Fertilizer drawn forward osmosis as an alternative to 2nd pass seawater reverse osmosis: Estimation of boron removal and energy consumption

doi:10.1007/s11783-021-1428-0

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2021, Vol. 15

Issue (6) : 135 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-021-1428-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fertilizer drawn forward osmosis as an alternative to 2nd pass seawater reverse osmosis: Estimation of boron removal and energy consumption

Hailan Wang¹, Baoyu Gao¹(

), Li’an Hou¹, Ho Kyong Shon², Qinyan Yue¹, Zhining Wang¹(

)

¹. Shandong Key Laboratory of Water Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China
². School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) Broadway NSW 2007, Australia

Download: PDF(2120 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

• The boron concentration in diluted DS can satisfy the irrigation water standard.

• The boron concentration in diluted DS equaled that in two-pass RO permeate.

• FDFO process SEC was slightly lower than the 2nd pass RO SEC.

• FDFO has potential as an alternative to 2nd pass RO for irrigation water production.

Agriculture is the largest consumer of freshwater. Desalinated seawater is an important alternative water source for sustainable irrigation. However, some issues of the current desalination technology hinder its use for agriculture irrigation, including low boron removal and high energy consumption. This study systematically explored the feasibility of employing fertilizer drawn forward osmosis (FDFO) as an alternative to 2nd pass reverse osmosis (RO) by considering the boron removal performance and specific energy consumption (SEC). Different operating conditions were investigated, such as the boron and NaCl concentrations in feed solution (FS), draw solution (DS) concentration, pH, the volume ratio of FS to DS, membrane orientation, flow rate, and operating temperature. The results indicated that a low boron concentration in FS and high pH DS (pH= 11.0) decreased the boron solute flux, and led to low final boron concentration in the DS. The other operating conditions had negligible influence on the final DS boron concentration. Also, a lower flow rate and higher specific water flux with certain permeate water volumes were conducive to reducing the SEC of the FDFO process. Overall, our study paves a new way of using FDFO in irrigation, which avoids the phytotoxicity and human health risk of boron. The results show the potential of FDFO as an alternative to 2nd pass RO for irrigation water production.

Keywords Fertilizer drawn forward osmosis (FDFO) Boron removal Specific energy consumption (SEC) Seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) Irrigation water production

Corresponding Author(s): Baoyu Gao,Zhining Wang

Issue Date: 20 April 2021

Cite this article:

Hailan Wang,Baoyu Gao,Li’an Hou, et al. Fertilizer drawn forward osmosis as an alternative to 2nd pass seawater reverse osmosis: Estimation of boron removal and energy consumption[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(6): 135.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-021-1428-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2021/V15/I6/135

Fig.1 Schematic of the FO system.

Fig.2 Effect of FS boron concentration on (a) DS boron concentration, (b) boron flux and (c) SEC; effect of FS NaCl concentration on (d) DS boron concentration, (e) boron flux and (f) SEC. The experiments were operated with FO mode, DS KH₂PO₄ concentration= 1 mol/L, initial V_FS = V_DS = 1.25 L, operation temperature= 25.0°C±1.0°C.

Fig.3 Effect of initial FS pH on (a) DS boron concentration, (b) FS pH, (c) boron flux and (d) SEC. The experiments were operated in FO mode, FS NaCl concentration= 400 mg/L, FS boron concentration= 1.5 mg/L, DS KH₂PO₄ concentration= 1 mol/L, initial V_FS = V_DS = 1.25 L, operating temperature= 25.0°C±1.0°C.

Fig.4 Effect of DS KH₂PO₄ concentration on (a) DS boron concentration, (b) boron flux, (c) SEC and (d) reverse solute flux. The experiments were operated in FO mode, FS NaCl concentration= 400 mg/L, FS boron concentration= 1.5 mg/L, initial V_FS = V_DS = 1.25 L, operating temperature= 25.0°C±1.0°C.

Fig.5 Effect of initial DS pH on (a) FS pH, (b) DS boron concentration, (c) boron flux and (d) SEC. The experiments were operated with FO mode, FS NaCl concentration= 400 mg/L, FS boron concentration= 1.5 mg/L, initial V_FS = V_DS = 1.25 L, operating temperature= 25.0°C±1.0°C.

Fig.6 Effect of volume ratio of FS to DS on (a) boron concentration of DS, (b) boron flux and (c) SEC when DS KH₂PO₄ concentration= 1 mol/L; effect of volume ratio of FS to DS on (d) boron concentration of DS, (e) boron flux and (f) SEC when DS KH₂PO₄ concentration= 1 mol/L, DS boron concentration= 1.5 mg/L. The experiments were operated with FO mode, FS NaCl concentration= 400 mg/L, FS boron concentration= 1.5 mg/L, initial DS pH= 11.0, operating temperature= 25.0°C±1.0°C.

Fig.7 Effect of membrane orientation on (a) DS boron concentration, (b) boron flux and (c) SEC; effect of flow rate on (d) DS boron concentration, (e) boron flux and (f) SEC. The experiments were operated with FS NaCl concentration= 400 mg/L, FS boron concentration= 1.5 mol/L, DS KH₂PO₄ concentration= 1 mg/L, initial V_FS = V_DS = 1.25 L, operating temperature= 25.0°C±1.0°C.

Fig.8 Effect of temperature on (a) DS boron concentration, (b) boron flux, (c) reverse salt flux and (d) SEC. The experiments were operated with FS NaCl concentration= 400 mg/L, FS boron concentration= 1.5 mg/L, DS KH₂PO₄ concentration= 1 mol/L, initial V_FS = V_DS = 1.25 L.

