Desalination 325 (2013) 3036

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Biofouling occurrence process and its control in the forward osmosis

Hongsik Yoon, Youngbin Baek, Jihyun Yu, Jeyong Yoon
World Class University (WCU) Program of Chemical Convergence for Energy & Environment (C2E2), School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University,
Institute of Chemical Processes (ICP), Daehak-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-742, Republic of Korea

H I G H L I G H T S

Biofouling in FO process occurs less than RO process.

Physical cleaning is not effective for biofouling control.
However, chemical cleaning with chlorine is effective for biofouling control.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The forward osmosis (FO) process is a state-of-the-art desalination process associated with lower energy
Received 25 March 2013 consumption. The process uses natural osmotic pressure as the driving force. Biofouling represents the largest
Received in revised form 18 June 2013 contributor to various membrane fouling problems, and is difcult to control in the reverse osmosis (RO)
Accepted 20 June 2013
membrane process. However, knowledge of membrane biofouling occurrence in the FO process is limited,
Available online 13 July 2013
prompting urgent investigation. This study intended to investigate the biofouling characteristics of the FO
Keywords:
process in comparison with the RO process and its control as biofouling experiments with Pseudomonas
Forward osmosis aeruginosa PA01 GFP, which were conducted in lab-scale cross-ow systems. The biofouling occurrence was
Biofouling analyzed by the ux decline and surface bacterial concentration, while monitoring the biolm morphologies
Reverse osmosis using confocal laser scanning microscopy. In the results, the extent of biofouling occurrence was less severe
Physical cleaning in the FO process than in the RO process under the same permeate drag force. However, the ux recovery
Chemical cleaning was not effective with physical cleaning, in contrast to literature reports regarding the organic and inorganic
foulings in the FO process. In contrast, chemical cleaning with chlorine effectively controlled the biofouling.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction However, the occurrence of membrane fouling is inevitable, and

Water scarcity is one of the most serious challenges faced by the
global society [1]. The reverse osmosis (RO) process is receiving
attention as a potential solution, despite the burden of its high energy
requirements. However, since the energy efciency of current RO
technologies has approached the theoretical limit, the development
of alternative desalination techniques has been intensively pursued
to reduce energy consumption [2].
The forward osmosis (FO) process is known to have an advantage in
terms of energy consumption, because it uses natural osmotic pressure
as the driving force resulting from an osmotic pressure gradient. The
FO process can be implemented in combination with the RO process
[3], or combined with a membrane distillation process for separating
clean water from the draw solution [4]. In addition, the FO process is
applicable to treating wastewater [57], generating electricity [8,9],
dewatering orange-peel press liquor [10], and producing fertilizer [11].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 880 8927; fax: +82 2 876 8911.
E-mail address: jeyong@snu.ac.kr (J. Yoon).
diminishes the efciency of the FO process, since the foulants tend to
accumulate on the membrane during ltration. In general, the mem-
brane fouling categories are organic, inorganic, colloidal, and biological
fouling. Among these, biofouling accounts for about 40% of the mem-
brane fouling in the RO process, which causes an irreversible decrease
in the permeate ux and salt rejection [12]. Biofouling is difcult to con-
trol due to the strong bacterial adhesion onto the surface and the sticky
extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix formation [13].
According to previous studies on membrane fouling in the FO pro-
cess, intensied concentration polarization due to the fouling layer,
known as cake-enhanced osmotic pressure (CEOP), leads to a severe de-
cline in the permeate ux [1416]. In addition, the permeate drag force
[17] and the divalent ion in the feed play important roles of fouling in
the FO process as well as the RO process [18]. The fouling layer in the
FO process was reported to be sparsely and thickly formed, in contrast
to that in the RO, and it can be easily removed by increasing the
cross-ow velocity (CFV) without any cleaning agents [14,19,20]. How-
ever, these studies were limited since they focused on only organic,
inorganic, and colloidal foulings in the FO process, and not biofouling.
