Content uploaded by Aaron Jacob Berliner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aaron Jacob Berliner on Jun 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
zNANO Forward Osmosis Membrane for Wastewater
Treatment Processes
Takeshi Kamiya1
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058505, JAPAN
Tra-My Justine Richardson2
CSS-Dynamac Corporation, 10301 Democracy Blvd Suite 300 Fairfax, CA 20175
Michael T. Flynn3
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035
Aaron Berliner4
Universities Space Research Association, 10211 Wincopin Circle Suite 500, Columbia, MD 21044
Adrian Brozell5
and Abed-Amoli 6
zNANO, 2381 Zanker Rd 130, San Jose, CA 95131
Forward osmosis (FO) is used as a pretreatment to minimize reverse osmosis (RO)
membrane fouling in short and long term spacecraft wastewater treatment processes.
Commercially available FO membranes have low water flux rates resulting in large size and
mass requirements
in Forward Osmosis and Reverse Osmosis (FO/RO) systems. Large system size
translates to higher launch cost. Therefore, FO
membranes that have higher water flux rates
improve the overall FO/RO system economics.
This paper describes the ML-1 zNANO LLC
lipid based FO membranes testing results. The zNANO
membranes are based on a lipid-
bilayer that can be used both in microfiltration and FO
processes. zNANO membranes can
be manufactured in a variety of layers configurations and electrical charges. This ability to
manipulate membrane surface charges
can be particularly useful as one can fabricate a
membrane tailored for a specific process. This
research characterized the unsupported
zNANO ML-1 membranes in order to optimize their performance in terms
of water flux
rates and contaminant rejection. Initial testing results indicated that the ML-1 zNANO
membranes have 12 times the water flux rates than that of commercially available membrane
when deionized water was used as the feed and with 2 mol/l sodium chloride solution was
used as the brine. When secondary wastewater was used as the feed solution, the ML-1 zNANO
membrane has 4.4 times the water flux rates than that of the commercially available membrane.
In addition, the zNANO ML-1 membrane reject 82±14ppm, 90±7ppm, 92±4ppm, 92±3ppm,
88±3ppm, and 86±17ppm of ammonium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, nitrate, sulfate, and
total organic carbon respectively.
Nomenclature
ARC Ames Research Center
DI Deionized Water
1
Associate Senior Engineer, Tsukuba Space Center and AIAA Regular Member.
2
Scientist/Engineer,
Bioengineering Branch at NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 239-15, Moffett Field, CA 94035.
3
Physical Scientist,
Bioengineering Branch at NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 239-15, Moffett Field, CA 94035.
4 Research Associate, Bioengineering Branch at NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 239-15, Moffett Field, CA 94035.
5
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, zNANO, San Jose, CA
6
Director of Production, zNANO, San Jose, CA
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
43rd International Conference on Environmental Systems
July 14-18, 2013, Vail, CO
AIAA 2013-3337
This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES)
DOC Direct Osmotic Concentration
EC Electrical Conductivity
ERD Energy Recovery Devices
FDFO Fertilizer Draw Forward Osmosis
FO
Forward Osmosis
FO/RO Forward Osmosis and Reverse Osmosis
FOB Forward Osmosis Bag
FOST Forward Osmosis Secondary Treatment
ISS International Space Station
MABR Membrane Aerator Biological Reactor
mS milli Siemens
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OMEGA Offshore Membrane Enclosure for Growing Algae
RO Reverse Osmosis
TOC Total Organic Membrane
µS micro Siemens
I.
Introduction and Background
Forward Osmosis is a process where the osmotic potential between two fluids of differing solute/solvent
concentration is equalized by the movement of solvent from the less concentrated solution to the more
concentrated solution.3 This is typically accomplished through the use of a semi-permeable membrane
that separates the two solutions. Such FO processes and corresponding membranes have been researched
and developed by NASA since 1995 for use in future water recycling systems aboard both short and long
duration human space missions. The development process has been well documented in previous paper.2
Recently, the Forward Osmosis Secondary Treatment (FOST) system was built and delivered to JSC in
2013.
The FOST system was designed as a post treatment to the Membrane Aerated Biological Reactor
(MABR).