1	S Ban, S Im, J Cho, A Jang (2019). Comparative performance of FO-RO hybrid and two-pass SWRO desalination processes: Boron removal. Desalination, 471: 114114 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.114114
2	S Bhojwani, K Topolski, R Mukherjee, D Sengupta, M M El-Halwagi (2019). Technology review and data analysis for cost assessment of water treatment systems. Science of the Total Environment, 651(2): 2749–2761 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.363
3	L Chekli, Y Kim, S Phuntsho, S Li, N Ghaffour, T Leiknes, H K Shon (2017). Evaluation of fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis for sustainable agriculture and water reuse in arid regions. Journal of Environmental Management, 187: 137–145 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.021
4	H J Chung, J Kim, D I Kim, G Gwak, S Hong (2020). Feasibility study of reverse osmosis-flow capacitive deionization (RO-FCDI) for energy-efficient desalination using seawater as the flow-electrode aqueous electrolyte. Desalination, 479: 114326 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114326
5	Y Du, Y Liu, S Zhang, Y Xu (2016). Optimization of seawater reverse osmosis desalination networks with permeate split design considering boron removal. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 55(50): 12860–12879 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b02225
6	W Fam, S Phuntsho, J H Lee, J Cho, H K Shon (2014). Boron transport through polyamide-based thin film composite forward osmosis membranes. Desalination, 340: 11–17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.02.010
7	A Farhat, F Ahmad, N Hilal, H A Arafat (2013). Boron removal in new generation reverse osmosis (RO) membranes using two-pass RO without pH adjustment. Desalination, 310(SI): 50–59 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.10.003
8	M Gulied, A Al Nouss, M Khraisheh, F AlMomani (2020). Modeling and simulation of fertilizer drawn forward osmosis process using Aspen Plus-MATLAB model. Science of the Total Environment, 700: UNSP 134461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134461
9	A H Hawari, N Kamal, A Altaee (2016). Combined influence of temperature and flow rate of feeds on the performance of forward osmosis. Desalination, 398: 98–105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.023
10	E Jones, M Qadir, M T H van Vliet, V Smakhtin, S Kang (2019). The state of desalination and brine production: A global outlook. Science of the Total Environment, 657: 1343–1356 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.076
11	S Kayaci, S B Tantekin-Ersolmaz, M G Ahunbay, W B Krantz (2020). Technical and economic feasibility of the concurrent desalination and boron removal (CDBR) process. Desalination, 486: 114474 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114474
12	C Kim, S Lee, H K Shon, M Elimelech, S Hong (2012). Boron transport in forward osmosis: Measurements, mechanisms, and comparison with reverse osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science, 419: 42–48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.06.042
13	Y Kim, Y C Woo, S Phuntsho, L D Nghiem, H K Shon, S Hong (2017). Evaluation of fertilizer-drawn forward osmosis for coal seam gas reverse osmosis brine treatment and sustainable agricultural reuse. Journal of Membrane Science, 537: 22–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.05.032
14	R Lambrechts, M S Sheldon (2019). Performance and energy consumption evaluation of a fertiliser drawn forward osmosis (FDFO) system for water recovery from brackish water. Desalination, 456: 64–73 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2019.01.016
15	M Li, K Li, L Wang, X Zhang (2020). Feasibility of concentrating textile wastewater using a hybrid forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD) process: Performance and economic evaluation. Water Research, 172: 115488 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115488
16	MWRC (Ministry of Water Resources China) (2018). China National Water Bulletin. Beijing: Ministry of Water Resources China (in Chinese)
17	K Park, J Kim, D R Yang, S Hong (2020). Towards a low-energy seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant: A review and theoretical analysis for future directions. Journal of Membrane Science, 595: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117607
18	S K Patel, C L Ritt, A Deshmukh, Z Wang, M Qin, R Epsztein, M Elimelech (2020). The relative insignificance of advanced materials in enhancing the energy efficiency of desalination technologies. Energy & Environmental Science, 13: https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EE00341G
19	S Phuntsho, S Hong, M Elimelech, H K Shon (2013). Forward osmosis desalination of brackish groundwater: Meeting water quality requirements for fertigation by integrating nanofiltration. Journal of Membrane Science, 436: 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.20.022
20	S Phuntsho, J E Kim, M A H Johir, S Hong, Z Li, N Ghaffour, T Leiknes, H K Shon (2016). Fertiliser drawn forward osmosis process: Pilot-scale desalination of mine impaired water for fertigation. Journal of Membrane Science, 508: 22–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.02.024
21	S Phuntsho, F Lotfi, S Hong, D L Shaffer, M Elimelech, H K Shon (2014). Membrane scaling and flux decline during fertiliser-drawn forward osmosis desalination of brackish groundwater. Water Research, 57: 172–182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.034
22	S Phuntsho, H K Shon, S Hong, S Lee, S Vigneswaran (2011). A novel low energy fertilizer driven forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation: Evaluating the performance of fertilizer draw solutions. Journal of Membrane Science, 375(1–2): 172–181 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.03.038
23	S Phuntsho, H K Shon, S Hong, S Lee, S Vigneswaran, J Kandasamy (2012). Fertiliser drawn forward osmosis desalination: the concept, performance and limitations for fertigation. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 11(2SI): 147–168 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-011-9259-2
24	G Qiu, G K W Wong, Y Ting (2020). Electrostatic interaction governed solute transport in forward osmosis. Water Research, 173: 115590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115590
25	W Suwaileh, D Johnson, N Hilal (2020). Membrane desalination and water re-use for agriculture: State of the art and future outlook. Desalination, 491: 114559 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114559
26	C Y Tang, Q She, W C L Lay, R Wang, A G Fane (2010). Coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes during humic acid filtration. Journal of Membrane Science, 354(1–2): 123–133 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.02.059
27	Y P Tang, L Luo, Z Thong, T S Chung (2017). Recent advances in membrane materials and technologies for boron removal. Journal of Membrane Science, 541: 434–446 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2017.07.015
28	P N N Thi, B Jun, H G Park, S Han, Y Kim, H K Lee, Y Kwon (2016). Concentration polarization effect and preferable membrane configuration at pressure-retarded osmosis operation. Desalination, 389: 58–67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.02.028
29	UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2019). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP)
30	N Voutchkov (2018). Energy use for membrane seawater desalination: Current status and trends. Desalination, 431(SI): 2–14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.033
31	C Wang, B Gao, P Zhao, R Li, Q Yue, H K Shon (2017a). Exploration of polyepoxysuccinic acid as a novel draw solution in the forward osmosis process. RSC Advances, 7(49): 30687–30698 https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ra04036a
32	Y Wang, W Li, R Wang, C Y Tang (2017b). Enhancing boron rejection in FO using alkaline draw solutions. Water Research, 118: 20–25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.016
33	S Yang, B Gao, A Jang, H K Shon, Q Yue (2019). Municipal wastewater treatment by forward osmosis using seawater concentrate as draw solution. Chemosphere, 237: 124485 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124485
34	L Zheng, W E Price, J McDonald, S J Khan, T Fujioka, L D Nghiem (2019). New insights into the relationship between draw solution chemistry and trace organic rejection by forward osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science, 587: UNSP 117184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117184

[1]

FSE-21022-OF-WHL_suppl_1

Download

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed