Indirect determination of zeta potential at high ionic strength: Specific application to semipermeable polymeric membranes

Journal of Membrane Science

Volumn 478, Issue , 2015, Pages 58-64

  Coday, Bryan D ^a   Luxbacher, Thomas ^b   Childress, Amy E ^c   Almaraz, Nohemi ^a   Xu, Pei ^d   Cath, Tzahi Y ^a  

^a Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering   (United States)

^b ANTON PAAR GMBH   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Forward osmosis; Reverse osmosis; Solute rejection; Streaming potential; Zeta potential

Indexed keywords

COMPOSITE MEMBRANES; EXTRAPOLATION; MEMBRANES; REVERSE OSMOSIS; ZETA POTENTIAL;

CELLULOSE TRIACETATE; FORWARD OSMOSIS; MEMBRANE PERFORMANCE; POLYAMIDE THIN FILMS; SEMIPERMEABLE POLYMERIC MEMBRANES; SOLUTE REJECTION; STREAMING POTENTIAL; STREAMING POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS;

IONIC STRENGTH;

CELLULOSE TRIACETATE; COUNTERION; POLYAMIDE; POLYMER; SODIUM CHLORIDE; WATER;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COMPRESSION; FILM; HYDRATION; IONIC STRENGTH; MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; MEMBRANE POTENTIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SALINITY; STATIC ELECTRICITY; THEORETICAL MODEL; ZETA POTENTIAL;