The MABR reduces the organic content of the wastewater while the FOST system will remove
the dissolved
solids.6 In the FOST system, a FO module is used as a pretreatment step to minimize
fouling in the
reverse osmosis membrane. In this system, as in the DOC system,3 clean water passes
through the FO
semi-permeable membrane into the osmotic agent (OA). Water is then removed from the
OA through the
RO system. Coupling the FO/RO systems together provides a RO concentrated salt
solution. This solution
drives water across the FO membrane. In addition, the FOST paradigm consists of
a system of RO energy
recovery pumps. Coupling the FO/RO systems and energy recovery devices (ERD)
improves the wastewater
treatment process in terms of power, size, mass, reliability and resupply. Since
the water flux across the
FO membrane is dependent on the membrane size and OA salt solution
concentration, we hypothesize
that improving the water flux rate across the FO membrane will lead to
smaller, lighter, and lower power
systems. The NASA ARC has an intensive membrane comparison
project to develop and test a variety of
FO membranes. Since 2010, NASA has collaborated with
zNANO (San Jose, CA) to test its newly develop
FO membranes. This paper describes the initial test
results for the zNANO forward osmosis membrane. This
testing is being done as a research effort to develop
FO membrane with better performance characteristics and
process-specific functionality. The results of
these test can be used to re-evaluate the use of FO membranes
in the Direct Osmosis Concentration (DOC)
System,3 the Forward Osmosis Cargo Transfer Bag (FOB),5 the
Habitat Water Wall,4 the Sustainability
Base,7 the Forward Osmosis Secondary Treatment (FOST) system,6
the Pressure Retarded Osmosis
(PRO),1 the Fertilizer Draw Forward Osmosis (FDFO),9 and the Offshore
Membrane Enclosure for
Growing Algae (OMEGA).8 The test results of the zNANO membrane are compared
with commercially
available FO membranes. In the testing of these membranes, DI water and secondary
treated wastewater
were used as a feed and 2 mol/l of salt water was used as a draw solution.
II.
Materials and Procedure
Two setup methodologies were used for the comparative testing of the zNANO membranes. In both
cases,
flat sheet modules were designed and fabricated in-house at ARC. The module used in setup A has
a larger
active membrane area than that of setup B.
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
A.
Materials and Test Setup
Experimental setup and flow diagrams of the test setup A are shown in Figures 1 left and 2, and setup
B in Figures 1 right and 3. . Commercially available membranes and the zNANO membranes are used.
The
membranes used are single flat sheets with membrane areas of 0.037 m2 for setup A and 4.25 × 10-4 m2
for
setup B. DI water produced by a system with an electrical conductivity of less than 10 µS/cm is used
as a
feed and 2 mol/l of brine is used as a draw solution. Stir plates are used to keep the solution well
mixed.
For setup A, the membrane is installed in a stainless steel housing where it is sandwiched between plastic net
spacers. O-rings and stainless steel plates are bolted together with fasteners. The solution flows into the
module at the bottom and exits at the top outlet. This configuration allows air to exit from the top of the
module. For the feed and brine side, flow rates and pressures are measured with analog gauges. A centrifugal
magnetic drive pump (Cole Parmer 07003-04) is used to recirculate the brine solution at 7 GPH. Electrical
conductivity and temperature of the feed are measured using a bench top conductivity meter (YSI 3200). A
calibration curve is generated to correlate the conductivity measurement and sodium chloride concentration. A
stir plate is used to stir the feed and brine solution. The volume of the feed solution is measure using a scale.
Setup B has an active membrane area of 4.25×10−4 m2. The zNANO membrane is provided by the zNANO
LLC. and cut to the same size as the commercially available membrane. For setup B, there is no pressure
gauge and flow rate gauge for both the feed and brine lines. Masterflex double head peristaltic pump
(Cole-Palmer 77120-62) are used to recirculate solution through both sides of the membrane at 14mL/hr.
Conductivity, temperature, and mass of the feed solution are automatically recorded via hyper terminal for
24 hours.
Figure 1. Left: Diagram of Test Setup A. Right: Diagram of Test Setup B, Small Housing.
Figure 2. Test Setup A, 0.037m2 active membrane area
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
B.
Conditions and Parameters
Sample Analysis Methods are listed in Table 1. For DI water and salt tests, only
electrical conductivity
(EC) readings were recorded to determine the salt back flux and to determine the salt content in the brine tank.
The relationship between salt in g/L and EC readings were determined via a calibration curve. For the
wastewater tests, 40mL samples were collected and submitted to the analytical lab and analyzed the same day.
When sample could not be analyzed in the same day, they are refrigerated at 4˚C.
Table 1. Sample Analysis Method
Analysis Items
Method/Equipment
Notes
Anion and Cation
ThermoFisher (Dionex) Ion
Chromatograph with a conductivity
detector
require at least 5 ml of sample
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Shimadzu Total Organic Carbon
Analyzer, using UV-Persulfate
Oxidation
require 40 ml
Test conditions and parameters are shown in the Table 2. For wastewater testing, the brine solution is 2
mol/l of the NaCl. NaCl is used due to its non-hazardous properties for spacecraft applications and as a source
of comparison to previous FO data collected on the DOC. On the feed side, secondary wastewater from a local
wastewater treatment plant was used. The initial feed pH measured 6.8 and the conductivity was approximately
2.2 mS/cm.
For setup A, a flow rate of 6.3×10−5m3/s (60GPH) is used for the feed, 7.4×10−6m3/s (≈ 7GPH) is
used for the brine . The flow rate of the feed side is higher than the brine side to minimize concentration
polarization. For setup B, measured flow rate is 2.48×10−7 m3/s for both feed and brine sides
Table 2. Test Conditions and Parameters
Test No.
Membrane
Feed Solu-
tion
Draw Solution
Flow Rate
Notes
1-1 to 1-3
Commercial
Setup A
DI Water 8
Liters
Brine 2 mol/Liter
0.5 Liters
Feed:6.3×10−5m3/s
(=60GPH)
Used as a baseline
case for compari-
Brine:7.4×10−6m3/s
(7GPH)
son.
2-1 to 2-3
Commercial
Setup A
Wastewater
8 Liters
Brine 2 mol/Liter
0.5 Liters
Feed:6.3×10−5m3/s
(=60GPH)
Used as a baseline
case for compari-
Brine:7.4×10-
6m3/s (7GPH)
son.
3-1
Commercial
DI Water 1
Brine 2 mol/Liter
Feed and Brine,
To compare with
Setup B
Liter
0.5 Liters
2.48×10−7 m3/s
results of No.1-1 to
1-3 to know differ-
ence of the setup A
and B under same
condition.
4-1 to 4-3
zNANO
ML1
DI Water 2
Brine 2 mol/Liter 2
Feed and Brine,
Setup B
Liters
Liters
2.48×10−7 m3/s
5-1 to 5-3
zNANO
ML1
Wastewater
Brine 2 mol/Liter
Feed and Brine,
Setup B
1 Liter
0.5 Liters
2.48×10−7 m3/s
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
III.
Results and Discussion
Test results of the commercial membranes and the zNANO membrane with setup A and B are
summarized
in the Table 3 and shown in Figures 4 through 7. Additional test results are shown in the
Appendix.
Table 3. A table summarizing the test type, membrane and set-up used, and the associated results.
!"#$%&'(%
)"*+,-."%
/""0%
1"$234%
&'(%
5',,"6$"0%
7-$",%/839%-$%
:;%0"<,""%5%
=>)?@%
AB",-<"0%7-$",%/839%%
=>)?@C%
1$-.0-,0%D"BE-$E'.%
F.E$E-8G/E.-8%H5%
'.%/""0%
=G6*@%
I2I%
5'**",6E-8%
DF%J-$",%
A%
K(IL%
K(IM%
;(N:OC%L(MMP%
;(KGK(LQ1%
I2:%
O(RL%
;(KLGO(SQ1%
I2N%
K(LS%
;(KIGR(;Q1%
:2I%
5'**",6E-8%
7-#$"J-$",%
A%
M(OL%
M(:%
;(NRLC%K(NSP%
I(SG:(I*1%
:2:%
M(;M%
:(:G:(L*1%
:2N%
L(S:%
:(NG:(M*1%
N2I%
5'**",6E-8%
DF%J-$",%
T%
K(MM%
%%
%%
L2I%
U&-.'%
DF%J-$",%
T%
RL(R%
RO(I%
L(;SC%L(KMP%
:(LGN;Q1%
L2:%
S;(K%
I(RG:RQ1%
L2N%
R:(S%
I(;G:NQ1%
M2I%
U&-.'%
7-#$"J-$",%
T%
:;(I%
:N(I%
L(RC%:;(SP%
:(LGN(:*1%
M2:%
:;(L%
:(NGN(O*1%
M2N%
:R(O%
:(SGN(S*1%
Electrical conductivity of the feed side increases over time due to the volumetric concentration in the
feed
and a small amount of salt back-flux from the brine solution into the feed tank. The amount of salt
back-flux
can be calculated using Equation (1).
LossN aC l = C1(V0 − ∆V ) − C0V0 (1)
C0: Initial NaCl Concentration in the feed solution [g/L]
C1: Final NaCl Concentration in the feed [g/L]
V0: Initial volume of the feed [L]
∆V : Amount of transferred water from the feed to brine [L]
Water flux rates are parameters for modeling the performance of FO membranes. The water flux
rates
are dependent on temperature and can be adjusted using Equation (2).
Water Flux20°C=Water FluxAverage *e
522.9* 1
T+125.64
( )
!
"
#
#
$
%
&
&−1
20+125.64
( )
!
"
#
#
$
%
&
&
(
)
*
*
+
,
-
-
(2)
where T: average operating temperature of the feed in ˚C
T : average operating temperature of the feed in ˚C
J : Flux
Tests 2.1 to 2.3 show a back-flux of 0.8 g/L NaCl into the feed tank. This amount of salt back-flux
significantly contributes to three different complications in the waste treatment process.
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
1.
Salt loss on the OA side require a salt resupply cost to keep the OA tank replenished to
prevent
decreasing water flux rates decline.
2.
As salt increase in the feed, the osmotic potential between the feed and the brine decrease
thereby decreasing the water flux rates.
3.
Salt back-flux into the feed side contributes to the added loading as the feed concentrated brine
must
be further processed downstream.
According to table 3, the standard deviation of the average water flux for the testing No.1-1 through 4-3
is
less than 7.4%. On the other hand, standard deviations in testing No.5-1 through 5-3 are as high as
20.9%.
The high standard deviations in tests 5-1 through 5-3 are due to the internal concentration
polarization
that existed in the smaller setup B. The modules used for the smaller test setup were not
rated for high flow/pressure and a higher flow pump was not used. This setup was used because the
vendor did not have
a larger sheet of membrane available at the time of this testing. The low flow
coupled with narrow flow
channels lead to fouling at the membrane surface.
The water flux rates versus run time graphs are shown in Figure 4 through 7. Figures 4 through 5 show
the graphs of water flux rates for experiments conducted using set-up A when DI water and secondary
wastewater were used as the feed solution and 2 mol/L of NaCl was used in the brine solution. These graphs
show that for the commercially available membrane, the water flux rates is 7.2LMH when deionized water
was used as the feed solution and 5.2LMH when wastewater was used as the feed solution. Figure 5 shows
that the water flux rate increases dramatically to 86.1 LMH (with DI water as the feed solution and 2
mol/L
of NaCl was used as the brine) when the zNANO membrane were used.
Figure 7 shows the graph for the runs conducted with the zNANO membrane using wastewater as the
feed
solution and 2 mol/L NaCl as the brine. Here, water flux decrease from 86.1 LMH to 23.1 LMH due
to the
concentration polarization. These contaminants block out the permeation of water to the brine
side. To
avoid this kind of fouling on the membrane surface, more powerful pumps need to be used to
provide more flow rate to the feed side to create turbulent shear flow on the membrane surface.
The notable result is that the water flux of the zNANO membrane is approximately 12x that of the
commercial
membrane for DI water and around 4.4x that of the wastewater feed solution.
To verify that data from both experimental set-ups are comparable, DI water test was conducted on
both
set-ups using the commercially available membrane. From Table 3, the result of the testing No.3-1 is
within
around 10% deviation of average of the testing No.1-1 through 1-3. The setup A and B are
considered to
be equivalent even though sizes of membranes installed and the flow rate of the feed and
brine are different
because the water flux rates are the approximately the same for the commercially
available membrane.
Figure 4. Water flux rate versus run time using the commercially available FO membrane, with DI water in
the feed, and 2 mol/L NaCl solution in the brine, Test Setup A
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
Figure 5. Water flux rate versus run time using the commercially available FO membrane, with wastewater
in the
feed, and 2 mol/L NaCl solution in the brine, Test Setup A.
Figure 6. Water flux rate versus run time using the zNANO ML-1 FO membrane, with DI water in the
feed, and 2
mol/L NaCl solution in the brine, Test Setup B.
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
Figure 7. Water flux rate versus run time using the zNANO ML-1 FO membrane, with wastewater
in the
feed, and 2 mol/L NaCl solution in the brine, Test Setup B.
The ion rejections of both the commercially available and the zNANO ML-1 un-supported membranes
are listed in
Table
. The zNANO membrane shows greater than 90% rejection of potassium, magnesium, and
calcium. The zNANO membrane has 82±14%, 88±3%, and 86±17% rejection of ammonium, sulfate, and TOC
respectively. However, both the ammonium and TOC data has high standard deviation due to the interference of
the TOC and ammonium data in the analysis. The lowest rejection for the zNANO was for nitrates at 75±11%.
Nitrite, bromide, and phosphate are present in amounts too low to detect. The rejection values for the commercial
membranes are listed here as reference value. These contaminate rejection data show that the zNANO membrane
can be used in FO wastewater treatment processes. Since the manufacturing of the ML-1 membrane, zNANO
has fabricated a variety of other FO membrane types as well as improve on the ML-1.
Table 4: The table listing the ion rejections of both the commercial as well as the zNANO forward osmosis
membrane using secondary wastewater as the feed and 2M sodium chloride as the brine. The result listed is
based on the average ions rejection of all the triplicates runs.
Contaminant
rejection
Commercial*
membrane**
zNANO*ML1*
Run time
I%V'3,%
%
%
24hours
%
NH4
+
%
SK%
±
:%
R:%
±
IL%
K+*
%
SR%
±
:%
S;%
±
K%
)<:W%
%
SR%
±
I%
S:%
±
L%
Ca2+
%
SR%
±
I%
S:%
±
N%
NO3-
%
I;;%
±
I%
KM%
±
II%
1XL
:W%
%
SO%
±
N%
RR%
±
N%
!X5%
%
%%
%%
RO%
±
IK%
NO2
low detection limit
Br2-
low detection limit
PO4
2-
low detection limit
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
No. 1-2
No. 1-3
No. 2-1
No. 2-2
No. 2-3
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.269
0.255
0.285
0.217
0.197
0.192
7.27
6.89
7.7
5.86
5.32
5.19
7.14
6.84
7.49
5.64
5.05
4.92
7.15
5.2
0.326, 4.55%
0.384, 7.39%
IV.
Conclusions
Based on our testing, the zNANO membrane has a water flux rate 12x higher than the
commercially
available membranes when DI water was used in the feed and 2 mol/L NaCl was used as the
brine solution.
Although the water flux rates decreased when wastewater was used in the feed solution, in
such a paradigm,
the zNANO membrane still yields a water flux rate 4.4x higher as that of the commercially
available membrane.
In addition,
zNANO membrane showed
ion rejection of over 90% for potassium,
magnesium, and calcium. These results
indicate that the lipid based forward osmosis zNANO membrane
has better performance than
the commercially available membrane in terms of water flux rates and is
competitive in terms of ion rejection. However, more tests are needed to confirm the zNANO membrane
integrity over long periods of operation, specific contamination rejections (i.e. urea, ions), and incorporation
of the membranes in a variety of different wastewater treatment configurations.
V.
Future Works
There are several major areas of future works based on the high water flux results from the
zNANO
membrane. Due to the unavailability of zNANO’s larger sheet of the ML1 FO membrane, two
different test
setups were used in this experiment. Therefore, to better confirm the data across the variable
of membrane
size, a larger sheet of ML1 membrane will be tested. Also, zNANO has developed a variety of
FO membranes
with specialized geometries such as spiral wound modules. These membranes will be
tested at ARC to
validate the durability of zNANO membrane in waste treatment system. Lastly, the
zNANO membranes should
be tested for a variety of contaminant rejections for operation in wastewater
treatment processes.
