Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-0179

ISSN 2095-0187(Online)

CN 11-5981/TQ

Postal Subscription Code 80-969

2018 Impact Factor: 2.809

Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (4) : 562-574     DOI: 10.1007/s11705-016-1588-9
Thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes with substrate layer composed of polysulfone blended with PEG or polysulfone grafted PEG methyl ether methacrylate
Baicang Liu1,2(),Chen Chen3,Pingju Zhao1,2,Tong Li4,Caihong Liu5,Qingyuan Wang1,2,Yongsheng Chen6,John Crittenden6
1. College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
2. Institute of New Energy and Low Carbon Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610207, China
3. Litree Purifying Technology Co., Ltd, Haikou 571126, China
4. Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
5. State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
6. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
Download: PDF(950 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

To advance commercial application of forward osmosis (FO), we investigated the effects of two additives on the performance of polysulfone (PSf) based FO membranes: one is poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), and another is PSf grafted with PEG methyl ether methacrylate (PSf-g-PEGMA). PSf blended with PEG or PSf-g-PEGMA was used to form a substrate layer, and then polyamide was formed on a support layer by interfacial polymerization. In this study, NaCl (1 mol?L−1) and deionized water were used as the draw solution and the feed solution, respectively. With the increase of PEG content from 0 to 15 wt-%, FO water flux declined by 23.4% to 59.3% compared to a PSf TFC FO membrane. With the increase of PSf-g-PEGMA from 0 to 15 wt-%, the membrane flux showed almost no change at first and then declined by about 52.0% and 50.4%. The PSf with 5 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA FO membrane showed a higher pure water flux of 8.74 L?m−2?h−1 than the commercial HTI membranes (6–8 L?m−2?h−1) under the FO mode. Our study suggests that hydrophobic interface is very important for the formation of polyamide, and a small amount of PSf-g-PEGMA can maintain a good condition for the formation of polyamide and reduce internal concentration polarization.

Keywords thin-film composite      forward osmosis      amphiphilic copolymer      interfacial polymerization      poly(ethylene glycol)     
Corresponding Authors: Baicang Liu   
Just Accepted Date: 26 August 2016   Online First Date: 13 September 2016    Issue Date: 29 November 2016
URL:     OR
No. TFC FO membrane NMP /g PSf /g Additives Additive/PSf /(%, wt·wt−1 )
PEG /g PSf-g-PEGMA /g
M1 PSf 88 12 0 0 0
M2 PSf with 5 wt-% PEG 87.4 12 0.6 0 5
M3 PSf with 10 wt-% PEG 86.8 12 1.2 0 10
M4 PSf with 15 wt-% PEG 86.2 12 1.8 0 15
M5 PSf with 5 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 87.4 12 0 0.6 5
M6 PSf with 10 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 86.8 12 0 1.2 10
M7 PSf with 15 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 86.2 12 0 1.8 15
Tab.1  Compositions of support layer membrane casting solutions
Fig.1  Schematic diagram of FO system
Fig.2  SEM images of the surface (left column) and cross-section (right column) of seven substrate membranes. (a,b) M1; (c,d) M2; (e,f) M3; (g,h) M4 (i,j) M5; (k,l) M6; (m,n) M7
No. TFC FO membrane with additive Intrinsic permeability, A /(L?m−2?h−1?bar−1) NaCl permeability, B /(L?m−2?h−1) Structural parameter, S /µm Support layer thicknesses /µm
M1 PSf 1.03±0.17 5.62±0.92 278 153.47±15.32
M2 PSf with 5 wt-% PEG 0.36±0.08 2.17±0.47 782 152.13±17.89
M3 PSf with 10 wt-% PEG 0.39±0.16 0.43±0.18 814 161.65±8.88
M4 PSf with 15 wt-% PEG 0.25±0.10 0.80±0.33 1193 174.31±19.17
M5 PSf with 5 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 0.93±0.25 5.82±1.58 299 153.82±12.51
M6 PSf with 10 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 0.35±0.01 3.00±0.06 3086 153.35±18.92
M7 PSf with 15 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 0.41±0.05 0.94±0.12 757 146.07±25.47
Tab.2  FO Membrane properties
No. TFC FO membrane with additive Daverage/nm Dmax/nm Pore density /m−2 Surface porosity /%
M1 PSf 9.0±1.6 43.8 1.6 × 1014 1.38
M2 PSf with 5 wt-% PEG 8.9±1.5 36.8 1.4 × 1014 1.29
M3 PSf with 10 wt-% PEG 7.6±1.8 24.3 6.7 × 1013 0.37
M4 PSf with 15 wt-% PEG 7.9±1.4 28.8 1.1 × 1014 0.72
M5 PSf with 5 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 7.8±1.7 28.8 1.5 × 1014 0.97
M6 PSf with 10 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 7.5±1.5 24.9 1.7 × 1014 0.95
M7 PSf with 15 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA 7.9±1.6 27.9 1.3 × 1014 0.99
Tab.3  Summary of pore size distribution statistics
Fig.3  The variation of contact angle with time for (a) different amounts (0, 5, 10 and 15 wt-%) of PEG additives and (b) different amounts (5, 10 and 15 wt-%) of PSf-g-PEGMA additives
Fig.4  SEM images of the surface of FO membranes. (a) M1, (b) M2, (c) M3, (d) M4, (e) M5, (f) M6, and (g) M7
Fig.5  Comparison of FO water fluxes of different membranes: commercial HTI, PSf with different amounts of PEG and PSf-g-PEGMA,12 wt-% PSf with 0 wt-% DMF, 12 wt-% PSf 12 wt-% with PET not wetted [22], and 0 wt-% sulphonated polymer [25]. Experimental conditions for FO water flux measurements were as follows: 1.0 mol?L?1 NaCl as draw solution, DI water as feed solution, and 25 °C
Fig.6  Comparison of RO (a) water flux variation, and (b) salt rejection due to substrate layer with different amounts of PEG and PSf-g-PEGMA added in the casting solution. Experimental conditions for RO flux were as follows: 400 psi (27.6 bar) applied pressure, and 50 mmol?L−1 NaCl as feed solution, 25 °C. Note: PSf with 10 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA was tested under 200 psi due to its low strength
Fig.7  Conceptual illustration of different scenarios: (a) PSf, (b) PSf with PEG, (c) PSf with 5 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA, and (d) PSf with 10 or 15 wt-% PSf-g-PEGMA
A Intrinsic water permeability coefficient, L?m?2?h?1?bar?1
B NaCl permeability coefficient, L?m?2?h?1
Cb bulk feed salt concentration, mmol?L?1
Cp permeate salt concentration, mmol?L?1
D salt diffusion coefficient, m2?s?1
Jw pure water flux, L?m?2?h?1
K resistance to diffusion, s?m?1
DP pressure difference, bar
R salt rejection, %
S membrane structural parameter, µm
ts membrane thickness, µm
t membrane tortuosity
ε membrane porosity
πD,bbulk osmotic pressure of the draw solution, bar
πF,mosmotic pressure at the membrane surface on the feed side, bar
Dp bulk osmotic pressure difference, bar
1 Cath T Y, Childress A E, Elimelech M. Forward osmosis: Principles, applications, and recent developments. Journal of Membrane Science, 2006, 281(1-2): 70–87
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2006.05.048
2 Lee S, Boo C, Elimelech M, Hong S. Comparison of fouling behavior in forward osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO). Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 365(1-2): 34–39
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.036
3 Mi B, Elimelech M. Organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes: Fouling reversibility and cleaning without chemical reagents. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 348(1-2): 337–345
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2009.11.021