EID: 84921536114     PISSN: 03767388     EISSN: 18733123     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2014.12.047     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Bellona C., Drewes J.E. Viability of a low-pressure nanofilter in treating recycled water for water reuse applications: a pilot-scale study. Water Res. 2007, 41:3948-3958.
2. Bellona C., Heil D., Yu C., Fu P., Drewes J.E. The pros and cons of using nanofiltration in lieu of reverse osmosis for indirect potable reuse applications. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 85:69-76.
3. Salehi F. Current and future applications for nanofiltration technology in the food processing. Food Bioprod. Process. 2013, 92:161-177.
4. Román A., Wang J., Csanádi J., Hodúr C., Vatai G. Experimental investigation of the sweet whey concentration by nanofiltration. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2011, 4:702-709.
5. Bellona C. Nanofiltration-theory and application. Desalination: Water from Water 2014, (pp. 205-253).
6. Coday B.D., Xu P., Beaudry E.G., Herron J., Lampi K., Hancock N.T., Cath T.Y. The sweet spot of forward osmosis: treatment of produced water, drilling wastewater, and other complex and difficult liquid streams. Desalination 2014, 333:23-35.
7. Cath T.Y., Childress A.E., Elimelech M. Forward osmosis: principles, applications, and recent developments. J. Membr. Sci. 2006, 281:70-87.
8. Zhao S., Zou L., Tang C.Y., Mulcahy D. Recent developments in forward osmosis: opportunities and challenges. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 396:1-21.
9. Chekli L., Phuntsho S., Shon H.K., Vigneswaran S., Kandasamy J., Chanan A. A review of draw solutes in forward osmosis process and their use in modern applications. Desalin. Water Treat. 2012, 43:167-184.
10. Chung T.-S., Zhang S., Wang K.Y., Su J., Ling M.M. Forward osmosis processes: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Desalination 2012, 287:78-81.
11. Qin J.-J., Lay W.C.L., Kekre K.A. Recent developments and future challenges of forward osmosis for desalination: a review. Desalin. Water Treat. 2012, 39:123-136.
12. Shaffer D.L., Werber J.R., Jaramillo H., Lin S., Elimelech M. Forward osmosis: where are we now?. Desalination 2014, 10.1016/j.desal.2014.1010.1031.
13. Klaysom C., Cath T.Y., Depuydt T., Vankelecom I.F.J. Forward and pressure retarded osmosis: potential solutions for global challenges in energy and water supply. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2013, 42:6959-6989.
14. Cath T.Y. Osmotically and thermally driven membrane processes for enhancement of water recovery in desalination processes. Desalin. Water Treat. 2010, 15:279-286.
15. Hancock N.T., Phillip W.A., Elimelech M., Cath T.Y. Bidirectional permeation of electrolytes in osmotically driven membrane processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45:10642-10651.
16. Coday B.D., Heil D.M., Xu P., Cath T.Y. Effects of transmembrane hydraulic pressure on performance of forward osmosis membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47:2386-2393.
17. Hancock N.T., Cath T.Y. Solute coupled diffusion in osmotically driven membrane processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43:6769-6775.
18. Coday B.D., Yaffe B.G., Xu P., Cath T.Y. Rejection of trace organic compounds by forward osmosis membranes: a literature review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48:3612-3624.
19. Achilli A., Cath T.Y., Childress A.E. Selection of inorganic-based draw solutions for forward osmosis applications. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 364:233-241.
20. Holloway R.W., Regnery J., Nghiem L.D., Cath T.Y. Removal of trace organic chemicals and performance of a novel hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48:10859-10868.
21. Holloway R.W., Childress A.E., Dennett K.E., Cath T.Y. Forward osmosis for concentration of anaerobic digester centrate. Water Res. 2007, 41:4005-4014.
22. Holloway R.W., Wait A.S., da Silva A.F., Herron J., Schutter M.D., Lampi K., Cath T.Y. Long-term pilot scale investigation of novel hybrid ultrafiltration-osmotic membrane bioreactors. Desalination 2014, 10.1016/j.desal.2014.1005.1040.
23. Achilli A., Cath T.Y., Marchand E.A., Childress A.E. The forward osmosis membrane bioreactor: a low fouling alternative to MBR processes. Desalination 2009, 239:10-21.
24. Cornelissen E., Harmsen D., Beerendonk E., Qin J., Oo H., De Korte K., Kappelhof J. The innovative osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) for reuse of wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 63:1557-1565.
25. Alturki A., McDonald J., Khan S.J., Hai F.I., Price W.E., Nghiem L.D. Performance of a novel osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) system: flux stability and removal of trace organics. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 113:201-206.
26. Xiao D., Tang C.Y., Zhang J., Lay W.C., Wang R., Fane A.G. Modeling salt accumulation in osmotic membrane bioreactors: implications for FO membrane selection and system operation. J. Membr. Sci. 2011, 366:314-324.
27. R. York, R. Thiel, E. Beaudry, Full-scale experience of direct osmosis concentration applied to leachate management, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium (Sardinia[U+05F3]99), Cagliari, Italy.
28. T.Y. Cath, K.L. Hickenbottom, B.D. Coday, A.R. Furtado, Forward osmosis and membrane distillation application for sustainable recovery of water and minerals from hypersaline brines, 2013 in: Proceedings of the AMTA/AWWA Membrane Technology Conference, San Antonio, TX, February 25-28.
29. Hickenbottom K.L., Hancock N.T., Hutchings N.R., Appleton E.W., Beaudry E.G., Xu P., Cath T.Y. Forward osmosis treatment of drilling mud and fracturing wastewater from oil and gas operations. Desalination 2013, 312:60-66.
30. Shaffer D.L., Arias Chavez L.H., Ben-Sasson M., Romero-Vargas Castrillón S., Yip N.Y., Elimelech M. Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water: drivers, technologies, and future directions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47:9569-9583.
31. Brant J.A., Childress A.E. Colloidal adhesion to hydrophilic membrane surfaces. J. Membr. Sci. 2004, 241:235-248.
32. Bacchin P., Aimar P., Sanchez V. Model for colloidal fouling of membranes. AIChE J. 1995, 41:368-376.
33. Verwey E. Theory of the stability of lyophobic colloids. J. Phys. Chem. 1947, 51:631-636.
34. Vrijenhoek E.M., Hong S., Elimelech M. Influence of membrane surface properties on initial rate of colloidal fouling of reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2001, 188:115-128.
35. Muthu S., Childress A., Brant J. Propagation-of-uncertainty from contact angle and streaming potential measurements to XDLVO model assessments of membrane-colloid interactions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014, 428:191-198.
36. Motsa M.M., Mamba B.B., D'Haese A., Hoek E.M.V., Verliefde A.R.D. Organic fouling in forward osmosis membranes: the role of feed solution chemistry and membrane structural properties. J. Membr. Sci. 2014, 460:99-109.
37. Xie M., Nghiem L.D., Price W.E., Elimelech M. Relating rejection of trace organic contaminants to membrane properties in forward osmosis: measurements, modelling and implications. Water Res. 2014, 49:265-274.
38. Childress A.E., Elimelech M. Relating nanofiltration membrane performance to membrane charge (Electrokinetic) characteristics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34:3710-3716.
39. Childress A.E., Elimelech M. Effect of solution chemistry on the surface charge of polymeric reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 1996, 119:253-268.
40. Bandini S., Drei J., Vezzani D. The role of pH and concentration on the ion rejection in polyamide nanofiltration membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 264:65-74.
41. Bellona C., Drewes J.E. The role of membrane surface charge and solute physico-chemical properties in the rejection of organic acids by NF membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2005, 249:227-234.
42. Déon S., Escoda A., Fievet P., Salut R. Prediction of single salt rejection by NF membranes: an experimental methodology to assess physical parameters from membrane and streaming potentials. Desalination 2013, 315:37-45.
43. Hagmeyer G., Gimbel R. Modelling the rejection of nanofiltration membranes using zeta potential measurements. Sep. Purif. Technol. 1999, 15:19-30.
44. Hoang T., Stevens G., Kentish S. The effect of feed pH on the performance of a reverse osmosis membrane. Desalination 2010, 261:99-103.
45. Oo M.H., Ong S.L. Implication of zeta potential at different salinities on boron removal by RO membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 352:1-6.
46. Brezonik P., Arnold W. Water Chemistry: An Introduction to the Chemistry of Natural and Engineered Aquatic Systems 2011, Oxford University Press, New York, NY (019981354X).
47. Hunter R.J. Zeta Potential in Colloid Science: Principles and Applications 1981, Academic press London, London, England (9780123619617).
48. McLaughlin S. The electrostatic properties of membranes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem. 1989, 18:113-136.
49. Elimelech M., Chen W.H., Waypa J.J. Measuring the zeta (electrokinetic) potential of reverse osmosis membranes by a streaming potential analyzer. Desalination 1994, 95:269-286.
50. Masliyah J.H., Bhattacharjee S. Frontmatter. Electrokinetic and Colloid Transport Phenomena 2005, (978-0-471-78882-9), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
51. Hurwitz G., Guillen G.R., Hoek E.M.V. Probing polyamide membrane surface charge, zeta potential, wettability, and hydrophilicity with contact angle measurements. J. Membr. Sci. 2010, 349:349-357.
52. Kim K.J., Fane A.G., Nystrom M., Pihlajamaki A., Bowen W.R., Mukhtar H. Evaluation of electroosmosis and streaming potential for measurement of electric charges of polymeric membranes. J. Membrane Sci. 1996, 116:149-159.
53. Lyklema J. Fundamentals of Interface and Colloid Science: Solid-Liquid Interfaces 1995, 978-124605244. Academic Press, London.
54. Dukhin A., Dukhin S., Goetz P. Electrokinetics at high ionic strength and hypothesis of the double layer with zero surface charge. Langmuir 2005, 21:9990-9997.
55. Levy A., Andelman D., Orland H. Dielectric constant of ionic solutions: a field-theory approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108:227801.
56. Mancinelli R., Botti A., Bruni F., Ricci M.A., Soper A.K. Hydration of sodium, potassium, and chloride ions in solution and the concept of structure maker/breaker. J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111:13570-13577.
57. Marhler J., Persson I. A study of the hydration of the alkali metal ions in aqueous solution. Inorg. Chem. 2011, 51:425-438.
58. Volkov A., Paula S., Deamer D. Two mechanisms of permeation of small neutral molecules and hydrated ions across phospholipid bilayers. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 1997, 42:153-160.
59. Conway B.E., Conway B. Ionic Hydration in Chemistry and Biophysics 1981, 978-444419477. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
60. Vinogradov J., Jaafar M., Jackson M. Measurement of streaming potential coupling coefficient in sandstones saturated with natural and artificial brines at high salinity. J. Geophysical Res.: Solid Earth 2010, 1978-2012:115.
61. Jaafar M., Vinogradov J., Jackson M. Measurement of streaming potential coupling coefficient in sandstones saturated with high salinity NaCl brine. Geophysical Res. Lett. 2009, 36.
62. Johnson S.B., Scales P.J., Healy T.W. The binding of monovalent electrolyte ions on α-alumina I. Electroacoustic studies at high electrolyte concentrations. Langmuir 1999, 15:2836-2843.
63. Greenwood R. Review of the measurement of zeta potentials in concentrated aqueous suspensions using electroacoustics. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2003, 106:55-81.
64. Johnson S.B., Franks G.V., Scales P.J., Healy T.W. The binding of monovalent electrolyte ions on α-alumina. II. The shear yield stress of concentrated suspensions. Langmuir 1999, 15:2844-2853.
65. Walker S.L., Bhattacharjee S., Hoek E.M., Elimelech M. A novel asymmetric clamping cell for measuring streaming potential of flat surfaces. Langmuir 2002, 18:2193-2198.
66. Zimmermann R., Freudenberg U., Schweiß R., Küttner D., Werner C. Hydroxide and hydronium ion adsorption - a survey. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 2010, 15:196-202.
67. Beattie J.K., Djerdjev A.M., Warr G.G. The surface of neat water is basic. Faraday Discuss. 2009, 141:31-39.
68. Yaroshchuk A., Ribitsch V. Role of channel wall conductance in the determination of ζ-potential from electrokinetic measurements. Langmuir 2002, 18:2036-2038.
69. Yaroshchuk A., Luxbacher T. Interpretation of electrokinetic measurements with porous films: role of electric conductance and streaming current within porous structure. Langmuir 2010, 26:10882-10889.
70. Déon S., Fievet P., Doubad C.Osman Tangential streaming potential/current measurements for the characterization of composite membranes. J. Membr. Sci. 2012, 423:413-421.
71. Yaroshchuk A., Bernal E.E.L., Luxbacher T. Electrokinetics in undeveloped flows. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013, 410:195-201.
72. Phillip W.A., Yong J.S., Elimelech M. Reverse draw solute permeation in forward osmosis: modeling and experiments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44:5170-5176.
73. Hoek E.M., Elimelech M. Cake-enhanced concentration polarization: a new fouling mechanism for salt-rejecting membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37:5581-5588.