m³)/(0.8 g/(m²·h))= 218,750 m², indicating a significant increase in the captital investment and maintenance cost. In addition, membrane wetting, fouling and concentration polarization will make the operation of membrane contactors more challenging (Crone et al., 2016). Moreover, the energy required for upgrading and compressing recovered dissolved methane should also be considered, which had been reported to be about 0.011 kWh/m³ (Crone et al, 2016). Obviously, without the consideration of these factors, the energy-based assessment as currently reported in the literature, to a great extent, is misleading.

As illustrated in Fig.1, a multiple-dimensional assessment framework of techniques for dissolved methane recovery should be exercised. For example, compared to membrane contactors, mechanical degasser would not reach the energy-neutral recovery of dissolved methane, but it has the advantages of chemical-free, simple structure, very low capital investment and operation cost with a smaller footprint. Lastly, it should be noted that the dissolved methane recovery technologies are still at the infant stage, further research is needed to make them more technologically feasible, economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

Fig.1 Multi-dimensional assessment of techniques for dissolved methane recovery methods.

Full size|PPT slide

References

[1] Abdullah N, Yusof N, Ismail A F, Lau W J (2021). Insights into metal-organic frameworks-integrated membranes for desalination process: A review. Desalination, 500: 114867

[2] Ali A, Tufa R A, Macedonio F, Curcio E, Drioli E (2018). Membrane technology in renewable-energy-driven desalination. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81: 1–21

[3] Blandin G, Ferrari F, Lesage G, Le-Clech P, Héran M, Martinez-Lladó X (2020). Forward osmosis as concentration process: Review of opportunities and challenges. Membranes (Basel), 10(10): 284

[4] Cath T, Childress A, Elimelech M (2006). Forward osmosis: Principles, applications, and recent developments. Journal of Membrane Science, 281(1–2): 70–87

[5] Deng L, Wang Q, An X, Li Z, Hu Y (2020). Towards enhanced antifouling and flux performances of thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane via constructing a sandwich-like carbon nanotubes-coated support. Desalination, 479: 114311

[6] Extrand C W (2002). Water contact angles and hysteresis of polyamide surfaces. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 248(1): 136–142

[7] Extrand C W (2004). Contact angles and their hysteresis as a measure of liquid-solid adhesion. Langmuir, 20(10): 4017–4021

[8] Gao F, Wang J, Zhang H, Hang M A, Cui Z, Yang G (2017). Interaction energy and competitive adsorption evaluation of different NOM fractions on aged membrane surfaces. Journal of Membrane Science, 542: 195–207

[9] Holmes-Farley S R, Reamey R H, Mccarthy T J, Deutch J, Whitesides G M (1985). Acid-base behavior of carboxylic acid groups covalently attached at the surface of polyethylene: The usefulness of contact angle in following the ionization of surface functionality. Langmuir, 1(6): 725–740

[10] Jones E, Qadir M, van Vliet M T H, Smakhtin V, Kang S M (2019). The state of desalination and brine production: A global outlook. Science of the Total Environment, 657: 1343–1356

[11] Kim L H, Bucs S S, Witkamp G J, Vrouwenvelder J S (2020). Organic composition in feed solution of forward osmosis membrane systems has no impact on the boron and water flux but reduces scaling. Journal of Membrane Science, 611: 118306

[12] Klaysom C, Hermans S, Gahlaut A, Van Craenenbroeck S, Vankelecom I F J (2013). Polyamide/Polyacrylonitrile (PA/PAN) thin film composite osmosis membranes: Film optimization, characterization and performance evaluation. Journal of Membrane Science, 445: 25–33

[13] Lau W J, Ismail A F, Misdan N, Kassim M A (2012). A recent progress in thin film composite membrane: A review. Desalination, 287: 190–199

[14] Li H, Fu M, Wang S Q, Zheng X, Zhao M, Yang F, Tang C Y, Dong Y (2021a). Stable Zr-based metal-organic framework nanoporous membrane for efficient desalination of hypersaline water. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21): 14917–14927

[15] Li R, Li J, Rao L, Lin H, Shen L, Xu Y, Chen J, Liao B Q (2021b). Inkjet printing of dopamine followed by UV light irradiation to modify mussel-inspired PVDF membrane for efficient oil-water separation. Journal of Membrane Science, 619: 118790

[16] Liu Q, Li J, Zhou Z, Xie J, Lee J Y (2016). Hydrophilic mineral coating of membrane substrate for reducing internal concentration polarization (ICP) in forward osmosis. Scientific Reports, 6(1): 19593

[17] Luo F, Wang J, Yao Z, Zhang L, Chen H (2021). Polydopamine nanoparticles modified nanofiber supported thin film composite membrane with enhanced adhesion strength for forward osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science, 618: 118673

[18] Manju S, Sagar N (2017). Renewable energy integrated desalination: A sustainable solution to overcome future fresh-water scarcity in India. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73: 594–609

[19] Martinetti C R, Childress A E, Cath T Y (2009). High recovery of concentrated RO brines using forward osmosis and membrane distillation. Journal of Membrane Science, 331(1–2): 31–39

[20] McCutcheon J R, Elimelech M (2006). Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science, 284(1–2): 237–247

[21] Mi B, Elimelech M (2008). Chemical and physical aspects of organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 320(1–2): 292–302

[22] Nasrul A, Bastian A, Sri M, Yoshikage O, Hideto M (2011). Improved fouling reduction of PES hollow fiber membranes by incorporation with non-ionic surfactant. Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment, 15(2): 212–216

[23] Park M J, Gonzales R R, Abdel-Wahab A, Phuntsho S, Shon H K (2018). Hydrophilic polyvinyl alcohol coating on hydrophobic electrospun nanofiber membrane for high performance thin film composite forward osmosis membrane. Desalination, 426: 50–59

[24] Peng L E, Yao Z, Yang Z, Guo H, Tang C Y (2020). Dissecting the role of substrate on the morphology and separation properties of thin film composite polyamide membranes: seeing is believing. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(11): 6978–6986

[25] Qasim M, Darwish N A, Sarp S, Hilal N (2015). Water desalination by forward (direct) osmosis phenomenon: A comprehensive review. Desalination, 374: 47–69

[26] Saleem H, Trabzon L, Kilic A, Zaidi S J (2020). Recent advances in nanofibrous membranes: Production and applications in water treatment and desalination. Desalination, 478: 114178

[27] Sreedhar I, Khaitan S, Gupta R, Reddy B M, Venugopal A (2018). An odyssey of process and engineering trends in forward osmosis. Environmental Science. Water Research & Technology, 4(2): 129–168

[28] Suwaileh W, Johnson D, Hilal N (2020). Membrane desalination and water re-use for agriculture: State of the art and future outlook. Desalination, 491: 114559

[29] Tang C Y, Yang Z, Guo H, Wen J J, Nghiem L D, Cornelissen E (2018). Potable water reuse through advanced membrane technology. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(18): 10215–10223

[30] Teng J H, Zhang H M, Tang C Y, Lin H J (2021). Novel molecular level insights into forward osmosis membrane fouling affected by reverse diffusion of draw solutions based on thermodynamic mechanisms. Journal of Membrane Science, 620: 118815

[31] Tian M, Qiu C, Liao Y, Chou S, Wang R (2013). Preparation of polyamide thin film composite forward osmosis membranes using electrospun polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) nanofibers as substrates. Separation and Purification Technology, 118: 727–736

[32] Tian M, Wang R, Goh K, Liao Y, Fane A G (2015). Synthesis and characterization of high-performance novel thin film nanocomposite PRO membranes with tiered nanofiber support reinforced by functionalized carbon nanotubes. Journal of Membrane Science, 486: 151–160

[33] Tian M, Wang Y N, Wang R, Fane A G (2017). Synthesis and characterization of thin film nanocomposite forward osmosis membranes supported by silica nanoparticle incorporated nanofibrous substrate. Desalination, 401: 142–150

[34] Wang H, Gao B, Hou L A, Shon H K, Yue Q, Wang Z (2021). Fertilizer drawn forward osmosis as an alternative to 2nd pass seawater reverse osmosis: Estimation of boron removal and energy consumption. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 15(6): 135

[35] Wang J, Dlamini D S, Mishra A K, Pendergast M T M, Wong M C Y, Mamba B B, Freger V, Verliefde A R D, Hoek E M V (2014). A critical review of transport through osmotic membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 454: 516–537

[36] Wang R, Shi L, Tang C Y Y, Chou S R, Qiu C, Fane A G (2010). Characterization of novel forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 355(1–2): 158–167

[37] Wang Y, Zhang M K, Liu Y Q, Xiao Q Q, Xu S C (2016). Quantitative evaluation of concentration polarization under different operating conditions for forward osmosis process. Desalination, 398: 106–113

[38] Wenzel R N (1949). Surface roughness and contact angle. Journal of Physical and Colloid Chemistry, 53(9): 1466–1467

[39] Xiao K, Liang S, Wang X, Chen C, Huang X (2019). Current state and challenges of full-scale membrane bioreactor applications: A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 271: 473–481

[40] Xu W X, Chen Q Z, Ge Q C (2017). Recent advances in forward osmosis (FO) membrane: Chemical modifications on membranes for FO processes. Desalination, 419: 101–116

[41] Xue W, Zaw M, An X, Hu Y, Tabucanon A S (2020). Sea salt bittern-driven forward osmosis for nutrient recovery from black water: A dual waste-to-resource innovation via the osmotic membrane process. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 14(2): 32

[42] Yadav S, Saleem H, Ibrar I, Naji O, Hawari A A, Alanezi A A, Zaidi S J, Altaee A, Zhou J (2020). Recent developments in forward osmosis membranes using carbon-based nanomaterials. Desalination, 482: 114375

[43] Yang Z, Guo H, Tang C Y Y (2019). The upper bound of thin-film composite (TFC) polyamide membranes for desalination. Journal of Membrane Science, 590: 117297

[44] Yang Z, Sun P F, Li X, Gan B, Wang L, Song X, Park H D, Tang C Y (2020). A critical review on thin-film nanocomposite membranes with interlayered structure: mechanisms, recent developments, and environmental applications. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(24): 15563–15583

[45] Yu F Y, Shi H T, Shi J, Teng K Y, Xu Z W, Qian X M (2020). High-performance forward osmosis membrane with ultra-fast water transport channel and ultra-thin polyamide layer. Journal of Membrane Science, 616: 118611

[46] Zhang K M, An X C, Bai Y, Shen C, Jiang Y P, Hu Y X (2021). Exploration of food preservatives as draw solutes in the forward osmosis process for juice concentration. Journal of Membrane Science, 635: 119495

[47] Zhang M, Jin W, Yang F, Duke M, Dong Y, Tang C Y Y (2020). Engineering a nanocomposite interlayer for a novel ceramic-based forward osmosis membrane with enhanced performance. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(12): 7715–7724

[48] Zhang S, Wang K Y, Chung T S, Chen H M, Jean Y C, Amy G (2010). Well-constructed cellulose acetate membranes for forward osmosis: Minimized internal concentration polarization with an ultra-thin selective layer. Journal of Membrane Science, 360(1–2): 522–535

[49] Zhang X, Xiong S, Liu C X, Shen L, Ding C, Guan C Y, Wang Y (2019). Confining migration of amine monomer during interfacial polymerization for constructing thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane with low fouling propensity. Chemical Engineering Science, 207: 54–68

[50] Zhou Z Y, Hu Y X, Boo C, Liu Z Y, Li J Q, Deng L Y, An X C (2018). High-performance thin-film composite membrane with an ultrathin spray-coated carbon nanotube interlayer. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 5(5): 243–248

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52100105), the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (China) (No. 2021JQ-108). The authors would like to thank the Singapore Membrane Technology Center of Nanyang Technological University for supporting pore size characterization.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-022-1550-7 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2022 Higher Education Press