4 Mi B, Elimelech M. Gypsum scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis: Measurements and mechanisms. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(6): 2022–2028
doi: 10.1021/es903623r
5 Mi B, Elimelech M. Silica scaling and scaling reversibility in forward osmosis. Desalination, 2013, 312: 75–81
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.08.034
6 Shaffer D L, Yip N Y, Gilron J, Elimelech M. Seawater desalination for agriculture by integrated forward and reverse osmosis: Improved product water quality for potentially less energy. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 415: 1–8
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.05.016
7 Su J, Chung T S, Helmer B J, de Wit J S. Enhanced double-skinned FO membranes with inner dense layer for wastewater treatment and macromolecule recycle using sucrose as draw solute. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 396: 92–100
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.01.001
8 Ge Q, Wang P, Wan C, Chung T S. Polyelectrolyte-promoted forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD) hybrid process for dye wastewater treatment. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(11): 6236–6243
doi: 10.1021/es300784h
9 Petrotos K B, Quantick P, Petropakis H. 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. Journal of Membrane Science, 1998, 150(1): 99–110
doi: 10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00216-6
10 Nayak C A, Rastogi N K. Forward osmosis for the concentration of anthocyanin from Garcinia indica Choisy. Separation and Purification Technology, 2010, 71(2): 144–151
doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2009.11.013
11 She Q, Jin X, Tang C Y. Osmotic power production from salinity gradient resource by pressure retarded osmosis: Effects of operating conditions and reverse solute diffusion. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 401: 262–273
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2012.02.014
12 Chou S, Wang R, Shi L, She Q, Tang C, Fane A G. Thin-film composite hollow fiber membranes for pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) process with high power density. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 389: 25–33
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2011.10.002
13 Yip N Y, Tiraferri A, Phillip W A, Schiffrnan J D, Hoover L A, Kim Y C, Elimelech M. Thin-film composite pressure retarded osmosis membranes for sustainable power generation from salinity gradients. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(10): 4360–4369
doi: 10.1021/es104325z
14 Yip N Y, Elimelech M. Performance limiting effects in power generation from salinity gradients by pressure retarded osmosis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(23): 10273–10282
doi: 10.1021/es203197e
15 Abdallah H, El-Gendi A, Khedr M, El-Zanati E. Hydrophobic polyethersulfone porous membranes for membrane distillation. Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering, 2015, 9(1): 84–93
doi: 10.1007/s11705-015-1508-4
16 Xie M, Nghiem L D, Price W E, Elimelech M. A forward osmosis-membrane distillation hybrid process for direct sewer mining: System performance and limitations. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(23): 13486–13493
doi: 10.1021/es404056e
17 Phuntsho S, Shon H K, Hong S, Lee S, Vigneswaran S. A novel low energy fertilizer driven forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation: Evaluating the performance of fertilizer draw solutions. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 375(1-2): 172–181
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2011.03.038
18 Phuntsho S, Shon H K, Majeed T, El Saliby I, Vigneswaran S, Kandasamy J, Hong S, Lee S. Blended fertilizers as draw solutions for fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis desalination. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(8): 4567–4575
doi: 10.1021/es300002w
19 Sukitpaneenit P, Chung T S. High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes with macrovoid-free and highly porous structure for sustainable water production. Environmental Science & Technology, 2012, 46(13): 7358–7365
doi: 10.1021/es301559z
20 Wang R, Shi L, Tang C Y, Chou S, Qiu C, Fane A G. Characterization of novel forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2010, 355(1-2): 158–167
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2010.03.017
21 Zhao S, Zou L, Tang C Y, Mulcahy D. Recent developments in forward osmosis: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 396: 1–21
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2011.12.023
22 Tiraferri A, Yip N Y, Phillip W A, Schiffman J D, Elimelech M. Relating performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes to support layer formation and structure. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 367(1-2): 340–352
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2010.11.014
23 McCutcheon J R, Elimelech M. Influence of membrane support layer hydrophobicity on water flux in osmotically driven membrane processes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2008, 318(1-2): 458–466
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2008.03.021
24 Ghosh A K, Hoek E M V. Impacts of support membrane structure and chemistry on polyamide-polysulfone interfacial composite membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2009, 336(1-2): 140–148
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2009.03.024
25 Widjojo N, Chung T S, Weber M, Maletzko C, Warzelhan V. The role of sulphonated polymer and macrovoid-free structure in the support layer for thin-film composite (TFC) forward osmosis (FO) membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 383(1-2): 214–223
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2011.08.041
26 Zhong P, Fu X, Chung T S, Weber M, Maletzko C. Development of thin-film composite forward osmosis hollow fiber membranes using direct sulfonated polyphenylenesulfone (sPPSU) as membrane substrates. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(13): 7430–7436
27 Chakrabarty B, Ghoshal A K, Purkait M K. Effect of molecular weight of PEG on membrane morphology and transport properties. Journal of Membrane Science, 2008, 309(1-2): 209–221
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2007.10.027
28 Liu B, Chen C, Li T, Crittenden J, Chen Y. High performance ultrafiltration membrane composed of PVDF blended with its derivative copolymer PVDF-g-PEGMA. Journal of Membrane Science, 2013, 445: 66–75
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.05.043
29 Nhu-Ngoc B, McCutcheon J R. Hydrophilic nanofibers as new supports for thin film composite membranes for engineered osmosis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(3): 1761–1769
30 Park J Y, Acar M H, Akthakul A, Kuhlman W, Mayes A M. Polysulfone-graft-poly(ethylene glycol) graft copolymers for surface modification of polysulfone membranes. Biomaterials, 2006, 27(6): 856–865
doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.010
31 Ghosh A K, Jeong B H, Huang X, Hoek E M V. Impacts of reaction and curing conditions on polyamide composite reverse osmosis membrane properties. Journal of Membrane Science, 2008, 311(1-2): 34–45
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2007.11.038
32 Cadotte J E. Interfacially synthesized reverse osmosis membrane. US Patent, 4277344, 1981
33 Yip N Y, Tiraferri A, Phillip W A, Schiffman J D, Elimelech M. High performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(10): 3812–3818
doi: 10.1021/es1002555
34 Phillip W A, Yong J S, Elimelech M. Reverse draw solute permeation in forward osmosis: Modeling and experiments. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 44(13): 5170–5176
doi: 10.1021/es100901n
35 Cath T Y, Elimelech M, McCutcheon J R, McGinnis R L, Achilli A, Anastasio D, Brady A R, Childress A E, Farr I V, Hancock N T, Lampi J, Nghiem L D, Xie M, Yip N Y. Standard methodology for evaluating membrane performance in osmotically driven membrane processes. Desalination, 2013, 312: 31–38
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.005
36 Boom R M, Wienk I M, Vandenboomgaard T, Smolders C A. Microstructures in phase inversion membranes. 2. The role of a polymeric additive. Journal of Membrane Science, 1992, 73(2-3): 277–292
doi: 10.1016/0376-7388(92)80135-7
37 Liu B, Chen C, Zhang W, Crittenden J, Chen Y. Low-cost antifouling PVC ultrafiltration membrane fabrication with Pluronic F 127: Effect of additives on properties and performance. Desalination, 2012, 307: 26–33
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.036
38 Wei J, Qiu C, Tang C Y, Wang R, Fane A G. Synthesis and characterization of flat-sheet thin film composite forward osmosis membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 2011, 372(1-2): 292–302
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2011.02.013
39 Huang L, McCutcheon J R. Impact of support layer pore size on performance of thin film composite membranes for forward osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 483: 25–33
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.01.025
40 Mi Y F, Zhao Q, Ji Y L, An Q F, Gao C J. A novel route for surface zwitterionic functionalization of polyamide nanofiltration membranes with improved performance. Journal of Membrane Science, 2015, 490: 311–320
doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.04.072
[1] Dae Hwan Shin, Yu Tong Tam, Glen S. Kwon. Polymeric micelle nanocarriers in cancer research[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 348-359.
[2] Jing YANG,Juan LV,Bin GAO,Li ZHANG,Dazhi YANG,Changcan SHI,Jintang GUO,Wenzhong LI,Yakai FENG. Modification of polycarbonateurethane surface with poly(ethylene glycol) monoacrylate and phosphorylcholine glyceraldehyde for anti-platelet adhesion[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8(2): 188-196.
[3] WU Chunrui, ZHANG Shouhai, YANG Fajie, YAN Chun, JIAN Xigao. Preparation and performance of novel thermal stable composite nanofiltration membrane [J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2008, 2(4): 402-406.
Full text