Experimental analysis reveals how concentration polarization affects osmotic pressure in forward osmosis membranes, indicating the significance of internal factors.
Concentration polarization (CP) is one of the inherent problems that lowers the operating performance of forward osmosis (FO) membranes. Therefore, a quantitative evaluation of CP is vital to understand its impact on the FO process. This study systematically investigated the influences of different CPs on the osmotic pressure drop across the membrane under different conditions by using the water transmission coefficient, ηWT, defined as the ratio of the measured water flux to the theoretical water flux. The results showed that ηWT decreased with an increase in the concentration gradient between the draw solution (DS) and the feed solution (FS) under different conditions. The proportions of osmotic pressure drop caused by dilutive internal concentration polarization (ICP) increased, while those caused by concentrative external concentration polarization (ECP) decreased, in different types of DSs in FO mode. Both ECP and ICP were found to be capable of reducing osmotic pressure. However, the internal CP had the dominant influence. To better understand the adverse effects of CP, using an organic FS provided greater insight than using deionized (DI) water as the FS. As the FS concentration increased, the water flux reduced, and the adverse effects of CP worsened. CaCl2 led to a greater reduction in water transfer efficiency than NaCl when used as the DS. In comparison to FO mode, pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) mode led to greater pure water flux and flux decline. In FO mode, both the proportion of dilutive ICP and the ηWT decreased, while the proportion of concentrative ECP increased over time. However, in PRO mode, the proportions of dilutive ECP and concentrative ICP increased, and ηWT gradually decreased. Dilutive ICP had a significant negative effect on osmotic pressure in the former, while dilutive ECP was dominant in the latter.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: