Modelling the effects of nanofiltration membrane properties on system cost assessment for desalination applications

Desalination

Volumn 206, Issue 1-3, 2007, Pages 215-225

  Mohammad, A W ^a   Hilal, N ^b   Al Zoubib, H ^b   Darwish, N A ^c   Ali, N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c KHALIFA UNIVERSITY   (United Arab Emirates)

Author keywords

Economic assessment; Modeling; Nanofiltration; Osmotic effect; Rejection

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DESALINATION; ECONOMICS; MECHANICAL PERMEABILITY; MEMBRANES;

COST ASSESSMENT; ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT; OSMOTIC EFFECT;

NANOFILTRATION;

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DESALINATION; ECONOMICS; MECHANICAL PERMEABILITY; MEMBRANES; NANOFILTRATION;

DESALINATION; FILTRATION; MEMBRANE; MODELING; OSMOSIS; WASTE TREATMENT; WASTEWATER;

EID: 33846805373     PISSN: 00119164     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2006.02.068     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Raman L.P., Cheryan M., and Rajagopalan N. Consider nanofiltration for membrane separation. Chem.Eng. Prog. 90 (1994) 68-74
2. Eriksson P. Nanofiltration extends the range of membrane filtration. Environ. Prog. 7 (1988) 58-61
3. 3 120°C in MSF. Desalination 118 (1998) 123-129
4. Al-Sofi M. Seawater desalination-SWCC experience and vision. Desalination 135 (2001) 121-139
5. Levenstein R., Hasson D., and Semiat R. Utilisation of the Donnan effect for improving electrolyte separation with nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 116 (1996) 77-92
6. Perry M., and Linder C. Intermediate RO UF membranes for concentrating and desalting of low molecular weight organic solutes. Desalination 71 (1989) 233-245
7. Tsuru T., Nakao S., and Kimura S. Calculation ofion rejection by extended Nernst-Planck equation with charged reverse osmosis membranes for single and mixed electrolyte solutions. J. Chem. Eng. Japan 24 (1991) 511-517
8. Schaep J., Vandecasteele C., Mohammad A.W., and Bowen R. Modelling the retention of ionic components for different nanofiltration membranes. Separ.Purif. Technol. 22-23 (2001) 169-179
9. Bowen W.R., Mohammad A.W., and Hilal N. Characterization of nanofiltration membranes for predictive purposes-use of salts, uncharged solutes and atomic force microscopy. J. Membr. Sci. 126 (1997) 91-105
10. Bowen W.R., and Welfoot J.S. Modelling the performance of membrane nanofiltration - critical assessment and model development. Chem. Eng.Sci. 57 (2002) 1121-1137
11. Bandini S., and Vezzani D. Nanofiltration modeling: the role of dielectric exclusion in membrane characterization. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58 (2003) 3303-3326
12. Mohammad A.W. A modified Donnan-Steric-Pore model for predicting flux and rejection of dye/NaClmixture in nanofiltration membranes. Separ. Sci. Technol. 37 5 (2002) 1009-1030
13. Mohammad A.W., and Takriff M.S. Predicting flux and rejection of multicomponent salts mixture in nanofiltration membranes. Desalination 157 (2003) 105-112
14. Ali N., Mohammad A.W., and Ahmad A.L. Use of nanofiltration predictive model in developing criteria for membrane selection and analyzing cost impact. Separ. Purif. Technol. 41 (2005) 29-37
15. A.W. Mohammad, N. Hilal, H. Al-Zoubi and N.Darwish, Prediction of rejection and permeate fluxes for highly concentrated salt solutions. J. Membr. Sci., submitted for publication.
16. 2O 26 14 (1993) 383-387
17. Taylor J.S., Mulford L.A., Duranceau S.J., and Barrett W.M. Cost and performance of a membrane pilot plant. J. AWWA 81 11 (1989) 52-60
18. Dunkelberger G.W., and Taylor J.S. Cost optimization model for low pressure membrane applications. Proc. American Water Works Association, Membrane Process Conf. (1991) 63-78
19. Bruggen V.D., Everaert D., Wilms D., and Vandecasteele C. Application of nanofiltration for removal of pesticides, nitrate and hardness from ground water: rejection properties and economic evaluation. J. Membr. Sci. 193 (2001) 239-248