Although several studies regarding the biofouling occurrence in the

0011-9164/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.06.018
 H. Yoon et al. / Desalination 325 (2013) 3036
FO process were reported, no systematic study has been done yet on
this subject or on how to control the biofouling intensively. For exam-
ple, in the study where algae were employed as a model foulant in bio-
diesel production, the time scale (only a few hours) was too short for
observing signicant biofouling [21]. Li et al. mainly studied inorganic
fouling, such as silica scaling [15]. Also, in Zhang et al.'s study, inorganic
fouling occurred with biofouling [22].
The objective of this study is to investigate the characteristics of
the biofouling occurrence in the FO process in comparison with the
RO process, and to control it in the FO process using a commercial
FO membrane in a lab-scale cross-ow system. In addition, the effec-
tiveness of physical or chemical cleaning for controlling FO biofouling
was investigated.
2. Materials & methods
2.1. Materials
A commercial FO membrane employed in the FO process made of
cellulose triacetate (CTA) was purchased from Hydration Technology
Innovations (Scottsdale, AZ, USA). An LFC1 RO membrane was used
in the RO process (purchased from Hydranautics a Nitto Denko,
Oceanside, CA). This membrane is a polyamide (PA) thin-lm com-
posite RO membrane employed for brackish desalination. Both FO
and RO membranes were stored as at sheets in deionized (DI) water
at 4 C prior to use.
For biofouling occurrence, Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01 GFP, pro-
vided by Dr. M.J. Franklin (Montana State University, USA), was used
as a model bacterial strain. The method of bacterial culture was identical
to that in our previous studies [2224]. The feed solution was composed
of 0.1% tryptic soy broth (TSB; Bacto, Franklin Lakes, NJ), 10 mM sodium
chloride (Aldrich, St. Louis, MO), and 1 mM calcium chloride (Aldrich,
St. Louis, MO) in DI water (Barnsted NANO Pure, USA). A sodium chlo-
ride solution was used as the draw solution. As a cleaning agent,
100 mg/L of NaOCl (Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was used.
2.2. Lab-scale cross-ow system
Biofouling experiments were carried out in a lab-scale cross-ow
FO process, as depicted in Fig. 1. Two variable-speed gear pumps
Fig. 1. Schematic of the lab-scale cross-ow system for the forward osmosis (FO) process. (Effective membrane area: 4.9 2.1 cm2, channel height of both feed solution side and
draw solution side: 0.3 cm, feed solution: 6 L of tryptic soy broth 0.1%, 4 L of draw solution: 4 M NaCl).
31
(Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL) were used to pump both the feed so-
lution and the draw solution. The temperature was maintained at
25 1 C by a thermostat (Lab. Companion, Korea). The weight
change of the draw solution reservoir was measured to calculate the
water permeate ux. The volumes of the feed and draw solutions
were 6 L and 4 L, respectively. The FO membrane cell had an effective
membrane area of 4.9 2.1 cm2, and two channels (height: 0.3 cm)
for co-current ows of the feed solution and the draw solution.
These conditions were selected to minimize the ux decline due to
dilution of the draw solution. The permeate ux decline due to the
occurrence of biofouling was expressed by a normalized factor after
subtracting the ux decline due to simple dilution of the draw solu-
tion (refer to Fig. S1(a)).
The lab-scale cross-ow RO membrane system employed in this
study was described in detail in our previous studies [23]. RO mem-
branes with an effective area of 6.8 3.3 cm2 were equipped in the
membrane cells, and the channel height of a cell was 0.3 cm. The
concentrate and permeate were circulated to maintain the concentra-
tion of the feed solution. The applied pressure in the RO process was
maintained at 9 1 bar. Other experimental conditions for the RO
process (temperature, initial permeate ux, cross-ow velocity, and
time) were identical to those of the FO process.
2.3. Biofouling experiment
The biofouling experiment in the FO process was performed by
measuring the permeate ux as an indication of the performance of
the membrane. The protocol for the biofouling experiment in the FO
process is described as follows. Prior to all the biofouling experiments,
the cross-ow system was cleaned by the sequential recirculation of
0.5% NaOCl for 30 min, 5 mM of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
(EDTA) for 30 min at pH 11, and 2 mM of sodium dodecylsulfate
(SDS) (Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) for 30 min. The FO membrane was placed
in the membrane cell without spacers, and the cross-ow velocity was
maintained at 4 cm/s (Re = 234). This condition was selected to pro-
mote drastic ux decrease for a short period of time. 6 L of 10 mM
NaCl and 1 mM CaCl2 was used as the feed solution. 4 L of 4 M NaCl
was used as the draw solution. After the initial ux was stabilized, the
FO membrane was conditioned with organics (0.1% TSB) for 6 h. Note
that the ux decline caused by conditioning only was negligible (refer
32 H. Yoon et al. / Desalination 325 (2013) 3036
to Fig. S1(b) in the Supplementary material). Biofouling was induced on
the conditioned membrane for 48 h with P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP at
about 107 CFU/mL of the initial concentration in the feed solution. The
bacterial concentration was maintained within an order of magnitude
during the biofouling test, possibly due to the oligotrophic condition
of the feed solution (not shown).
The protocol for the biofouling experiment in the RO process was
similar to that in our previous study [23]. The membrane was placed
in the membrane cell without spacers, and the cross-ow velocity
was maintained at 4 cm/s (Re = 245). After the membrane compac-
tion by DI water at 15.5 bar for 18 h, the membrane was conditioned
by organics (TSB 0.1%) for 6 h. To achieve a fair comparison of the
FO process with the RO process in the fouling experiments, the per-
meate drag force of both processes was controlled to be identical by
adjusting the initial permeate ux to be the same value.
Additionally, the biofouling occurrence in both the FO process
and the RO process was analyzed by measuring the biolm cell con-
centration and observing the morphology of P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP
biolm on the membrane surface. The central part of the biofouled
membrane after biofouling occurrence, which is the same position
in every experiment, was carefully cut into two pieces. To detach
the biolm cells from the membranes, one piece of biofouled mem-
brane was soaked in 20 mL of DI water. Then, the biolm cell
was re-suspended by sonication and vortexing for 3 min each. The
biolm cell concentration in the suspended solution was measured
by the plate count method. The other piece of biofouled membrane
was analyzed by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Since
GFP-tagged bacteria were used in this study, the biolm cells could
be observed without dying. Biofouling experiments in both the FO
process and the RO process were performed in triplicate to examine
the reproducibility.
The effect of the initial bacterial concentration and the presence
of organic matter on biofouling occurrence were investigated in the
FO process. The ux decline was measured at various initial bacterial
concentrations (105 and 107 CFU/mL each), with the other conditions
the same as those mentioned previously. In addition, the effect of
the presence of organic matter on the biofouling was examined,
maintaining all the same conditions except for the draw solution con-
centration (5 M) and the presence of alginate (50 mg/L).
2.4. Resistance-in-series model
The fouling behavior is traditionally explained through resistance-
in-series model [25].
In forward osmosis process
J : 1
Rm RF
In reverse osmosis process
P FO process, which is osmotic-driven in contrast to the hydraulic-
J : 2
Rm RF
J the permeate ux (L/m2 h)
the osmotic pressure (bar)
P the applied pressure (bar)
the viscosity (0.0089 g/cm s at 25 C)
Rm resistance of the bare membrane (m1)
RF the resistance via membrane fouling (m1)
Rm measured with DI water under 450 psi (31 bar) was 7.47
1014 m1 for CTA-FO membrane and 1.69 1014 m1 for LFC1
membrane.
The RF was divided as,
RF Rcell REPS RCP : 3
Rcell resistance of bacterial cell (m1)
REPS resistance of EPS (m1)
RCP resistance via concentration polarization in the fouling
layer (m1)
The summation of Rcell and REPS in Eq. (3) becomes Rc (the resis-
tance of cake layer, Eq. (4)) and RF becomes Eq. (5).
Rc Rcell REPS 4
RF Rc Rcp : 5
2.5. Membrane cleaning
Two different cleaning methods were employed to investigate
their effectiveness for biofouling control in the FO process. First, the
hydraulic stress was applied by increasing the cross-ow velocity
with DI water as a physical cleaning method. The CFV was maintained
at 33 cm/s (Re = 1931) for 1 h. As the second method, chemical
cleaning with 100 mg/L of NaOCl at pH 7, which is known as an anti-
microbial agent for biolm control [26], was employed in addition
to the physical cleaning in the rst method. After each cleaning, the
permeate ux was measured under the initial conditions in order to
examine whether the cleaning was effective for biofouling control.
The membrane cleaning experiments were performed in triplicate
to check the reproducibility. The biofouling layer was analyzed with
CLSM. The dead cells were stained with SYTO9 (BacLight Live/Dead
bacterial viability kit, Molecular Probes, USA).
3. Results & discussion
3.1. Effect of driving force
Fig. 2 shows the normalized permeate ux decline of a biofouled
membrane in the FO process as compared with the RO process. The
red arrow indicates the moment of the bacterial inoculation. As
shown in Fig. 2, the ux decline of the FO process resulting from
the occurrence of biofouling appeared to be less severe than that of
the RO process. For example, the permeate ux in the FO process
decreased to 80 4% of the initial ux, while that in the RO process
decreased to 54 2%. This observation is consistent with the previ-
ous studies regarding fouling behavior in the FO process with that
in the RO process, although the previous studies did not deal with
biofouling [27,28].
Since both processes (FO & RO) were operated under the same con-
ditions (i.e. initial permeate ux, CFV, temp., and time), the lower ux
decline in the FO process can be found in the driving forces of the
pressure-driven RO process.
A separate experiment was performed in order to examine that
the difference of befouling behavior between the FO process and RO
process (Fig. 2) is caused by the difference in the processes (FO and
RO), not by that in the membrane materials (CTA and PA), or that in
the membrane structures (asymmetric and TFC) as an FO membrane
was employed in the RO process. The results are provided in Fig. S2
(Supplementary information). As shown in Fig. S2, the biofouling
occurrence in the FO process was less severe than the RO process on
the same membrane, indicating that the difference in the biofouling
occurrence is caused by the difference in the processes, not by the
membrane materials (CTA and PA), or the membrane structures
(asymmetric and TFC).
 H. Yoon et al. / Desalination 325 (2013) 3036 33

Fig. 2. Degree of biofouling expressed as the permeate ux decline in the forward

osmosis (FO) and the reverse osmosis process (RO) processes. A cellulose triacetate
FO membrane was used for the FO process. A polyamide RO membrane was used
for the RO process. The red arrow indicates the moment of bacterial inoculation in
the feed reservoir (Feed solution: 6 L of 10 mM NaCl, 1 mM CaCl2 and TSB 0.1%,
draw solution: 4 L of 4 M NaCl, applied pressure: 9 1 bar, initial ux of biofouling
test: 21 1 L/m2 h, 25 C, cross-ow velocity: 4 cm/s, and initial P. aeruginosa PA01
GFP concentration in feed: about 107 CFU/mL).

Additionally, the fouling behavior is traditionally explained through

resistance-in-series model. RF was about (1.81 0.47) 1014 m1 in
FO process (Fig. 2, CTA-FO membrane) and (4.29 0.85) 1014 m1
in RO process (Fig. S2, CTA-FO membrane). Since CEOP (cake-enhanced
osmotic pressure) was reportedly more intensied in the FO process
than the RO process, due to the reverse diffused salt from the draw
solution, it is plausible to interpret that RCP in the FO process can be
expected to be higher than the RCP in the RO process [14]. Then, as RF
in the FO process was lower than RF in the RO process, it can be
explained that Rc in the FO process is lower than Rc in the RO process,
possibly contributed by the absence of high hydraulic pressure.
As shown in Fig. 3 which shows the biolm morphologies of
the biofouled layers formed in the FO process and the RO process,
the biofouling layer appeared to be loosely formed in the FO process
(Fig. 3(a)), but was thicker than that in the RO process (Fig. 3(b)).
The biolm thickness, analyzed by CLSM, was about 60 5 m on
the FO membrane in the FO process and about 45 3 m on the
Fig. 3. CLSM images of P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP biolm morphology (a) on the biofouled
RO membrane in the RO process. As the FO membrane was employed forward osmosis (FO) membrane in the FO process and (b) on the biofouled RO mem-
in RO process in a separate experiment (refer to Fig. S3), the thickness brane in the RO process (green color: live cell, x axis: 202 m, y axis: 202 m, and z
of the biolm was similar to that in the RO membrane in the RO pro- axis: (a) 60 m, (b) 44 m).
cess as 40 4 m, indicating that the difference of thickness is from
the difference of process, not from difference of membrane materials.
This rst time observation of the biolm morphologies in the On the other hand, the concentration of bacteria on the surface
FO process in comparison with RO process provides the interpreta- of the biofouled membrane was measured as about (2.5 1.4)
tion that these differences (morphology & thickness) was caused by 108 CFU/cm2 in the FO process, and about (3.9 1.5) 108 CFU/cm2
the nature of the different driving forces between the FO process in the RO process. Transforming this number concentration into mass
(biofouled layer is not pressurized and inuenced only by natural os- concentration using the slope of 1 108 CFU/mg [31], the concentra-
motic pressure) and RO process (biofould layer is pressured by hydrau- tion of bacteria on the surface of the biofouled membrane can be
lic pressure). expressed as about 2.5 1.4 mg/cm2 in the FO process, and about
Additionally, to understand the role of EPS, the protein concentra- 3.9 1.5 mg/cm2 in the RO process which were about 100 times
tion on the biofouled membrane which is one of the representative higher than those of EPS. Then, Rcell in Rc (Eq. (4)) is expected to be
components of EPS (as measured by LowryFolin method) was mea- dominant factor rather than REPS (i.e., Rcell REPS).
sured as about 0.0211 0.006 mg/cm2 in FO process, and about
0.0238 0.004 mg/cm2 in RO process. This result indicates that the 3.2. Effect of feed condition
effect of EPS appears to be not critical on the fouling resistance since
this level of protein concentration is just 10% compared to the previ- Fig. 4 shows the effect of initial bacterial concentration (a) and the
ous research [29,30] which emphasized the role of EPS. This difference presence of organics (b) on the occurrence of biofouling, expressed as
may be due to the oligotrophic condition in this study resulting in low the ux decline. The red arrow indicates the moment of the bacterial
presence of EPS released from bacteria. inoculation. As shown in Fig. 4(a), the ux decline at two different
34 H. Yoon et al. / Desalination 325 (2013) 3036
Fig. 4. Effect of (a) initial bacterial concentration and (b) organic matter on biofouling
occurrence expressed as permeate ux decline in the Forward osmosis (FO) process. As
organic matter, sodium alginate 50 mg/L was used. The red arrow indicates the moment
of bacterial inoculation in the feed reservoir (standard feed condition: 6 L of 10 mM
NaCl, 1 mM CaCl2, TSB 0.1%, draw solution: (a) 4 L of 4 M NaCl, (b) 4 L of 5 M NaCl, initial
ux: (a) 22 1 L/m2 h, (b) 24 1 L/m2 h, initial P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP concentration:
(a) about 107 CFU/mL, 25 C, cross-ow velocity: 4 cm/s).
bacterial concentrations (105 & 107 CFU/mL) was similar for 90 h
of biofouling experiments. For example, the permeate ux of 105 &
107 CFU/mL with the initial bacterial concentration decreased to
69% and 67% of the initial ux, respectively, after 90 h. Note that the
biolm cell concentration of both cases on the membrane was within
an order of magnitude (not shown).
On the other hand, Fig. 4(b) shows that the presence of organic mat-
ter (alginate of 50 mg/L) in the feed water led to more severe decline in
the permeate ux. For example, the presence of organic matter (alginate
of 50 mg/L) without bacteria led to substantial ux decline to 61% of the
initial ux after 54 h, while the presence of bacteria (P. aeruginosa PA01
GFP 107 CFU/mL) in addition to the same load of organic matter (alginate
of 50 mg/L) led to further ux decline, but not signicantly. Note that the
permeate ux was reduced to 88% of the initial ux due to the membrane
fouling with only bacteria (P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP 107 CFU/mL).
3.3. Membrane cleaning for controlling FO biofouling
Fig. 5 shows two cases of membrane cleaning approaches for
biofouled FO membranes in terms of ux recovery ((a) physical
Fig. 5. Effect of physical and chemical cleaning for biofouling control. The red arrow
indicates the moment of bacterial inoculation in the feed. (a) Physical cleaning for
1 h with hydraulic stress. (b) Chemical cleaning for 1 h with chlorine (biofouling
experiment feed solution: 6 L of 10 mM NaCl, 1 mM CaCl2 and TSB 0.1%, draw
solution: 4 L of 4 M NaCl, initial ux: 22.5 1 L/m2 h, initial P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP
concentration in feed: about 107 CFU/mL, 25 C, cross-ow velocity: 4 cm/s; cleaning
experiment CFV: 33 cm/s, (a) feed reservoir: DI water, draw reservoir: 4 M NaCl,
(b) feed reservoir: chlorine 100 mg/L at pH 7, draw reservoir: 4 M NaCl).
cleaning only with hydraulic stress (b) chemical cleaning with hydrau-
lic stress). For membrane cleaning with hydraulic stress, the cross-ow
velocity was increased from 4 cm/s to 33 cm/s for 1 h. Note that ux
decline as low as 86 2% of initial ux was observed for 54 h of bio-
fouling experiments. As shown in Fig. 5(a), physical cleaning was not
effective to control the FO biofouling. For example, even though the
physical cleaning with hydraulic stress was performed, any signicant
ux recovery was not observed, showing a value of 85 4% of the ini-
tial ux in Fig. 5(a). In addition, a large number of bacteria still remained
on the physically cleaned membrane ((7.1 6.9) 108 CFU/cm2),
compared to the untreated membrane ((2.5 1.4) 108 CFU/cm2).
Moreover, even the osmotic back-ush with high CFV was not effective
for recovering from the reduction in ux that occurred due to the
biofouled membrane (refer to Fig. S4). Even though the biofouling
layer was loosely formed as shown in Fig. 3(a), the behavior of the
biofouling formation appears to have the nature of a mature biolm,
leading to resistance against physical stress.
Fig. 5(b) shows the ux change as the biofouled membrane was
treated by 100 mg/L of chlorine with hydraulic stress (33 cm/s of
 H. Yoon et al. / Desalination 325 (2013) 3036
Fig. 6. CLSM image of P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP biolm morphology (a) on the physically
cleaned membrane and (b) on the chemically cleaned membrane (feed solution: 6 L
of 10 mM NaCl, 1 mM CaCl2 and TSB 0.1%, draw solution: 4 L of 4 M NaCl, initial
ux: 22.5 1 L/m2 h, initial P. aeruginosa PA01 GFP concentration in feed: about
107 CFU/mL, 25 C, cross-ow velocity: 4 cm/s, cleaning experiment: 33 cm/s CFV for
1 h (a) without/ (b) with chlorine (pH 7).
CFV). As shown in Fig. 5(b), reduced ux that occurred as a result of
the biofouling was entirely recovered, indicating that the chemical
cleaning with hydraulic stress is quite effective for biofouling control
in the FO process. Note that the CTA membrane is more resistant to
chlorine than PA membrane [32].
Fig. 6(a) and (b) shows the biolm morphologies analyzed by
CLSM after the cleaning experiments in Fig. 5(a) and (b). As shown
in Fig. 6, the biolm on the membrane still remained in spite of phys-
ical cleaning by high CFV only (a), and no bacteria, even dead cells,
were observed on the membrane after chemical cleaning with high
CFV (b), supporting the results of Fig. 5.
4. Conclusion
This study investigated biofouling occurrence in the FO process as
compared to the RO process and its control. The extent of biofouling
35
occurrence, as demonstrated by the permeate ux decline, was less se-
vere in the FO process than the RO process. However, physical cleaning
was not effective to recover the declined ux due to biofouling, in
contrast to the organic and inorganic foulings in the FO process. In con-
trast, chemical cleaning with chlorine was quite effective for biofouling
control.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the WCU (World Class University)
program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (R31-10013)
and the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the
Korean Government (NRF-2010-C1AAA01-0029061).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.06.018.
References
[1] M.A. Shannon, P.W. Bohn, M. Elimelech, J.G. Georgiadis, B.J. Maras, A.M. Mayes,
Science and technology for water purication in the coming decades, Nature
452 (2008) 301310.
[2] M. Elimelech, W.A. Phillip, The future of seawater desalination: energy, technology,
and the environment, Science 333 (2011) 712717.
[3] C.R. Martinetti, A.E. Childress, T.Y. Cath, High recovery of concentrated RO brines
using forward osmosis and membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 331 (2009)
3139.
[4] T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, C.R. Martinetti, Combined Membrane-Distillation-
Forward-Osmosis Systems and Methods of Use, Google Patents, 2011.
[5] E.R. Cornelissen, D. Harmsen, K.F. de Korte, C.J. Ruiken, J.J. Qin, H. Oo, L.P. Wessels,
Membrane fouling and process performance of forward osmosis membranes on
activated sludge, J. Membr. Sci. 319 (2008) 158168.
[6] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, E.A. Marchand, A.E. Childress, The forward osmosis mem-
brane bioreactor: a low fouling alternative to MBR processes, Desalination 238
(2009) 1021.
[7] E.R. Cornelissen, D. Harmsen, E.F. Beerendonk, J.J. Qin, H. Oo, K.F. De Korte,
J.W.M.N. Kappelhof, The innovative Osmotic Membrane Bioreactor (OMBR) for
reuse of wastewater, Water Sci. Technol. 63 (2011) 15571565.
[8] T. Thorsen, T. Holt, The potential for power production from salinity gradients by
pressure retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 335 (2009) 103110.
[9] A. Achilli, A.E. Childress, Pressure retarded osmosis: from the vision of Sidney
Loeb to the rst prototype installation review, Desalination 261 (2010)
205211.
[10] E.M. Garcia-Castello, J.R. McCutcheon, Dewatering press liquor derived from
orange production by forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 372 (2011) 97101.
[11] S. Phuntsho, H.K. Shon, S. Hong, S. Lee, S. Vigneswaran, A novel low energy fertilizer
driven forward osmosis desalination for direct fertigation: evaluating the perfor-
mance of fertilizer draw solutions, J. Membr. Sci. 375 (2011) 172181.
[12] M. Gamal Khedr, Membrane fouling problems in reverse osmosis desalination
applications, Desalin. Water Reuse 10 (2000) (2000) 817.
[13] G. O'Toole, H.B. Kaplan, R. Kolter, Biolm formation as microbial development,
Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 54 (2000) 4979.
[14] S. Lee, C. Boo, M. Elimelech, S. Hong, Comparison of fouling behavior in forward
osmosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO), J. Membr. Sci. 365 (2010) 3439.
[15] Z.Y. Li, V. Yangali-Quintanilla, R. Valladares-Linares, Q. Li, T. Zhan, G. Amy, Flux
patterns and membrane fouling propensity during desalination of seawater by
forward osmosis, Water Res. 46 (2012) 195204.
[16] C. Boo, S. Lee, M. Elimelech, Z. Meng, S. Hong, Colloidal fouling in forward osmosis:
role of reverse salt diffusion, J. Membr. Sci. 390391 (2012) 277284.
[17] Y. Wang, F. Wicaksana, C.Y. Tang, A.G. Fane, Direct microscopic observation
of forward osmosis membrane fouling, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010)
71027109.
[18] B. Mi, M. Elimelech, Chemical and physical aspects of organic fouling of forward
osmosis membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 320 (2008) 292302.
[19] B. Mi, M. Elimelech, Organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes: fouling
reversibility and cleaning without chemical reagents, J. Membr. Sci. 348 (2010)
337345.
[20] M.I. Baoxia, M. Elimelech, Gypsum scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis:
measurements and mechanisms, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 20222028.
[21] S. Zou, Y. Gu, D. Xiao, C.Y. Tang, The role of physical and chemical parameters on
forward osmosis membrane fouling during algae separation, J. Membr. Sci. 366
(2011) 356362.
[22] A.A. Myint, W. Lee, S. Mun, C.H. Ahn, S. Lee, J. Yoon, Inuence of membrane sur-
face properties on the behavior of initial bacterial adhesion and biolm develop-
ment onto nanoltration membranes, Biofouling 26 (2010) 313321.
36 H. Yoon et al. / Desalination 325 (2013) 3036
[23] Y. Baek, J. Yu, S.H. Kim, S. Lee, J. Yoon, Effect of surface properties of reverse osmo-
sis membranes on biofouling occurrence under ltration conditions, J. Membr. Sci.
382 (2011) 9199.
[24] W. Lee, C.H. Ahn, S. Hong, S. Kim, S. Lee, Y. Baek, J. Yoon, Evaluation of surface
properties of reverse osmosis membranes on the initial biofouling stages under
no ltration condition, J. Membr. Sci. 351 (2010) 112122.
[25] M. Mulder, Basic Principles of Membrane Technology, Second edition Kluwer
Academic Pub, 1996.
[26] J. Kim, H.J. Park, J.H. Lee, J.S. Hahn, M.B. Gu, J. Yoon, Differential effect of chlorine
on the oxidative stress generation in dormant and active cells within colony bio-
lm, Water Res. 43 (2009) 52525259.
[27] R.W. Holloway, A.E. Childress, K.E. Dennett, T.Y. Cath, Forward osmosis for con-
centration of anaerobic digester centrate, Water Res. 41 (2007) 40054014.
[28] S. Zhao, L. Zou, D. Mulcahy, Brackish water desalination by a hybrid forward
osmosisnanoltration system using divalent draw solute, Desalination 284 (4)
(2011) 175181.
[29] M. Herzberg, S. Kang, M. Elimelech, Role of extracellular polymeric substances
(EPS) in biofouling of reverse osmosis membranes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43
(2009) 43934398.
[30] M. Herzberg, M. Elimelech, Physiology and genetic traits of reverse osmosis mem-
brane biolms: a case study with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ISME J. 2 (2007)
180194.
[31] D.-j. Kim, S.-g. Chung, S.-h. Lee, J.-w. Choi, Relation of microbial biomass to counting
units for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 6 (2012) 46204622.
[32] J. Yu, Y. Baek, H. Yoon, J. Yoon, New disinfectant to control biofouling of polyamide
reverse osmosis membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 427 (2013) 3036.