Acknowledgments
The first author is an international visiting researcher under an official agreement between the NASA and
JAXA, specializing in life support system. This research results is one aspect of the collaborative activities.
Particular acknowledgement is made to the Code SC, the SCB branch, and the water recovery team for the
acceptance of this research program at the NASA Ames Research Center.
Appendix
Appendix-1 Detailed Test Results.
Table 4. Test Results of the commercial membrane for DI water and Wastewater, Setup A
Test Duration[Hours]
Initial/Final EC on feed
[S/cm]
Transferred Water Volume
[Liters]
Averaged Water Flux
[liter/m2/Hour]
Corrected Water Flux
at 20 ˚C
Average
Flux
Standard
Deviation
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
Table 5. Test Results of the commercial membrane for DI water, Setup B
Commercial/DI water
Test No. 3-1
Test Duration [Hours]
16
Transferred Water Volume [Liters]
0.0533
Averaged Water Flux [liter/m2/Hour]
7.84
Corrected Water Flux At 20 degree C
7.55
Table 6. Test Results of the zNANO membrane for DI water and Waste water, Setup B
No. 4-1
No.4-2
No.4-3
No. 5-1
No. 5-2
No. 5-3
Test Duration[Hours]
5
5
5
6
6
6
Initial/Final EC on feed [S/cm]
0.08
0.0643
0.0435
0.7500
0.6388
0.7435
Transferred Water Volume [Liters]
0.186
0.201
0.185
0.065
0.058
0.096
Averaged Water Flux [liter/m2/Hour]
87.6
94.8
87.1
20.9
20.8
31.4
Corrected Water Flux At 20 degree C
84.8
90.7
82.9
20.1
20.4
28.6
Average Flux
86.1
23.1
Standard Deviation
4.09,
4.8,
4.75%
20.9%
Table 7. A table listing the cations, anions, and TOC data for the wastewater run using the commercially
available membranes.
Sample I.D. Na+ NH4+ K+ Mg2++ Ca2+ Cl−
NO3−
SO4−
TOC
ppm
Ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Ppm
ppm
Brine,Test2-1,after 0mins
42881
Nd
nd
nd
nd
76623
nd
Nd
cd
Brine,Test2-1,30mins
40995
Nd
nd
nd
nd
58809
nd
Nd
cd
Brine,Test2-1,60mins
37222
Nd
nd
nd
nd
69518
nd
Nd
cd
WW,Test2-1,0mins
220
27.3
22.4
34.6
37.6
396
65.7
62.1
3.2
WW,Test2-1,30mins
225
27.8
22.8
34.9
36.1
406
70.3
62
3.3
WW,Test2-1,60mins
230
28.3
23.3
35.5
38
416
72.2
66.3
3.8
Brine,Test2-2,0mins
40865
Nd
nd
nd
nd
74203
nd
Nd
cd
Brine,Test2-2,45mins
37606
Nd
nd
nd
nd
68098
nd
nd
cd
Brine,Test2-2,60mins
37245
Nd
nd
nd
nd
67466
nd
nd
cd
WW,Test2-2,0mins
270
45.4
24.9
38.1
39.3
488
56
66.1
3.5
WW,Test2-2,30mins
258
41.9
23.8
36.4
38.6
464
54.4
64.7
3.9
WW,Test2-2,60mins
267
43.6
24.4
37.2
39.6
476
55.5
65.3
3.7
Brine,Test2-3,0mins
41820
Nd
nd
nd
nd
73974
nd
nd
cd
Brine,Test2-3,30mins
37468
Nd
nd
nd
nd
68643
nd
nd
cd
Brine,Test2-3,60mins
37382
Nd
nd
nd
nd
68513
nd
nd
cd
WW,Test2-3,0mins
268
64.8
25.6
38.3
38.5
463
24.1
63.6
3.7
WW,Test2-3,30mins
264
63.8
25.4
38.2
40.6
465
20.6
64.6
4
WW,Test2-3,60mins
269
64.3
25.4
38.6
39.9
480
24.2
67.1
3.8
•
nitrite, bromide, and phosphates are non-detected
•
nd not detected, amount less than 0.5ppm
•
cd cannot be detected due to interference of the chloride concentration
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
Table 8. A table listing the cations and anions data for the wastewater run using the zNANO FO membranes.
Sample I.D. Na+ NH4+ K+ Mg2+ Ca2+ Cl−
NO3−
SO4−
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Brine, Test 5-1, after 0Hours
39822
nd
nd
nd
nd
75544
nd
nd
Brine, Test5-1, 15.5 Hrs
38241
nd
nd
nd
nd
71294
nd
nd
WW, Test 5-1, 0 Hrs
245
34.8
21.8
25.7
29.7
472
82.5
75.9
WW, Test5-1, 15.5 Hrs
996
43.5
23.4
27.2
32.1
1669
103
90
Brine, Test 5-2, 0 Hrs
43687
nd
nd
nd
nd
83263
nd
nd
Brine, Test 5-2, 22 Hrs
41048
nd
nd
nd
nd
73573
nd
nd
WW, Test 5-2, 0 Hrs
112
8.3
9.8
11.1
12.9
212
47.1
36.6
WW, Test 5-2, 22 Hrs
459
8.5
9.4
10.6
12.2
923
76
40.9
Brine, Test 5-3, 0 Hrs
39831
nd
nd
nd
nd
75512
nd
nd
Brine, Test 5-3, 22.5 Hrs
36047
nd
nd
nd
nd
67775
nd
nd
WW, Test 5-3, 0 Hrs
367
5.9
21.4
26.4
30.3
725
136
81.9
WW, Test 5-3, 22.5 Hrs
1428
22.8
26
30.2
34.2
2342
112
73
•
Nitrite, bromide, and phosphates are non-detected
•
nd not detected, amount less than 0.5ppm
•
cd cannot be detected due to interference of the chloride concentration
References
1A. Achilli and A. E. Childress. Pressure retarded osmosis: From the vision of sidney loeb to the first prototype installation
— review. Desalination, 261(3):205–211, 2010.
2T. Cath, V. D. Adams, and A. Childress. Membrane contactor processes for wastewater reclamation in space. ii. combined
direct osmosis, osmotic distillation, and membrane distillation for treatment of metabolic wastewater. Journal of Membrane
Science, (257):111–119, 2005.
3M. Flynn, L. Delzeit, S. Gormly, K. Howard, J. T.-M. Richardson, H. Shaw, T. Y. Cath, V. D. Adams, and A. Chil-
dress. Development of the direct osmotic concentration system. In 40th International Conference on Environmental Systems,
Barcelona, Spain, July 2010. AIAA-2010-6098.
4M. T. Flynn, L. Delzeit, S. Gormly, M. Hammoudeh, H. Shaw, A. Polonsky, K. Howard, A. Howe, M. Soler, and J. Chamb-
liss. Habitat water wall for water, solids, and atmosphere recycle and reuse. In 41st International Conference on Environmental
Systems. AIAA2011-5018, 2011.
5M. T. Flynn, M. Soler, S. Shull, J. Broyan, J. Chambliss, A. S. Howe, S. Gormly, M. Hammoudeh, H. Shaw, and K. Howard.
Forward osmosis cargo transfer bag. In 42nd International Conference on Environmental Systems. AIAA2012-3599, 2012.
6T. J. Richardson. Design, construction, and testing of the forward osmosis secondary treatment system to treat bioreactor
effluent. In 43nd International Conference on Environmental Systems, AIAA-2013-3336.
7M. T.Flynn, M. Hightower, L. Delzeit, S. Gormly, and K. Howard. Sustainablity base graywater recycling system. In 41st
International Conference on Environmental Systems. AIAA2011-5145, 2011.
8J. D. Trent. Microalgae cultivation using offshore membrane enclosure for growing algae (omega). Journal of sustainable
Bioenergy Systems, 2013.
9J. S. Yong, W. A. Phillip, and M. Elimelech. Reverse permeation of weak electrolyte draw solutes in forward osmosis.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 51(41):12463–13472, 2012.
Downloaded by Aaron Berliner on June 17, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-3337
