Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination

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

Engineering advance

Water desalination by forward (direct) osmosis phenomenon:

A comprehensive review
Muhammad Qasim a, Naif A. Darwish a,⁎, Sarper Sarp b, Nidal Hilal b,c
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, American University of Sharjah, P.O. Box 26666, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
b
Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute (QEERI), Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar
c
Centre for Water Advanced Technologies and Environmental Research, (CWATER) College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, United Kingdom

H I G H L I G H T S

• An updated review of forward osmosis is provided

• Water and reverse solute flux models are reviewed
• Fouling and other challenges are addressed
• Strengths and limitations of the applications of FO are discussed
• State-of-the-art of the physical principles, recent developments, and applications of forward osmosis are reviewed

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

Article history: Forward osmosis (FO) is a developing technology, which is thought to have a potential of producing potable
Received 5 May 2015 water in an energy-efficient manner. FO is driven by the natural osmotic pressure difference across a semi-
Received in revised form 19 July 2015 permeable membrane. Despite a number of patents and peer-reviewed papers published for different methods
Accepted 20 July 2015
and systems for water desalination by FO, this technology is still in its infancy because of some serious limitations
Available online 31 July 2015
and challenges. Due to many environment and energy related challenges, FO-based desalination has recently
Keywords:
gained worldwide attention because it operates at low levels of pressure and temperature. Compared to tradi-
Forward osmosis tional pressure-driven membrane processes, FO offers recognized advantages including reversible membrane
Direct osmosis fouling, and potentially less operation energy.
Desalination The purpose of this review paper is to provide the state-of-the-art of the physical principles, recent develop-
Draw solution ments, and applications of forward osmosis in the area of water desalination. Strengths and limitations of the
applications of FO processes in the area of water desalination are highlighted and the future of FO technology
is considered.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2. Forward osmosis desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.1. Physical concept and phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.2. Advantages of FO desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3. Research areas in forward osmosis desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4. Modeling of forward osmosis desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.1. Osmotic pressure estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2. Modeling water flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3. Modeling water flux in the presence of concentration polarization (CP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3.1. External concentration polarization (ECP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3.2. Internal concentration polarization (ICP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.4. Modeling reverse solute diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ndarwish@aus.edu (N.A. Darwish).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.07.016
0011-9164/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
48 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69

5. Advances in FO desalination membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5.1. Membrane developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.1.1. Phase inversion-formed FO membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.1.2. Thin film composite (TFC) FO membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.1.3. Chemically modified FO membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2. Studies on membrane fouling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6. Advances in draw solutions for FO desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.1. No draw solute recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.2. Thermal draw solute recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3. Applied hydraulic pressure draw solute recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.4. Applied magnetic field draw solute recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.5. Precipitation draw solute recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.6. Other methods for draw solute recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7. Challenges in FO desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

1. Introduction energy-efficient and economical alternative to the conventional seawa-

Water scarcity has become a global risk and one of the most serious
concerns for the scientific community as a result of increasing popula-
tion, continuing industrialization, expanding agricultural activities, in-
creasing inequities between water supply and demand, improper
management and degradation of natural water resources, and increas-
ing regional and international conflicts [1–8]. Recent statistics show
that approximately 15% of people around the world lack access to drink-
ing water and 36% of the world's population suffer from water scarcity
for at least one month of a year [9]. In the last century, water demand
and its use have been increasing at a rate twice the rate of population
growth [10]. In fact, statistical forecasts and predictions show that
two-thirds of the world's population may be subjected to water stressed
conditions by the year 2025 which will not only impede the socio-
economic growth but also pose threats to our healthy ecosystems [1,11].
In order to supplement the global supply of pure water, the water in-
dustry today greatly relies on desalination of seawater. However, due to
inextricable link between water and energy, the conventional desalina-
tion technologies such as multistage flash evaporation (MSF) and re-
verse osmosis (RO) have been considered energy-intensive and costly
due to high energy consumption and increasing energy costs [12–17].
As a result, researchers are continuously exploring energy-efficient
and less costly technologies to desalinate seawater. Over the last decade,
forward osmosis (FO) has been considered by various researchers as an
Fig. 1. Increase in number of forward osmosis (FO) publications (journal articles, conference
papers, and patents) between the year 2005 and 2014 (retrieved from Google Scholar
database search).
ter desalination technologies [18–21]. Besides seawater desalination,
the FO process has been applied in wastewater treatment [21–38],
food processing [20,39–44] and power generation [45–58]. Fig. 1 depicts
the growing research interest in FO by showing the total number of
journal articles and patents that have been published annually between
the years 2005 and 2014. However, few review papers on FO appear in
the literature [20,21,59–61].
This review paper outlines the physical principles and theory of FO
desalination and provides an updated and comprehensive review of
the draw solutions and membrane developments in the area of FO desa-
lination. Strengths, limitations and challenges of the applications of FO
processes in the area of water desalination are also highlighted and
the future of FO desalination technology is discussed.
2. Forward osmosis desalination
2.1. Physical concept and phenomenon
The concept of osmosis has been known to mankind since the begin-
ning of human civilization. The physical phenomenon of forward osmosis
(FO) can simply be defined as the movement of water molecules across a
semipermeable membrane due to difference in osmotic pressure driving
force across the membrane. The semipermeable membrane allows only
water molecules to permeate through while the solute or salt molecules
are rejected. The FO desalination process simply makes use of a highly
concentrated salt solution (known as the draw solution, osmotic agent,
osmotic media, or osmotic engine) with low water chemical potential
(high osmotic pressure) to draw the water molecules from a feed solution
(brackish or seawater) with higher water chemical potential (lower os-
motic pressure) compared to the draw solution. This is in agreement
with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, since transport of water molecules
will bring chemical potentials in the feed and the draw solution to
equilibrium.
During the FO process, the membrane rejects the salts and conse-
quently, the feed solution is concentrated and the draw solution is dilut-
ed with time. Pure water has then to be recovered from the diluted draw
solution by using an energy-efficient separation technique. Unlike RO,
FO utilizes the natural osmotic pressure difference across the membrane
to transport the water molecules and does not require application of
hydraulic pressure to overcome the osmotic pressure of the feed. A com-
parison of water flux direction in FO and RO is shown in Fig. 2. In short,
the process of FO desalination can be divided into two steps. In the first
step, water molecules are permeated from the feed to the draw solution
across the semipermeable membrane. In the second step of FO desalina-
tion, the draw solution is subsequently recovered by separating pure
water from the diluted draw solution obtained in the first step of the
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69 49

Fig. 2. Water flux directions in FO and RO (adopted from [20]). (a) In FO, the feed solution of high water chemical potential is separated from the draw solution of low water chemical
potential by a semipermeable membrane. (b) Due to the difference in osmotic pressures, water molecules are transported from the feed to the draw solution in FO. (c) In RO, hydraulic
pressure is applied to the feed to overcome the osmotic pressure. (d) The application of pressure forces the water molecules through the semipermeable membrane in RO.

process. A simplified schematic of this two-stage FO desalination pro- across the membrane, FO has the potential to achieve higher water
cess is shown in Fig. 3. flux and recovery and thereby reduce the amount of brine generated
[20,21]. FO process is a promising and economic alternative to the con-
ventional thermal brine concentration processes.
2.2. Advantages of FO desalination

FO desalination has a range of potential advantages since it operates
at low or no hydraulic pressure and simply allows for the permeation of
water molecules across the membrane under the influence of osmotic
pressure difference [20,21,62]. Due to low or no hydraulic pressure ap-
plication, FO desalination has potentially less energy consumption com-
pared to the conventional desalination technologies [63]. In addition, FO
desalination results in lower and reversible membrane fouling [21,63,
64], exhibits high salt rejection [65,66], and is negligibly affected by a
variety of contaminants in the feed solution [21,67–72]. FO desalination
also provides a clean solution to the problem of brine generated from
desalination plants. By generating high osmotic pressure gradient
3. Research areas in forward osmosis desalination
In the area of desalination, research on FO mainly focuses on the
development of new membranes (both flat sheet and hollow fiber)
and utilization of new draw solutes in order to overcome the existing
challenges faced by the FO desalination process. In general, any dense,
non-porous, and semipermeable material can be employed as a mem-
brane in the FO process [20]. However, the membrane should exhibit
high water flux (based on lower structural parameter (S) values), low
reverse solute flux, low fouling, high salt rejection, low internal concen-
tration polarization (ICP is one of the main challenges in FO desalination

Fig. 3. Two stages in FO desalination. Stage 1 consists of dilution of the draw solution. Stage 2 involves regeneration of the draw solution and pure product water recovery.
50 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69

and will be discussed at a later stage), and high chemical stability [20].
On the other hand, research on the draw solutions takes into account
that the draw solute used must be capable of generating high osmotic
pressures compared to the feed solution. In addition, the draw solute
must be non-toxic, chemically inert to the membrane, highly soluble
in water, and easily regenerated and separated from the pure product
water [60]. The overall objective in developing new membranes and
draw solutes is to improve the performance of FO desalination in
order to decrease the cost of pure water production. In addition to
research on FO membranes and draw solutes, many researchers
also focus on developing comprehensive mathematical models for
predicting the water flux, polarization effects, and reverse solute
flux in the FO desalination process.
Process development for FO applications, other than desalination,
has also become an important research subject. Since, current FO tech-
nologies are not feasible enough to establish standalone applications,
hybrid and retrofitted applications have been investigated worldwide
[6,19,21,61].
4. Modeling of forward osmosis desalination
4.1. Osmotic pressure estimation
Since osmotic pressure gradient is the sole driving force in FO desa-
lination, the calculation of osmotic pressure is an important consider-
ation. The van't Hoff equation provides the basis for that through the
following simple relation for the estimation of osmotic pressure (π)
for any dilute solution [73]:
π ¼ MRT ð1Þ
4.2. Modeling water flux
The general equation describing the water flux in forward osmosis
(FO), reverse osmosis (RO), or pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) is as
follows [20]:
J w ¼ Aðσ Δπ−ΔP Þ ð6Þ
where, Jw is the water flux, A is the water permeability constant of the
membrane, σ is the reflection coefficient, Δπ is the osmotic pressure dif-
ference across the membrane, and ΔP is the applied hydraulic pressure
difference.
In Eq. (6), the term (σ Δπ − ΔP) represents the effective driving
force for the transport of water molecules across the membrane. Since,
in FO desalination, no hydraulic pressure is applied and the difference
in osmotic pressures is the only driving force, Eq. (6) can be expressed
as:


J w ¼ Aσ ΔπBulk ¼ Aσ πDraw; b −π Feed; b ð7Þ
where, πFeed, b is the bulk osmotic pressure of the feed solution and πDraw, b
is the bulk osmotic pressure of the draw solution. Eq. (7) is limited to the
assumption that membrane does not allow for draw solute permeation
[79,80]. In addition, Eq. (7) is strictly true for completely rejecting dense
symmetric membranes where the driving force for water molecules is
the difference in osmotic pressures of the bulk feed and draw solutions
as depicted in Fig. 4.
Loeb et al. [81] developed a relation to predict the water permeation
rate in FO desalination. This equation has been developed based on the

Where, M is the molar concentration of the solution, R is the univer-

sal gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature. If the solute is a
strong electrolyte that completely dissociates in water and contains m
ions, then the van't Hoff equation becomes the following [74]:

mx1 RT
π¼ ð2Þ
V2

where, x1 is the mole fraction of species 1 (electrolyte) and V2 is the

molar volume of water.
The draw solution in FO desalination is a highly concentrated salt so-
lution. Taking into account the non-ideal solution behavior of the con-
centrated feed or draw solution in FO, the following equation can be
used to estimate the osmotic pressure [73]:

π ¼ φMRT ð3Þ

where, φ is the osmotic pressure coefficient.More accurately, according

to the theory of statistical thermodynamics, the osmotic pressure can be
expressed as a function of the solute number density in the form of viral
expansion [73,75–77]:

π
¼ 1 þ Bc þ Cc2 þ Dc3 þ ::::: ð4Þ
ckT

where, k is the Boltzmann's constant, the constants (B, C, D….) are the
viral coefficients (determined experimentally), and c is the solute num-
ber density given by the following equation [73]:

c ¼ NA M ð5Þ

where, NA is Avogadro's number and M is the molar concentration of the

solute.
More conveniently, the osmotic pressures of the feed and the draw
solution can be easily estimated using OLI Stream Analyzer (OLI Systems Fig. 4. Ideal driving force (difference in bulk osmotic pressures) in the case of symmetric
Inc., Morris Plains, NJ) [78]. membranes.
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69 51

models developed by Lee et al. [50] and assumes that the driving force
for the water molecules is the difference in bulk osmotic pressures of
the feed and the draw solution. The equation, strictly applicable for
low water flux values, is as follows:
 
1 πDraw
Jw ¼ ln ð8Þ
K πFeed

where, K represents the resistance to diffusion of solute within the

porous support layer of the FO membrane, and πDraw and πFeed are the
bulk osmotic pressures of the draw and the feed solution, respectively.
K can be estimated from the following equation [20]:

tτ S
K¼ ¼ ð9Þ
εD D

where, t is the thickness of the membrane, τ is the tortuosity, ε is the

membrane porosity, S is the membrane structural parameter, and D is
the diffusion coefficient of the solute.

4.3. Modeling water flux in the presence of concentration polarization (CP)

It is important to note that majority of the FO membranes are asym- Fig. 5. Effective driving force for water transport in the presence of concentration polarization
metric in nature [21] and are synthesized with an active dense layer (for (CP) in FO desalination process (adopted from [82,93–95]).

salt rejection) supported on a porous support layer. This results in two

distinct membrane orientations. In the first orientation, the active mem-
brane layer faces the draw solution and is typically the case in pressure- flow of water from the feed solution. The increase in feed concentration
retarded osmosis (PRO). In the second membrane orientation, the active increases the osmotic pressure of feed at the active layer of the mem-
layer of the membrane is towards the feed solution (such as seawater) brane (πFeed, a) and hence, reduces the water flux due to decrease in
while the porous support layer is towards the draw solution. This is the net osmotic driving force as dictated by Eq. (10). However, the effect
the case in FO desalination. Generally, the osmotic pressure difference of ECP on water flux in FO desalination can be relaxed by increasing flow
across the active layer of the FO membrane is significantly less com- velocity and turbulence at the membrane surface or by optimizing the
pared to the bulk osmotic pressure difference and therefore, the actual water permeation rate [20,21,82]. In addition, FO desalination operates
water flux is significantly lower than the theoretical flux given by under no or low hydraulic pressure which does not allow considerable
Eq. (7) [82–84]. This lower water flux in FO desalination is attributed solute buildup on the membrane. The effect of ECP on the water flux
to the inevitable and complicated membrane-related transport phe- is, therefore, minimum and not a major concern.
nomenon known as concentration polarization (CP) [20,21,82–85]. McCutcheon and Elimelech [83,89] have used the boundary-layer
The concentration polarization effects are in fact one of the most chal- film theory to present models for estimating water flux in the presence
lenging problems in practical realization of the FO desalination process
[85–88]. The overall effect of CP is to increase the feed concentration and
its osmotic pressure and at the same time decrease the concentration
and the osmotic pressure of the draw solution at the active layer of
the membrane. Thus, in the presence of CP effects, Eq. (7) has to be
modified as follows [82]:


J w ¼ Aσ Δπeffective ¼ Aσ πDraw; a −π Feed; a ð10Þ

where, πFeed, a and πDraw, a are the osmotic pressures of the feed and the
draw solution, respectively, at the active layer of the membrane.
In other words, the effective osmotic pressure difference Δπeffective
will be significantly lower than the bulk osmotic pressure difference
ΔπBulk due to CP effects. Two types of CP effects tend to reduce the effec-
tive osmotic pressure difference in FO desalination process, namely
external concentration polarization (ECP) and internal concentration
polarization (ICP).

4.3.1. External concentration polarization (ECP)

ECP in osmotic-driven processes occurs at the membrane active
layer and may be concentrative ECP or dilutive ECP depending on the
membrane orientation. Concentrative ECP occurs when the active
layer of the membrane faces the feed solution (as in case of FO desalina-
tion, Fig. 5).
On the other hand, dilutive ECP occurs when the membrane active
layer faces the draw solution which is the case during PRO (Fig. 6).
The overall effect of concentrative ECP in FO desalination is to increase
the concentration of the feed at the active layer of the membrane due Fig. 6. Effective driving force for water transport in the presence of concentration polarization
to buildup of solutes on the membrane active layer resulting from the (CP) in PRO process. (adopted from [81,93–95]).
52 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
of concentrative ECP in FO desalination process. The concentrative ECP
is modeled as follows [83]:
 
πFeed; m J tion research. In fact, ICP can result in up to 80% decline in water perme-
¼ exp w ð11Þ
π Feed; b kF
where, πFeed, m and πFeed, b are the osmotic pressures of the feed solution
at the membrane surface and in the bulk, respectively and kF is the mass
transfer coefficient on the feed side of the membrane.
In case of dilutive ECP, the flux is modeled according the equation
shown below:
 
πDraw; m J 1
¼ exp − w ð12Þ
π Draw; b kD
where, πDraw, m and πDraw, b are the osmotic pressures of the draw solu-
tion at the membrane surface and in the bulk, respectively, and kD is the
mass transfer coefficient on the draw side of the membrane. However, it
should be noted that for FO desalination, Eq. (11) is applicable for ECP
modeling since ECP is expected to be concentrative in nature. In general,
the mass transfer coefficient (k) is related to Sherwood number (Sh),
the solute diffusion coefficient (D) and the hydraulic diameter (dh) of
the flow channel as follows [83]:
Sh D
k¼ : ð13Þ
dh
The calculation of Sherwood number in a rectangular channel can be
found elsewhere in the literature [83,90].
Gruber et al. [91] developed a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
model capable of studying the effects of slip velocity, CP, and fluid prop-
erties on the water permeation rate in FO processes utilizing asymmet-
ric membranes. The study revealed that ECP effects in FO should not be
neglected even in cases where the flow velocity and turbulence is high,
if feed and draw spacers are not used. The presented model provides an
insight into the effects of slip velocity, concentration polarization, and
fluid properties on FO performance.
4.3.2. Internal concentration polarization (ICP)
However, research has shown that the major factor contributing to
the decline in water permeation rate in FO desalination is the ICP [83,
84,92–97], a phenomenon that takes place within the asymmetric FO
membrane. Like ECP, ICP may be concentrative or dilutive depending
on the membrane orientation.
4.3.2.1. Concentrative ICP. Concentrative ICP is the result of water and
solute permeation through the porous support layer causing accumula-
tion of solute in the porous support and formation of a polarized layer
on the active layer of the membrane. This happens in cases where the
active layer of the asymmetric membrane faces the draw solution (as
in PRO, Fig. 6). As depicted in Fig. 6, the concentrative ICP is similar to
concentrative ECP with the only difference that concentrative ICP occurs
within the porous support of the membrane and therefore, its effect
cannot be reduced by simple manipulation of flow and turbulence.
The overall effect is to reduce the effective osmotic pressure driving
force available for water permeation.
Similarly, Loeb et al. [81] presented a model equation for concentra-
tive ICP (when the feed solution is towards the porous support layer of
the membrane), which can be found in the literature [20,81] but is not
presented in the context of this work since concentrative ICP is not a
major concern in FO desalination.
4.3.2.2. Dilutive ICP. Dilutive ICP is of more importance in the context of
this review paper since only dilutive ICP needs to be accounted for FO
desalination processes. The active layer faces the feed solution in FO
desalination and the transport of water from the feed to the draw
solution causes dilution of the draw solute within the porous support
layer of the membrane as shown in Fig. 5. This is referred to as dilutive
ICP and represents one of the most challenging concerns in FO desalina-
ation rate compared to the flux given by Eq. (7) [82]. This is also evident
if the bulk and effective osmotic pressure differences are compared in
both Figs. 5 and 6.
To predict the water flux in the presence of dilutive ICP in FO desali-
nation, as mentioned in the previous FO review papers [20], Loeb et al.
[81] presented the following equation (when the feed solution is on
the active or skin side of the membrane):
   
B þ AπHi
K¼ ln ð14Þ
Jw B þ J w þ AπLow
where, B is the solute permeability constant given by the following
equation [81]:
ð1−RÞJ 1
B¼ ð15Þ
R
where, R is the fractional salt rejection and,
J 1 ¼ AðΔP−ΔπÞ ð16Þ
The value of B is basically calculated from RO experiments [20] and
details of its determination can be found elsewhere in the literature
[81]. It is important to note that the simple model given by Eq. (16) is
used to describe only dilutive ICP in FO desalination.
McCutcheon and Elimelech [83,89] presented a comprehensive
model for modeling water flux in FO desalination taking into account
both concentrative ECP and dilutive ICP when the feed solution is placed
against the active layer and the draw solution is faced towards the po-
rous support layer [21]:
  
J
J w ¼ A πDraw; b expð−J w K Þ−π Feed; b exp w : ð17Þ
k
Eq. (17) accounts both concentrative ECP and dilutive ICP and allows
easy prediction of water flux at low draw solution concentrations using
only membrane parameters and measurable experimental conditions.
Tan and Ng [95] presented modified models to predict the water flux
in FO using modified-film model and the boundary layer concept. The
main rationale behind the study was that the previous flux prediction
models in ref. [83] were unable to predict water flux at higher draw so-
lution concentration resulting in up to 15% overestimation compared to
the experimental flux values. Compared to the previous flux models,
these modified equations predicted the experimental flux with greater
accuracy by using a better solute resistivity constant (K*) within the po-
rous support layer of the FO membrane. The study also highlighted that
increasing flow velocity and temperature helps minimize the effect of
ECP. However, the model equations seem complicated and require an
iterative procedure to predict the water flux for the given experimental
operating conditions and the concentrations of feed and draw solutions.
In addition, the model equations are limited to NaCl and KCl as the draw
solutes. The details of the model can be found in ref. [95]. The compari-
sons of experimental water flux with the old flux model and the modi-
fied flux model are shown in Fig. 7.
Qin et al. [98] studied individual contribution of dilutive ICP and con-
centrative ECP via modeling and pilot-scale studies. The authors con-
cluded that their models can be used for selection of draw solutions.
Experiments were conducted at different concentrations and velocities
using pure water as the feed solution. Using 0.5 M NaCl as draw solution,
the results indicated that dilutive ICP accounts for 99.9% reduction in
water permeation rate. The study also highlighted that flux in FO desali-
nation can be improved by using a draw solute with higher diffusion
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental water flux with both old [83] and modified flux models
for volumetric cross-flow rate of 1.5 L/min (0.333 m/s) at 30 °C. Feed solution: deionized
water. Draw solution: 0.2 to 2.0 M NaCl. Figure taken from [95].
coefficient and using thinner support layer in the asymmetric FO
membrane.
Tang et al. [99], using model equations and experiments, studied the
coupled effects of internal concentration polarization and fouling on
water flux in FO and PRO. Although the water flux was found to be sta-
ble, severe ICP was observed in FO desalination process when the feed
solution faced the active layer of the membrane. In addition, the results
indicated that ICP effects were more severe for higher draw solution
concentrations in FO. The results of this study are presented in Fig. 8.
The model equations given by Tang et al. [99] can be used for solutes
with highly non-linear osmotic pressure-concentration relationship
and require iterative procedure for predicting the water flux.
4.3.2.3. Constrictivity parameter. Zhao and Zou [100] related the physio-
chemical properties of the solution (e.g. diffusivity, ion/molecule size,
and viscosity) facing the porous support layer and the ICP by introduc-
ing the concept of constrictivity. The results indicated that ICP effects are
high when the solution against the porous support layer has a higher
viscosity, a lower aqueous diffusivity, and larger molecules or ions.
Four different draw solutions were used: NaCl, Na2SO4, MgSO4, and
sucrose. As depicted in Fig. 9, sucrose draw solution resulted in the
Fig. 8. FO water flux as a function as draw solution (DS) concentration [99]. The feed solu-
tion contained 0.01 M NaCl. Other experimental conditions: cross-flow velocity 23.2 cm/s
on both side of the FO membrane, and temperature 22–24 °C. Although the water flux was
found to be stable, severe ICP was observed in FO desalination process (AL facing FW).
53
Fig. 9. Water flux as a function of draw solution osmotic pressure in FO mode for four
different draw solutes [100]: NaCl, Na2SO4, MgSO4, and sucrose. Pure water used a feed
solution. Cross-flow velocity of 25 cm/s and temperature maintained at 25 °C.
lowest water flux owing to its low diffusivity, high viscosity, and large
molecular size. Based on Grathwohl [100], the study introduced effec-
tive diffusion coefficient (Deff) as follows [100]:
Dεeff δ
Deff ¼ ð18Þ
τ
where, δ is the constrictivity factor and εeff is the effective transport-
through porosity of the membrane. The concept of effective transport-
through porosity is based on the fact that small pores may not available
for transport of large solute molecules and therefore, εeff can be smaller
than the overall membrane porosity (ε) used in Eq. (9). Combining
Eqs. (9) and (18), a better expression was obtained for the solute resis-
tivity (K):
tτ
K¼ : ð19Þ
δε eff D
In addition, based on ref. [101], the constrictivity factor was reported
to be dependent on the ratio of solute diameter to pore diameter, denoted
as λ and defined as follows [100]:
Molecule diameter
λ¼ b1: ð20Þ
Pore diameter
The relationship between δ and λ, developed by Beck and Schultz
[102], is shown below:
δ ¼ ð1−λÞ4 : ð21Þ
Thus, large draw solute molecules or ions will result in high λ but
low δ. In addition, large draw solute molecules will reduce the effec-
tive membrane porosity εeff due to increased resistance to flow and
size exclusions [100]. All these factors combined together will,
thus, increase solute resistivity K which will affect the ICP during
FO desalination. The concept of constrictivity factor is better to use
in case of draw solutions with high viscosity, low aqueous diffusivi-
ty, and large molecular or ionic size.
4.3.2.4. Structural parameter. More recently, Bui et al. [103] used all
significant boundary layer phenomena to accurately predict the asym-
metric FO membrane structural parameter (S) utilizing the experimen-
tal data and a theoretical water flux model without neglecting the ECP
effects. The water flux model that accounts for both ECP and ICP and
54 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
accounts for all resistances present for solute transport in FO desalination
is as follows [103]:
    3
2
1 S J studies [109]. The revised models improved the water flux prediction
πDraw; b exp − J w þ −πFeed; b exp w
6 kD D D kF 7
6
J w ¼ A4       7 ð22Þ
B Jw 1 S 5 previous models were limited to NaCl and KCl as the draw solutes.
1þ exp − exp −J w þ
Jw kF kD DD
where, B is the intrinsic solute permeability coefficient of the membrane,
and DD is the solute diffusivity in the draw solution (other symbols have
already been defined earlier). The study also provides equations for the
calculation of solute resistivity (K) and reflection coefficient (σ) in FO
process. Likewise, water flux model for PRO is also presented and can
be found in ref. [103]. Eq. (22) is the most recent model to predict the
flux performance of asymmetric and thin-film composite membranes
and accounts for all the resistances present for solute transport during
FO desalination.
4.3.2.5. Other approaches for concentration polarization (CP) modeling. Li
et al. [104] presented a novel network modeling approach to study the
effect of the porous support layer of the FO membrane on ICP at a micro-
scopic scale using finite element method (FEM) and assuming that the
membrane support is a well-defined network. The models presented
can be used to improve FO desalination performance by optimizing
the membrane support structure. Sagiv and Semiat [105] developed a
steady-state finite element 2D model to study the FO desalination
using NaCl feed and draw solutions. The model was based on mass
and momentum transport equations which were solved for the pro-
posed boundary conditions. The study highlighted that the 2D model
can be effectively used for optimizing FO desalination processes.
Jung et al. [106] used numerical simulation, based on mass conserva-
tion theorem, to study the performance of plate and frame type FO
membrane. A feed solution of 0.05 M NaCl was used. On the other
hand, the ammonium bicarbonate draw solution was used with a
concentration of 1 M. The parameters considered in the study included
the membrane orientation, flow direction, flow rate, and physical prop-
erties of the membrane. The study reported that the numerical simula-
tion can be used to enhance FO desalination performance by optimizing
physical properties and operation conditions. Membrane fouling and re-
verse solute diffusion were, however, not considered during the numer-
ical simulation.
Xiao et al. [107] developed a mathematical model for designing and
optimizing the FO hollow fiber FO membranes. The modeled developed
is as follows and account for both ECP and ICP in FO desalination when
the feed solution faces the active layer:
0 1
 −1
1 1 1 B AH0 cD þ B C FO desalination [20,21,114]. Ideally, the semipermeable membrane
Jv ¼ þ þ ln B
@  C ð23Þ
k F km kD Jv A
AH0 c F þ B þ J v exp −
kF
where, Jv is the bulk flux, kF, and kD are the mass transfer coefficients in
the feed and draw solutions streams, respectively, km is the mass trans-
fer coefficient in the support layer, H0 osmotic proportionality coeffi-
cient, and cD and cF are the concentration in the bulk draw and feed
streams. A similar equation for PRO mode has been developed and can
be found in ref. [107]. In addition, the model equations are also present-
ed in dimensionless form in ref. [107].
You et al. [108] modeled the dependence of FO desalination perfor-
mance on temperature. The model incorporated the effect of temperature
on osmotic pressures, hydrodynamics of boundary layer, and trans-
membrane mass and heat flux processes. An increase in temperature of
the feed and draw solution was observed to decrease the viscosities
and, therefore, decrease the CP effects. The model equations highlighted
that the mass diffusion kinetics had a more profound effect in water
flux compared to the solution osmotic pressures. The study provides a
deep insight into the effect of temperature on transmembrane water
flux for practical realization of energy-efficient FO operation.
Tan and Ng [95] further revised the ECP and ICP models in their later
accuracy in FO process for different types of draw solutions since the
The revised ECP model included dilution and suction parameter where-
as the revised ICP model accounted for the interaction of solute (within
the ICP layer) with the porous support layer material. More specifically,
the revised ICP model incorporated the solute resistivity constant, Ks,
defined as follows [109]:
tτλ
Ks ¼ : ð24Þ
ε
Sagiv et al. [110] developed a general 2D FO to assess and study the
effect of solute cross-migration and channel length on FO desalination
performance. Aqueous NaCl was used as the feed solution while NaCl,
NH4HCO3, and KCl were used as draw solutes. The model can be used
to accurately assess the FO performance in long channels in order to fa-
cilitate full-scale plant design.
Phuntsho et al. [111] used the already established FO models to
introduce the concept of osmotic equilibrium. A cellulose triacetate
(CTA) FO membrane was used in plate and frame configuration. Both
feed and draw solutions were aqueous NaCl. The study also presented
a relationship based on osmotic equilibrium and mass balance and the
models can be used to predict the water extraction capacity of draw sol-
utes from the feed solution.
Benavides et al. [112] developed a model to express the water recov-
ery rate and separation factors in the limit of FO equilibrium. The pa-
rameters under investigation included the operating conditions and
membrane transport characteristics. The results highlighted that
reverse flux selectivity (the ratio of the water flux to the reverse draw
solute flux) and the flow ratio (ratio of flow rate of draw solution to
the flow rate of feed solution) played a significant role in designing FO
desalination systems.
Recently, Gadêlha et al. [113] studied and modeled the effects ICP in
closed-loop, batch-mode FO systems. The study considered water flux
dynamics and solute kinetics as a function time while accounting for
the non-linear coupling between reverse solute flux and water flux.
The model equations were presented in terms of two important dimen-
sionless parameters namely the osmotic Peclet number and the solute
permeability.
4.4. Modeling reverse solute diffusion
Reverse solute diffusion is another major concern and challenge in
used in FO desalination should not allow permeation of draw solute
into the feed solution. Early water flux models assumed the reverse
salt flux to be negligible [89]. Unfortunately, no membrane is perfectly
semipermeable and a small amount of draw solute will permeate across
the membrane from the draw to the feed solution owing to the differ-
ence in solute concentrations. In addition, reverse solute diffusion is
also a reason behind ICP phenomenon in FO desalination. Lay et al.
[115] have shown that reverse draw solute flux can have significant ef-
fect on ICP and the performance of the FO desalination process.
Reverse draw solute diffusion can increase the operating cost of the
FO desalination process if an expensive draw solute permeates into the
feed solution [116]. Operating cost will also be increased if the draw solute
is harmful to the environment. This is because additional treatment of the
feed concentrate will be required prior to its discharge to the environ-
ment [116]. Generally, using multivalent ions as draw solutes can reduce
reverse solute flux due to their low diffusion coefficients [20,21]. How-
ever, the use of multivalent ions in the draw solution can cause severe
ICP owing to their large ion size and low diffusion coefficients [21,99]. In
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
addition, some multivalent ions may increase the propensity of mem-
brane fouling after contacting the foulants in the feed solution [21,117].
Hancock and Cath [114] considered the bidirectional (water and
draw solute) diffusion phenomenon in FO to introduce the term specific
reverse solute flux, defined as the ratio of reverse salt flux to the forward
water flux. The specific reverse solute flux provides an indication of the
selectivity of the membrane. Larger values of specific reverse solute flux
represent lower FO efficiency and lower membrane selectivity [114].
Several models have been reported in the literature to describe the
reverse solute flux. In general, Fick's law is used to describe the flux of
a solute through a semipermeable membrane [114]:
J s ¼ BΔc
where, Js is the reverse solute flux, B is the solute permeability coeffi-
cient of the membrane, and Δc is the concentration difference across
the semipermeable membrane.
Philip et al. [116] developed a model to describe the reverse flux of
draw solute across a semipermeable membrane in FO desalination pro-
cess neglecting the ECPs on the sides of the feed and draw solution.
Experimental results using cellulose triacetate membrane and NaCl
draw solution showed strong agreement with the model predictions.
The model is as follows [116]:
J w cDraw; b
Js ¼    
J J S
1− 1 þ w exp w
B D
where, CDraw, b is the bulk draw solution concentration. Here, the mem-
brane structural parameter (S*) and the active layer salt permeability
coefficient (B*) are defined as follows:
ts τ
S ¼
ε
D AH
B ¼
tA
where, ts and tA are the thickness of the membrane support and active
layer, respectively, H is the partition coefficient, and DA is the draw
solute diffusion coefficient in the active layer. Eq. (26) can be a good
starting point to select FO membranes that minimize the loss of draw
solute into the feed solution.
Yong at al. [118] investigated the reverse fluxes of three neutral
draw solutes: urea, ethylene glycol, and glucose. The study highlighted
that for rapidly permeating draw solutes, an additional resistance to
mass transfer is developed due to ECP on the feed solution side of the
membrane. The following equation was developed to predict the re-
verse solute flux:


 
J w B cFeed; b exp Pe s þ Peδ −cDraw;b
Js ¼  
ðB expðPe Þ þ J w Þ expðPe Þ−B
δ s
where, cFeed,b and cDraw,b are the bulk concentrations of the feed and
draw solutions, respectively, Pes and Peδ are the Peclet number in the
support layer and the boundary layer, respectively, and B* is the draw
solute membrane permeability coefficient of the active layer.
Suh and Lee [119] developed a model that described all significant
physical processes occurring in FO process including the reverse draw
solute flux, ICP, and ECP. The model is shown below (all symbols have
been defined at an earlier point within the text):
  
cDraw; b þ J s =J w
 J version to synthesize polybenzimidazole (PBI) nanofiltration (NF) hol-
Js ¼ B − cFeed; b þ J s =J w exp w
expð J w K Þ expð J w =kD Þ kF
55
Eq. (30) predicted the reverse solute flux more accurately compared
to the earlier model described by Eq. (26) [119] since it described all
significant physical processes occurring in FO process.
Recently, Kim et al. [120] developed a novel method to determine re-
verse draw and forward feed solute fluxes in FO. The study proposed
using apparent draw (Bd) and feed (Bf) solute permeability instead of
single solute permeability (B) as in the previous aforementioned models
(Eqs. (26)–(30)). For the first time, both draw solute flux (Jd,s) and feed
solute flux (Jf,s) were described using equations shown below that con-
sider both concentrative ECP and dilutive ICP [120]:
2   3
J S
cDraw; b exp − w
6 D 7
ð25Þ J d;s ¼ Bd 6
4   7 ð31Þ
Bd Jw S 5
1þ 1− exp −
Jw D
2   3
J
cFeed; b exp w
6 kF 7
J f ;s ¼ Bf 6
4   75: ð32Þ
Bf Jw
1þ 1− exp
Jw kF
Fig. 10a shows that draw solute flux is predicted more accurately
when Bd is adopted. On the other hand, as depicted in Fig. 10b, the
feed solute flux is predicted more accurately when Bf is used in the pre-
diction [120].
ð26Þ
5. Advances in FO desalination membranes
5.1. Membrane developments
The ideal FO membrane must exhibit high water flux, high rejection
of feed and draw solutes, low concentration polarization, low fouling
characteristics, high chemical resistance, and high mechanical robust-
ness. Based on these desirable characteristics, many researchers have
ð27Þ tried to synthesize and test membranes in FO desalination process.
Since any dense semipermeable material can be employed as FO mem-
brane, earliest researchers utilized natural materials such as the outer
ð28Þ membrane of calf's intestine, bladders of pigs, cattle, and fish, porcelain,
and rubber [20,23]. Later on, researchers utilized commercial RO mem-
branes in the FO process but observed very low water permeation rates
[20,121–126].
In the late 1990s, for the first time, Hydration Technologies Inc. (HTI,
Albany, OR) developed and marketed commercial forward osmosis
membranes [127]. A cross-sectional scanning electron microscope
image of the HTI's FO membrane is shown in Fig. 11 [20]. The membrane
is believed to consist of cellulose-based polymers with a woven fabric
mesh within the porous support layer [84]. The membrane exhibits a
salt rejection of over 95% [84,90] and has a water permeability coeffi-
cient (A) of 3.07 × 10−12 ms−1 Pa−1 [84]. Since its development and
availability, many researchers have used the membrane for FO desalina-
tion [18,84,90,128,129]. However, researchers have also synthesized FO
membranes in the laboratory a summary of which is provided in Table 1
ð29Þ [130–174]. Each membrane fabricated has some inherent advantages
and disadvantages and further research is still required to develop
new fabrication techniques and better FO membranes that reduce ICP
and reverse solute diffusion and at the same time have highly selective
active layers.
As clear from Table 1, the recent membrane developments can be cat-
egorized according to their method of fabrication. These categories in-
clude phase inversion-formed membranes, thin film composite (TFC)
membranes, and chemically modified membranes.
5.1.1. Phase inversion-formed FO membranes
For the first time, Wang et al. [130] used the conventional phase in-
ð30Þ
low fiber membrane for use in FO desalination. The SEM images of the
56 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental draw solute flux (Fig. 10a) and feed solute flux (Fig. 10b) with the model predictions as a function of draw solution concentration [120].
PBI-NF membrane can be found in ref. [130]. The membrane was tested
with deionized water as feed and with NaCl, MgSO4, MgCl2, and Na2SO4
draw solution (2.0 M each). Using 2.0 M MgSO4 draw solution, the
membrane achieved a water flux of 5.65 L/m2h with 99.99% salt selec-
tivity. However, the salt rejections were low when NaCl, MgSO4, and
Na2SO4 draw solutions were used. Although satisfactory salt rejection
was observed with MgCl2 draw solution, the recovery of pure water in
this case would require an energy-intensive separation. In addition,
the membrane was not tested with seawater feed in order to accurately
account for ICP effects.
The PBI NF hollow fiber membrane was chemically modified in a
later study by cross-linking using p-xylylene dichloride in order to finely
tune the mean pore size of the membrane and thereby improve the salt
selectivity [131]. Although salt rejections improved, the values were still
not satisfying. The modified membrane also resulted in lower transport
resistance (higher water flux). This membrane was again not tested
with seawater feed. Further modifications to the PB NF hollow giber
membrane were carried out by Yang et al. [132]. In this modification
dual layer polybenzimidazole–polyethersulfone (PBI–PES) NF hollow
fiber membrane was synthesized by adding polyethersulfone (PES)
and polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) in the casting solution. The membrane
was tested in FO model using deionized water feed and 5.0 M MgCl2
draw solution. Although the membrane achieved a high water flux
under FO mode and good salt rejection with MgCl2 draw solute, the
NaCl salt rejection was again unsatisfactory. However, the dual layer
PBI–PES/PVP membrane showed a potential to operate under harsh en-
vironments since both PBI and PES possess excellent chemical stability.
Nevertheless, PBI based NF hollow fiber membranes possess distinctive
nanofiltration characteristics, high thermal stability, robust mechanical
strength, excellent chemical stability, and self-charged properties [130]
and are, therefore, promising for use in FO desalination. However, the
high price and brittleness of PBI remain serious concerns [160]. An
Fig. 11. SEM image of HTI's commercial FO membrane (adopted from [20]).
attempt was made by Fu et al. [160] in order to address these concerns.
Phase inversion was used to fabricate dual layer hollow fiber membrane
with an outer layer of PBI incorporated with polyhedral oligomeric
silsesquioxane (POSS). The optimized addition of POSS resulted in im-
proved membrane morphology and performance. In order to reduce
the membrane material cost, the inner support layer was composed of
relatively low cost polyacrylonitrile/polyvinylpyrrolidone (PAN/PVP).
Compared to the aforementioned PBI hollow fiber membranes, the
NaCl rejections improved significantly. However, the POSS loading in
the PBI dope required optimization. Results showed that high POSS
loading improves water flux but also decreases salt rejection.
In addition to PBI, cellulose acetate (CA) has been widely used to
fabricate FO membranes through phase inversion technique. In fact,
early commercial RO membrane were also fabricated using cellulose ac-
etate [135]. The standard procedure for fabrication of cellulosic FO
membranes is similar throughout literature and involves phase inver-
sion followed by hot water annealing. Wang et al. [135] fabricated a
double-skinned cellulose acetate membrane which consisted of a po-
rous support layer sandwiched between two selective skin layers. The
objective of double-skinned membrane was to reduce the ICP effects
and enhance the water flux by preventing the draw solute from diffus-
ing into the porous support layer. Although the double skin layer is sus-
ceptible to induce extra resistance to water permeation, the water flux
was still observed to be high due to reduced ICP effects within the po-
rous support layer. This type of double-skinned FO membrane, howev-
er, requires further improvements in its structure in order to minimize
reverse salt flux. Su et al. [137] fabricated and tested cellulose acetate
nanofiltration (NF) hollow fiber membrane under both FO and PRO
modes. In FO mode, the membrane resulted in a water flux of 5 L/m2h
using deionized water as feed and 2.0 M MgCl2 draw solution. However,
the membrane performance decreased and very low fluxes were ob-
served with increasing salinity of the feed solution owing to the in-
creased ICP effects. Later on, Sairam et al. [139] also used the phase
inversion technique to prepare defect free flat sheet composite FO
membranes with cellulose acetate active layer casted on a 50 μm
nylon fabric support at different annealing temperatures. Lactic acid,
maleic acid, and zinc chloride were used as pore forming agents. The re-
sults indicated that zinc chloride as the pore forming agent results in the
highest water flux. However, the water flux was observed to be low
under FO desalination mode. The flux from the fabricated membrane
was also found to be dependent on the annealing temperature.
During the phase inversion process, the interaction between the
polymer and the casting substrate has been observed to be a dominant
factor affecting the membrane structure of the cellulose acetate mem-
brane [138,145]. The effect of functional group content on the properties
and FO performance of asymmetric cellulose ester membranes has also
been investigated. Ong et al. [149] reported that cellulose esters with
highly hydrophobic functional groups result in defective selective layers
due to rapid phase inversion. Such membranes exhibit very low or no
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
salt rejection. Similarly, membranes with high hydrophilicity produce
high salt flux due to swelling of polymer chains and free volume expan-
sion in hydrated environments. Cellulose ester membranes with moder-
ate hydrophilicity were, therefore, recommended in the study.
The research interest in fabrication of cellulose acetate FO mem-
branes using phase inversion is driven by the inherent advantages of
cellulose acetate such as low fouling susceptibility, high resistance to
chlorine degradation, mechanical robustness, market availability, low
cost, and high water flux due to high hydrophilicity [21,79,121,138].
However, cellulose acetate membranes are susceptible to hydrolysis
outside a narrow range pH and temperature. Rapid hydrolysis occurs
if the feed or the draw solution pH is below 3 or above 7 [21,79,121].
Similarly, hydrolysis will occur if the feed or the draw solution temper-
ature is above 30–35 °C [79,121]. In addition, cellulose acetate mem-
branes are also susceptible to biological attack [21]. These negative
attributes must also be taken into consideration while fabricating cellu-
lose acetate FO membranes.
5.1.2. Thin film composite (TFC) FO membranes
Thin-film composite (TFC) polyamide membranes have been fabri-
cated in both flat sheet [136,142–144,146,147,150,151,155,159,161,
163,164,170,172–174] and hollow fiber [133,134,171] configurations
for application in FO desalination. Almost all of these membranes have
been fabricated using the conventional technique for preparing TFC
polyamide RO membranes, i.e., phase inversion (for porous substrate
preparation) followed by interfacial polymerization (for formation of
polyamide active layer).
Wang et al. [133,134] synthesized hollow fiber FO membrane using
commercial polymer polyethersulfone (PES) for substrate preparation
by dry-jet wet spinning method. An RO-like skin layer was formed on
either the inner or the outer surface of the substrate by interfacial poly-
merization. The IP procedure was done using m-phenylenediamine
(MPD) aqueous solution and trimesoyl chloride (TMC) hexane solution
[133]. Under FO mode (active layer facing feed solution) and using de-
ionized water as feed and 0.50 M NaCl draw solution, the membrane
with RO-like skin layer on the outer surface (#A–FO) resulted in water
flux of 5 L/m2h while the membrane with RO-like skin layer on the
inner surface (#B–FO) resulted in water flux of 14 L/m2h. Later on, in
the extension of their work, hollow fiber substrate without an outer
UF skin was synthesized [134]. The modified membrane produced a
water flux of 12.4 L/m2h using 0.59 M NaCl feed solution and 2.0 M
NaCl draw solution. Wang et al. [133,134] highlighted that it is desirable
to have a very small portion of sponge-like layer in a thin and highly po-
rous substrate within the FO membrane. The hollow fiber membrane
configuration is of interest in FO desalination because of its inherent ad-
vantages such as high packing density, self-support nature, and ease of
fabrication [130]. However, single bore hollow fiber membranes are
susceptible to potting problems and decreased stability in the long
term [171]. In order to mitigate these problems, triangle tri-bore hollow
fiber membranes have been fabricated [171]. Hollow fiber substrates
were formed via dry-jet wet-spinning process using a special deigned
tri-bore spinneret with blossom geometry and phase inversion was
used to form a polyamide active layer on the inner surface. The results
indicated higher mechanical strength and improved water permeation
rates for triangle tri-bore membranes compared to the conventional
hollow fiber FO membranes. However, further investigation and struc-
tural optimization of the tri-bore hollow fiber FO membrane is required.
Flat sheet TFC FO membranes were first synthesized by Yip et al.
[136]. Polysulfone (PSf) support layer, cast on polyester nonwoven fabric,
was fabricated using phase inversion. The active layer was a selective
polyamide layer formed on the porous substrate by interfacial polymeri-
zation of 1,3-phenylenediamine (MPD) and 1,3,5-benzenetricarbonyl
trichloride (TMC). The membrane exhibited high salt rejection (N97%)
and achieved a water permeation rate exceeding 18 L/m2h using deion-
ized water as feed and 1.5 M NaCl draw solution. The membrane was
also tested with 1.5 M ammonium bicarbonate draw solution. The results
57
indicated good chemical stability and minimum degradation of the mem-
brane. It was reported that the support membrane structure and chemis-
try and the interfacial polymerization conditions play a significant role in
determining the performance of the TFC FO membranes. Also, it was
highlighted that the FO performance of a TFC membrane is enhanced if
the substrate is hydrophilic and is produced with a thin layer of the
sponge-like morphology on top of a finger-like layer.
Widjojo et al. [142] fabricated flat sheet TFC membranes with
sulphonated material in the substrate. It was found that an increase in
sulphonated material in the substrate results in sponge-like structure.
However, post sulfonation polymers as membrane materials have dis-
advantages such as tedious control of sulfonation process and difficulty
in forming continuous asymmetric membranes due to slow precipita-
tion [164]. Later on, Widjojo et al. [164] used direct sulfonated materials
as membrane substrates in the TFC FO membranes in order to overcome
the aforementioned problems. In this case, fully sponge-like substrates
were fabricated and the water flux increased significantly. However,
the salt rejection decreased.
Wei et al. [143] also synthesized flat-sheet TFC FO membranes with
substrates, prepared by phase inversion of PSf, having straight finger-
like pores under a thin sponge-like skin layer. It was highlighted that
straight finger-like pore structure results in lower ICP effects and is pre-
ferred over spongy pore structure.
Later on, Yu et al. [144] fabricated nanoporous flat sheet polyether-
sulfone (PES) membranes only by phase inversion (without interfacial
polymerization). A loose finger-like structure and nano-sized pores
were formed in order to enhance the water flux. At the same time, the
thickness of the porous layer was optimized in order to minimize the re-
verse salt diffusion. The membrane achieved twice the water flux com-
pared to commercial mesh-CTA membrane. Song et al. [146] developed
nanofiber TFC membrane with scaffold-like support layers having inter-
connected pores. The membrane was fabricated using electrospinning
followed by interfacial polymerization. The membrane exhibited signif-
icantly low ICP due to low tortuosity and high porosity (reduced mem-
brane structural parameter S) resulting in water flux three times higher
than phase inversion-interfacial polymerization-fabricated membranes.
The results were confirmed and seconded by Bui et al. [147].
Han et al. [150] also developed flat sheet TFC membranes for FO de-
salination. Wet phase inversion was used to prepare substrates with dif-
ferent contents of hydrophilic sulphonated poly(etherketone) (SPEK).
The polyamide active layer was formed by interfacial polymerization.
The membranes exhibited high water flux and the results showed that
incorporating SPEK into the membrane substrate increases the mem-
brane hydrophilicity, decreases ICP effects, reduces membrane thick-
ness, and results in a sponge-like membrane structure. This study
revealed that membrane hydrophilicity and substrate thickness have
stronger roles in enhancing the water flux compared to the morphology
of the membrane (sponge or finger-like).
Although most TFC membranes have been fabricated with polyam-
ide active layer, it is well-known that polyamide membranes are highly
susceptible to fouling due to their inherent surface physicochemical
properties [151]. In order to mitigate fouling, Tiraferri et al. [151] fabri-
cated TFC polyamide membranes with optimized surface properties
using tailored silica nanoparticles functionalized with superhydrophilic
ligands containing quaternary ammonium or amine moieties. The same
techniques of phase inversion and interfacial polymerization were used
for fabrication. Although water flux was not reported, the fabricated
membranes showed lower fouling propensity. Silica nanoparticles
were also incorporated in the polyamide active layer in another recent
study [170]. The study reported low salt rejections.
Besides silica nanoparticles, incorporation of NaY zeolite nanoparti-
cles in the polyamide rejection layer (on PSf substrate) was presented
as an effective approach to enhance water flux in another study [155].
However, in this case, the zeolite loading requires optimization since
high loading can reduce the water flux. Later on, amine functionalized
multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were incorporated in the
58 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69

Table 1
Summary of notable FO membrane developments (in chronological order).

Year Membrane Materials Preparation Feed solution Water flux in FO Reference

(draw solution) mode (L/m2h)

2007 NF hollow fiber Polybenzimidazole (PBI) Dry-jet wet phase inversion DI water 5.65 [130]
membrane (2.0 M MgSO4)
2009 NF hollow fiber Polybenzimidazole (PBI) Phase inversion, chemical cross-linking DI water 20 [131]
membrane with thin wall by p-xylylene (5.0 M MgCl2)
2009 Dual-layer NF hollow Polybenzimidazole-polyethersulfone Co-extrusion DI water 24.2 [132]
fiber membrane (PBI-PES) (5.0 M MgCl2)
2010 Hollow fiber Polyethersulfone (PES) hollow fiber Dry-jet wet spinning method, interfacial DI water 5 (#A–FO) [133]
substrate, polyamide active layer polymerization (0.50 M NaCl) 14 (#B–FO)
2010 Hollow fiber Polyethersulfone (PES) hollow fiber Dry-jet wet spinning method, interfacial 0.59 M NaCl 12.4 [134]
substrate, polyamide active layer polymerization (2 M NaCl)
2010 Double-skinned flat Cellulose acetate Phase inversion, thermal annealing at 85 DI water 48.2 [135]
sheet °C for 15 min (5 M MgCl2)
2010 Flat sheet TFC Polysulfone (PSf) support, polyamide Phase inversion, interfacial DI water N18 [136]
active layer polymerization (1.5 M NaCl)
2010 Hollow fiber NF Cellulose acetate Dry-jet wet-spinning process DI water 5 [137]
(2 M MgCl2)
2010 Double dense-layer Cellulose acetate Phase inversion DI water 6 [138]
(2.5 M NaCl)
2011 Flat sheet composite Cellulose acetate on nylon fabric support Phase inversion in water 35 g/L NaCl 1.3 [139]
(150 g/L MgSO4)
2011 Flat sheet PAN substrate Layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly method Distilled water 15 [140]
(0.1 M MgCl2)
2011 Positively charged PAI substrate, treated by PEI Chemical modification Pure water 8.36 [141]
hollow fiber (0.5 M MgCl2)
2011 Flat sheet TFC PES-sulfonated polymer substrate, Phase inversion, interfacial Seawater 13.5 [142]
polyamide active layer polymerization (2 M NaCl)
2011 Flat sheet TFC Porous polysulfone substrates, Phase inversion, interfacial 10 mM NaCl 18.1 [143]
polyamide active layer polymerization (2 M NaCl)
2011 Nanoporous flat sheet PES cast on PET fabric Phase inversion DI water 30 [144]
(3 M NaCl)
2011 Flat sheet Cellulose ester Phase inversion Seawater 5 [145]
(1.5 M NaCl)
2011 Flat sheet TFC PES nano-fiber support, polyamide active Electrospinning, interfacial – – [146]
layer polymerization
2011 Flat sheet TFC PSf nanofiber support, polyamide active Electrospinning, interfacial – – [147]
layer polymerization
2011 Chemically cross-linked PAN substrate Layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly with DI water 30 [148]
flat sheet chemical crosslinking (3 M MgCl2)
2012 Molecularly designed Cellulose ester Phase inversion DI water 1–14.9 [149]
cellulose ester (2 M NaCl)
2012 Flat sheet TFC Sulphonated poly(ether ketone) (SPEK) Wet phase inversion, interfacial Model seawater 17 [150]
substrate, polyamide active layer polymerization (2 M NaCl)
2012 Flat sheet TFC PSf support, polyamide active layer with Non-solvent (water)-induced phase – – [151]
fine-tuned nanoparticles separation, interfacial polymerization,
surface functionalization
2012 Dual-layer hollow fiber PAI/PES dual-layer substrate, Dry-jet wet spinning, chemical DI water 20.6 [152]
(polyethyleneimine) PEI polyelectrolyte cross-linking (0.5 M MgCl2)
cross-linking
2012 Antifouling NF-like PAI substrate, PEI polyelectrolyte Dry-jet wet spinning, chemical 2000 ppm Na2SO4 12 [153]
hollow fiber cross-linking, polystyrene sulfonate cross-linking, PSS deposition (0.5 M Na2SO4)
sodium salt (PSS) deposition
2012 Macrovoid-free TFC PES hollow fiber support, polyamide Phase inversion, interfacial Water 25 [154]
hollow fiber active layer polymerization (1 M NaCl)
2012 Zeolite-polyamide thin PSf support, polyamide rejection layer Phase inversion, interfacial 10 mM NaCl or DI Variable depending [155]
film nanocomposite incorporated with NaY zeolite polymerization water on the amount of
nanoparticles (0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 M zeolite
NaCl) nanoparticles
2012 Double-skinned and PAN substrate Layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly method, DI water 30 [156]
cross-linked chemical cross-linking (1 M NaCl)
layer-by-layer
2012 Flat sheet NF-like Torlon polyamide-imide (PAI) material Phase inversion, chemical DI water 16.3–11.47 [157]
membrane substrate, PEI for post-treatment post-treatment (0.5 M MgCl2)
2013 Flat sheet membrane PES/multiwalled carbon nanotube Carboxylated MWCNTs – – [158]
with modified PES (MWCNT) substrate, polyamide active Dispersion within PES via solution
substrate layer blending, phase inversion process,
interfacial polymerization
2013 Thin-film PSf support, polyamide rejection layer, Phase inversion, interfacial 10 mM NaCl 40 (with 0.1 [159]
nanocomposite (TFN) amine functionalized multi-walled polymerization (2 M NaCl) F-MWCNT
carbon nanotubes (F-MWCNTs) as wt/ MPD vol%)
additives in 1,3-phenylendiamine (MPD)
solution
2013 Dual-layer hollow fiber PBI/POSS outer layer, PAN/PVP inner Phase inversion, dual-layer hollow fiber DI water 12 (with 0.5% POSS) [160]
layer spinning, thermal annealing (2 M MgCl2)
2013 Flat sheet TFC Carboxylated polysulfone (CPSf) Phase inversion, lithiation procedure, DI water 18 [161]
substrate, polyamide active layer interfacial polymerization (1 M MgCl2)
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69 59

Table 1 (continued)

Year Membrane Materials Preparation Feed solution Water flux in FO Reference

(draw solution) mode (L/m2h)

2013 Functionalized PAI hollow fiber substrate immobilized Phase inversion, vacuum filtration, DI water ~13 [162]
multi-walled carbon with MWCNT and chemically treated chemical post-treatment (0.5 M MgCl2)
nanotube (MWCNT) with PEI solution
immobilized hollow
fiber
2013 Polyamide TFC Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) nanofiber Electrosipinning, interfacial DI water 11.6–28 [163]
substrate, polyamide active layer polymerization (1 M NaCl)
2013 Flat sheet TFC Sulfonated polyphenylene sulfone Direct synthesis route with various DI water 10 [164]
(sPPSU) substrate, polyamide active content of sulfonated units, interfacial (3 M NaCl)
layer polymerization
2013 Thin-film inorganic Microporous silica xerogels immobilized Layer-by-layer (LbL) deposition DI water 59.8 [165]
(TFI) membrane onto a stainless steel mesh (SSM) (2 M NaCl)
substrate
2014 Poly (vinyl) alcohol Polysulfone support layer of RO PVA crosslinking using maleic acid or DI water b0.6 [166]
coated RO membranes membranes (seawater SW 30-XLE and glutaraldehyde (0.05 M, 0.5 M, 1 M,
brackish water BW 30, Dow Water & and 1.5 M NaCl)
Process Solutions) coated with poly
(vinyl) alcohol (PVA)
2014 Nanofiber thin film Hydrophilic cross-linked PVA nanofiber Electrospinning, chemical cross-linkage, DI water 27.24 [167]
composite (NTFC) support, polyamide active layer interfacial polymerization (0.5 M NaCl)
2014 Flat sheet TFC RO membranes (SW 30-XLE and BW 30, Dopamine polymerization Pure water 7 (BW 30) [168]
Dow Water & Process Solutions) support (2 M NH4CO3) 11 (SW 30-XLE)
layers modified with polydopamine
(PDA)
2014 TFC hollow fiber Polyethersulfone hollow fiber substrate, Interfacial polymerization, chemical DI water 5.32 [169]
polyamide active layer chemically cross-linking (2 M NaCl)
treated with cetyltrimethylammonium
chloride (CTAC)
2014 Thin-film PSf support, polyamide active layer Phase inversion, interfacial 10 mM NaCl 22 ± 2 (0.1 wt/vol.% [170]
nanocomposite (TFN) containing silica nanoparticles polymerization (2 M NaCl) silica loading)
2014 TFC tri-bore hollow Tri-bore Matrimid support, Polyamide Dry-jet wet-spinning process using a Pure water 11.8 [171]
fiber active layer on inner surface specially designed tri-bore spinneret (2 M NaCl)
with blossom geometry
2014 Flat sheet TFC (PSf)–titanium dioxide (TiO2) Phase inversion, interfacial 10 mM NaCl 40 (0.75 TiO2 [172]
nanocomposite substrate, polyamide polymerization (2 M NaCl) loading)
active layer
2014 Flat sheet TFC Polysulfone (PSf) and sulfonated poly Phase inversion, interfacial DI water 39 [173]
(phenylene oxide) (SPPO) substrate, polymerization (2 M NaCl)
polyamide active layer
2015 Flat sheet TFC Silica–polysulfone substrate, polyamide Phase inversion, interfacial DI water ~28 [174]
active layer polymerization (1 M NaCl)

polyamide active layer of the TFC membranes [159]. Compared to ordi-
nary TFC FO membranes, the addition of amine functionalized MWCNTs
in the active layer resulted in much higher water flux. However, the ad-
dition of amine functionalized MWCNTs in the MPD solution may be
limited since high loading may affect the interfacial polymerization pro-
cess which may affect membrane selectivity [159].
It is important to note that the ICP effects from employing TFC FO
membranes are governed by the porous support layer while the selec-
tive active layer governs the salt rejection and reverse salt permeation.
In order to improve FO desalination performance and reduce the ICP ef-
fects, the support layer must be highly porous and highly hydrophilic
with low tortuosity. However, almost all of the aforementioned TFC
membranes consist of hydrophobic PSf support. Therefore, recent mem-
brane fabrications have focused on the membrane support layer for
water flux enhancement and ICP effect mitigation. For example, hydro-
philic carboxylic acid groups were incorporated in the hydrophobic PSf
substrate which resulted in higher water permeation rates (18 L/m2h
using deionized water feed and 1 M MgCl2 draw solution) compared
to PSf-based membranes [161]. However, in this case, the mechanical
stability of the membrane was compromised at higher concentration
of draw solution. Zhou et al. [173] used polymer blend of polysulfone
(PSf) and sulfonated poly(phenylene oxide) (SPPO) as substrate and
also proposed IOP as a factor to mitigate ICP effects. The membrane
fabricated with charged polymer in the substrate generated an IOP
that compensated for the dilutive ICP effects in FO desalination and
hence increased the water flux. Tian et al. [163] fabricated electro-
spun polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) nanofiber substrates. Although
water flux improved compared to PSf-based membranes, the salt rejec-
tion showed a compromise.
Emadzadeh et al. [172] reported a decrease in the ICP effects and a
decrease in the membrane structural parameter (S) by adding titanium
dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles into the PSf substrate. However, the au-
thors also reported that increasing the TiO2 loading can result in high re-
verse salt flux due to formation of a less-densely cross-linked active
layer [172]. In addition, the incorporation of nanoparticles in the sub-
strate can often result in altered top surface morphology which nega-
tively affects the integrity and deposition of the active layer during the
interfacial polymerization process. In order to create an ideal interface
for active layer deposition, Liu and Ng [174] used double-blade casting
technique to incorporate nano-sized silica into the PSf substrate. The
substrate formed contained a silica-impregnated porous bottom layer.
On the other hand, the top layer was devoid of silica which acted as a
perfect interface for deposition of the active layer. This way a reduction
in ICP effects was achieved by incorporating silica nanoparticles in the
substrate along with an increase in salt rejection due to formation of a
defect-free active layer.
From the membrane developments discussed above, it is clear that
traditional methods for fabricating RO membranes (phase inversion
followed by interfacial polymerization) are mostly used to prepare
TFC FO membranes. It is also important to note that the preparation of
60 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
the porous support layer determines the water flux since it dictates the
ICP effects. On the other hand, the membrane active layer formed by in-
terfacial polymerization determines the salt rejection and the reverse
salt flux. More efforts are still required to fabricate better TFC hollow
fiber membranes since most of the TFC membranes have been fabricat-
ed in flat sheet configuration while only few studies report fabrication of
TFC hollow fiber membranes. In order to achieve good FO desalination
performance, preparation of membrane support layer is an important
and crucial consideration. In fact, most of the recent TFC membrane fab-
rications have focused on the membrane support layer [172–174]. Ide-
ally, the support layer must have small structural parameter, low
tortuosity, high hydrophilicity, and high porosity in order to allow for
high water flux through reduced ICP effects. On the other hand, the ac-
tive layer must be highly selective to allow for high salt rejection and
low reverse salt flux. In general, TFC membranes have a promising po-
tential in FO desalination due to higher water flux and salt rejection
compared to cellulosic membranes and greater stability towards pH, hy-
drolysis, and biodegradation [22,133,136,143].
5.1.3. Chemically modified FO membranes
Chemically modified membranes have also been fabricated and
employed in FO desalination. Tang and coworkers [140] prepared
NF-like FO membranes with polyacrylonitrile (PAN) substrate using
polyelectrolyte layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly. LbL membranes tend to
have high retention against divalent ions and high thermal stability
and have been successfully used for nanofiltration applications [175].
However, this was the first time that LbL membranes were fabricated
for use in FO desalination. PAN substrate was prepared by phase in-
version and subsequently soaked in sodium hydroxide solution in
order to impart hydrophilicity and negative charges to the substrate
via partial hydrolysis. The negatively charged PAN substrate was soaked
in poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH) polycation solution followed
by rinsing with deionized water to remove the excess PAH. The sub-
strate was then soaked in poly(sodium 4-styrene-sulfonate) (PSS)
polyanion solution followed by rinsing with deionized water. This alter-
native PAH/PSS treatment was repeated to fabricate membranes with
the desired multiple polyelectrolyte layers. Although the membrane
performed well in FO mode, severe solute reverse diffusion was ob-
served in PRO mode. Increasing the number of polyelectrolyte layers in-
creased the salt selectivity but reduced the water flux, i.e., a strong
tradeoff was observed between selectivity and water flux. In order to
improve the salt rejection properties, Tang and coworkers chemically
cross-linked the LbL FO membranes [148]. Cross-linking was performed
by immersing the LbL membranes in glutaraldehyde (GA) solution.
Although cross-linking increased the salt selectivity, the water perme-
ability of the rejection layer was found to be lower. Later on, the same
research group applied the LbL treatment and GA cross-linking on
both surfaces of the substrate in order to form double-skinned LbL FO
membranes [156]. It was reported that the salt rejection for the
double-skinned LbL FO membrane is determined by the top skin. Al-
though double-skinned membranes have tendency to reduce ICP with
increasing feed skin permeability, the double skin layer is susceptible
to induce extra resistance to water permeation. In any case, the cross-
linked LbL membranes in these studies were reported to be unsuitable
for FO seawater desalination due to low retention against NaCl [148,
156]. In addition, large scale production of LbL membranes is limited
due to high cost of production [148].
LbL assembly has also been used to fabricate thin-film inorganic
(TFI) membrane [165]. This membrane was prepared by layer-by-
layer deposition of silica xerogels onto the stainless steel mesh (SSM)
substrate. Compared to organic polymeric membranes, the TFI mem-
brane showed improved FO performance due to its self-supporting
thin-film structure and low structural parameter. The TFI membrane
exhibited better resistance to temperature and pH, high water flux
(60 L/m2h using deionized water feed and 2 M NaCl), and low specific
solute flux (58.7% lower than commercial CTA membrane). It may be
worth to investigate further into this TFI membrane and to test it
using easily recoverable and energy-efficient draw solutes compared
to NaCl.
Wang and coworkers used chemical modification to fabricate both
hollow fiber and flat sheet FO membranes with Torlon® polyamide-
imide (PAI) substrate prepared by phase inversion [141,153,157]. The
substrate was chemically treated with polyelectrolyte polyethyleneimine
(PEI) in order to develop positively charged nanofiltration (NF)-like selec-
tive layer. Results showed that under FO mode, the positively charged FO
membranes provide double electric repulsions that tend to reduce salt
penetration. Low NaCl rejections reported and therefore, FO desalination
applications of these membranes are limited. In addition, chemical cross-
linking results in denser substrate which adversely affects the water flux.
Later on, the same research group used a dual-layer hollow fiber mem-
brane for PEI post-treatment [152]. The motivation was to overcome the
drawbacks of chemical cross-linking on entire PAI substrate. The mem-
brane consisted of PAI as the outer layer supported by polyethersulfone
(PES) inner layer inert to PEI polyelectrolyte. Although the water flux
improved compared the previous studies, the salt rejections were still
not satisfactory.
Goh et al. [162] immobilized multi-walled carbon nanotube
(MWCNT) on PAI hollow fiber substrate by vacuum filtration method.
The MWCNT immobilized PAI substrates were the chemically treated
with PEI to develop positively charged nanofiltration (NF)-like selective
layer. The immobilization of MWCNT resulted in higher water flux com-
pared to the membrane without MWCNTs in ref. [141]. This was attrib-
uted to the existence of low-resistant nanocorridors between the
immobilized MWCNTs and the PEI polymer matrix that allow faster
penetration of water along the gaps and through the selective layer.
However, the reverse salt flux did not show considerable change.
Puguan et al. [167] chemically cross-linked polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)
nanofibrous substrate formed by electrospinning. The motivation behind
using PVA was to introduce a highly hydrophilic support in order to re-
duce ICP and increase the water flux. The cross-linking was performed
using acid catalyzed glutaraldehyde in acetone solution. Subsequently,
polyamide active layer was formed by interfacial polymerization. The
membrane exhibited 7–8 times higher water flux compared to commer-
cial HTI membranes owing to its very low structural parameter value. De-
spite the high water flux, further investigations are required to improve
the mechanical strength of the membrane.
Recently, commercial PES hollow fiber substrates were used to fab-
ricate TFC membranes via interfacial polymerization of MPD, TMC, and
cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (CTAC) monomers [169]. The effect
of CTAC concentration on the structure of polyamide active layer was in-
vestigated. The study showed that CTAC has an ionic interaction with
MPD in the aqueous solution that affects the interfacial polymerization
process of MPD and TMC. The addition of CTAC decreased the water
flux but improved salt rejection and revere solute selectivity.
Recent studies have also focused on chemical modification of RO
membranes that generally tend to exhibit very poor FO performance
due to severe ICP effects caused by their highly hydrophobic support
layers [166,168]. Imparting hydrophilicity by coating the polysulfone
support layer with polydopamine (PDA) or poly(vinyl) alcohol (PVA)
has been shown to enhance the FO water flux of seawater RO mem-
branes [166,168].
From the aforementioned membrane developments, it is clear that
novel methods to fabricate high performance FO membranes are yet
to be developed since the current techniques for fabricating FO mem-
branes are the same as the conventional techniques used for fabricating
RO or NF membranes. In addition, most membrane evaluations focus
only on determining the water permeability constant (A) and solute
permeability constant (B) for newly developed FO membranes. Al-
though these constants are important, determination of solute resistiv-
ity (K) and the membrane structural parameter (S) for any newly
developed FO membrane is also crucial since K and S reflect the ICP
effects. It is also important to note that most studies evaluate the FO
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
performance of the fabricated membranes using only deionized water
as the feed solution. In order to correctly account for the ICP effects, it
is crucial that the fabricated membranes are tested with seawater feed
where ICP effects become much more profound. Besides using seawater
as feed solution, the membrane performance tests must employ poten-
tial draw solutes (e.g. ammonium bicarbonate). Although evaluating
the water flux using NaCl or MgCl2 draw solutions is common in litera-
ture, none of these have been proposed as a potential draw solute for FO
desalination. It will be better to integrate the membrane and draw solu-
tion developments and use potentially energy-efficient draw solutes
along with seawater feed to evaluate the performance of the fabricated
membranes. In addition, FO performance must be evaluated based on
specific reverse solute flux (Js/Jw) rather than water flux alone due to a
strong trade-off between water flux and salt rejection [160,162,163].
Also, membrane development studies must consider membrane repeat-
ability in order to facilitate commercialization.
5.2. Studies on membrane fouling
Membrane fouling in FO desalination is an inevitable phenomenon
which results from deposition and adsorption of feed constituents
such as organic and inorganic compounds, salts, colloids, and microor-
ganisms on the membrane surface. As water permeates in FO desalina-
tion, the foulants in the feed solution tend to accumulate on the
membrane surface. This results in formation of foulant cake layer
which not only adds additional resistance to water transport but also in-
creases the concentration polarization effects [176,177]. In addition to
reduction in water flux, fouling will decrease the membrane lifespan
which will increase the operating and maintenance cost of the FO desa-
lination process [178]. Earliest studies of FO membrane fouling were
conducted by Cath et al. [36,37]. In these early studies, no or low decline
in water flux was observed due to fouling, which lead to a conclusion
that FO process may have low fouling propensity. Even though recent
studies show that FO process also has considerable fouling propensity,
FO fouling can be identified as more reversible than RO and NF fouling.
Mi and Elimelech studied the aspects of both organic [179] and inor-
ganic (gypsum scaling) [180] FO membrane fouling and also investigat-
ed the reversibility of organic fouling [181]. The studies indicated that
both organic and inorganic fouling in FO is highly reversible. This was
confirmed Lee et al. [176] and recently by Kim et al. [182] who observed
that the fouling layer in FO is loosely packed and water flux can be al-
most completely recovered by periodic rinsing of the membrane with-
out the need of chemical cleaning [177]. This fouling reversibility is
one of the main attractions for further investigation into FO desalination
given the fact that fouling is completely irreversible in RO [175]. Very re-
cently, Chun et al. [183] confirmed the reversibility of fouling in FO by
using non-chlorinated actual brackish lake water as feed in order to
study fouling of TFC FO desalination membrane. It was reported that
the water flux dropped by 65% during the first 24 h of the experiment
time. However, the flux was completely recovered by hydraulic cleaning
with deionized water.
Wang et al. [184] used direct microscopic observation for fouling
studies in FO. This study along with Zhao et al. [185] highlighted that
the concept of critical flux, defined as water flux at the instant when
the membrane fouling first appears, can be applied in FO process.
Later on, the concept of critical flux was also used by Zou et al. [186]
to study FO membrane fouling by microalgae.
Li et al. [187] reported that the most dominant inorganic fouling in
real FO desalination is silica scaling. Zhao and Zou [188] reported ad-
verse effects of higher working temperature on FO membrane scaling
and cleaning. This was recently confirmed Kim et al. [189]. Parida and
Ng [190] studied the effect of organic loading and calcium on FO mem-
brane fouling and compared the results with membrane fouling in PRO.
Park et al. [191] developed a numerical model for colloidal fouling of
FO membranes. Results indicated that colloidal fouling is proportional
to the feed concentration and the permeate flux. Kim et al. [182] studied
61
combined organic and colloidal fouling in FO. Results indicated that
combined organic and colloidal fouling lowers the flux more rapidly
compared to the two individual fouling types. The effect of membrane
structural parameter on organic fouling of FO membrane was investi-
gated by Motsa et al. [192]. Recently, Lee, Kim, and Hong [193] used
modeling and experiments to study the fouling distribution along FO
membrane channel. Severe fouling was observed at the last section of
the membrane channel where thicker and denser fouling layer was ob-
served compared to the first section of the channel.
In short, there is no disagreement in literature that FO is a low foul-
ing process [64,176,179,182]. This is due to the formation of loosely
packed fouling layer which makes fouling mitigation relatively easy
and allows for almost full recovery of water flux by periodic rinsing of
the membrane [182]. Besides periodic rinsing, introducing hydrody-
namic shear forces near the membrane surface is another possible
way to mitigate fouling in FO desalination. This, however, is realized at
the expense of increased energy consumption [176,177,181,194]. The
hydrodynamic fouling mitigation methods include introducing air bub-
bles [182], using higher cross-flow velocities [176,194], employing
pulsed flow for foulant removal [194], and using spacers to induce tur-
bulence [194]. In addition, membrane surface properties are also critical
in dictating the fouling propensity of FO membranes. Most fouling stud-
ies have been conducted on CTA membranes due to their commercial
availability [64,99,179–182,184,185,190,194]. However, fouling of TFC
membranes requires special consideration due to their high hydropho-
bicity, surface roughness, and surface chemistry [16]. Recent studies
have focused on surface modifications of TFC membrane active layer
[195–199]. One method to increase fouling resistance is by PEGlyation
which involves grafting of hydrophilic polymer poly(ethylene glycol)
(PEG) to the membrane active layer [195,199]. PEGlyation results in
PEG polymer brush that increases fouling resistance by steric repulsion
of foulants. However, this increase in fouling resistance is realized with a
decrease in water permeability due to additional hydraulic resistance
caused by the polymer [195,199]. Further research efforts are still re-
quired to mitigate fouling and understand fouling mechanisms for TFC
FO membranes.
6. Advances in draw solutions for FO desalination
The draw solution, based on the osmotic pressure properties, is the
source of the driving force for the FO desalination process and rep-
resents another extensive area of research besides membrane devel-
opment. The ideal draw solute must be highly soluble in water and
capable of generating high osmotic pressures compared to the feed
solution. In addition, the draw solute must exhibit low ICP, non-
toxic and chemically inert to the membrane [60]. However, the re-
covery of pure water from the diluted draw solution is the most im-
portant consideration in successful selection of a suitable draw
solute. Since interest in FO desalination is driven by its energy-
efficient nature, the draw solution must require no or minimum en-
ergy for regeneration and for separating pure water from the diluted
draw solution. Ref. [200,201] provide approaches to the selection of
suitable draw solutes.
Since decades, researchers have used different types of draw
solutes in the FO desalination process. Few review papers appear
in literature that summarizes the various draw solutes/solutions
used in FO [20,21,59,60]. Here, we present an updated review of
all the draw solutes used till date in the process of FO desalination.
Each of the proposed draw solute/solution has some inherent ad-
vantages and disadvantages and further research efforts are re-
quired to find a suitable draw solution for commercialization of FO
desalination. All draw solution developments are summarized chro-
nologically in Table 2 [202–230].
The draw solution research can be categorized by the methods used
to recover the draw solutions.
62 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69

6.1. No draw solute recovery 6.2. Thermal draw solute recovery

Kravath and Davis [205] used glucose draw solution and cellu-
lose acetate membrane to desalinate seawater. Transport of water
molecules from seawater to the glucose draw solution simply result-
ed in potable glucose drink. Therefore, recovery of product water
was not required. However, the proposed method can only be used for
emergency water supply. Based on the same concept, Kessler and
Moody [206] and Stache [207] used nutrient and fructose draw solu-
tion, respectively. Later on, Yaeli [208] used glucose draw solution
and also recovered pure water from the glucose draw solution
using pressure-driven RO.
The earliest FO seawater desalination was attempted using volatile
solutes such as SO2 [202]. The water flux was, however, not reported
in the patent. Heated gas stripping operation was used to recover pure
water and remove the volatile solutes. Glew [203] used mixture SO2 or al-
iphatic alcohols with water as draw solutions to desalinate seawater. Also,
in this case, recovery of pure product water involved heating. The water
flux was also not reported. The research interest FO desalination draw so-
lutions grew rapidly after the use of ammonium bicarbonate as the draw
solution by Elimelech et al. [18,83,84]. Being highly soluble and capable of
generating high osmotic pressures, the ammonium bicarbonate draw

Table 2
Summary of draw solutions used for FO desalination (in chronological order).

Year Research Draw solute/solution Recovery method Advantages and disadvantages Reference
group

1965 Batchelder SO2 Heated gas stripping Easy but requires heat energy, harmful [202]
operation
1965 Glew Mixture of water with SO2 or aliphatic alcohols Heating/distillation Easy but requires heat energy, harmful [203]
1972 Frank Aluminum sulfate Precipitation with No energy required, but toxic reaction products [204]
calcium hydroxide
1975 Kravath Glucose Not required For emergency water supply only [205]
and Davis
1976 Kessler & Nutrient solution Not required For emergency water supply only [206]
Moody
1989 Stache Fructose Not required For emergency water supply only [207]
1992 Yaeli Glucose RO Requires electrical energy [208]
2002 McGinnis KNO3 and SO2 Cooling and heating Requires energy, complicated, harmful [209]
2005–2007 Elimelech NH4HCO3 Moderate heating High water flux, requires heating, bad smell of [18,83,84]
and up to 60 °C ammonia in the product water
coworkers
2007 Adham Magnetic nanoparticles Use of a canister Easy separation but low osmotic pressure [210]
separator
2007 Adham Dendrimers UF/adjusting pH
High osmotic pressure, UF requires energy, [210]
pH-controlled removal is necessary
2007 Adham Albumin Heating Inefficient separation [210]
2010 Chung 2-Methylimidazole-based organic compounds FO–MD High osmotic pressure but high ICP [211]
2010–2011 Chung Magnetic nanoparticles Using magnetic field Easy separation, susceptible to nanoparticle [212,213]
aggregation
2011 Wang Polymer hydrogels Pressure and High water recovery, not suitable for practical [214,215]
thermal stimuli applications, microbial contamination is possible
2011 Chung Super hydrophilic nanoparticles UF Multiple UF stages required for pure water [216]
recovery
2012 Chung Polyacrylic acid sodium salts (PAA–Na) UF High solubility and osmotic pressure, recovery only [217]
by pressure-driven process
2012 Chung Surface-dissociated nanoparticle Integrated electric High osmotic pressure, NF requires energy [218]
field-nanofiltration
system
2013 Stewart Hexavalent phosphazene salts Not reported Pure water recovery requires further research, [219]
Hydrolysis of membrane is possible
2013 Stone Switchable polarity solvent (SPS) Heating with Energy efficient, but degrades the cellulose acetate [220]
nitrogen bubbling membrane, poor water quality
2013 Alnaizy Copper sulfate Metathesis No energy required, can be only used for brackish [128]
precipitation water desalination, toxic reaction products, costly
consumables
2013 Alnaizy Magnesium sulfate Metathesis No energy required, toxic reaction products, costly [129]
precipitation consumables
2013 Ou Thermo-sensitive polyelectrolytes Hot UF Low energy requirement, but low flux and poor [221]
water recovery
2013 Cai Semi-IPN hydrogels Heating Low energy requirement, but low water flux [222]
2014 Na Citrate-coated magnetic nanoparticles (cit-MNPs) Not reported Pure water recovery requires further research [223]
2014 Zhao Poly(sodiumstyrene-4-sulfonate-co-n-isopropylacrylamide) Membrane Feasible with seawater, but energy required [224]
(PSSS–PNIPAM) distillation (MD)
2014 Sato Dimethyl ether Exposure to air Energy-efficient, volatile osmotic agent [225]
2014 Ge Ferric and cobaltous hydroacid complexes NF High water flux, energy required for regeneration [226]
2015 Zhang Electric-responsive polymer hydrogels Electric field Requires electrical energy [227]
2015 Zhao Poly(amidoamine) terminated with sodium carboxylate MD High water flux, energy required for regeneration [228]
groups (PAMAM-COONa)
2015 Tian Poly (sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) (PSS) Low pressure-UF Cost-effective, but UF required [229]
2015 Hartanto Thermo-responsive microgels Centrifugation at 40 High water recovery, high flux, but heating [230]
°C involved
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
solute resulted in high water flux. Pure product water was recovered by
moderate heating up to 60 °C which resulted in decomposition of ammo-
nium bicarbonate to form ammonia and carbon dioxide gases. The gases
escape the draw solution to give pure water. However, the energy exten-
sive draw solute recovery and reconstitution steps of this process remain
a big concern for the desalination applications. The schematic diagram is
shown in Fig. 12.
McGinnis [209] used a two-stage FO process to desalinate seawater.
First, water molecules from the feed seawater were extracted into con-
centrated KNO3 draw solution. After dilution of the KNO3 draw solution,
a considerable amount of KNO3 was removed by cooling. In the second
stage, SO2 draw solution was used to extract water from the diluted
KNO3 draw solution from the first stage. Finally, heat was applied to re-
move volatile SO2 from pure product water. The two-stage process adds
complexity to the FO desalination. In addition, energy is required in the
form of both heating and cooling.
Stone et al. [220] used switchable polarity solvent (SPS) as draw sol-
ute. The SPS was simply mixture of carbon dioxide, water, and tertiary
amines. Once water was extracted into the SPS draw solution, heat
was applied to strip CO2 from the draw solution. The stripping of CO2
in turn resulted in separation of pure water from the tertiary amine.
However, the SPS draw solution resulted in degradation of the FO mem-
brane. The schematic diagram of this interesting FO desalination process
is shown in Fig. 13 [220].
Chung et al. [211] used 2-methylimidazole-based organic com-
pounds as draw solutes for FO desalination. Draw solution regeneration
was via FO–MD integrated process. Although the compounds generated
high osmotic pressures, the effect of ICP may be high owing to large mo-
lecular size.
Ou et al. [221] used a series of soluble and thermo-sensitive poly-
electrolytes as draw solutes. Hot UF at 45 °C and 2 bar was used to sep-
arate pure water from the diluted draw solution. However, low water
flux and water recovery was reported. Similarly, Cai et al. [222] used
thermo-sensitive semi-IPN hydrogel draw agents that absorbed water
from brackish water. The swelled hydrogels draw agents were then
heated to release the product water. Low water flux was observed.
Zhao et al. [224] used poly (sodiumstyrene-4-sulfonate-co-n-
isopropylacrylamide) (PSSS–PNIPAM) draw solute to desalinate seawa-
ter. The draw solute produced high osmotic pressure. After extraction of
water, membrane distillation (MD) at a temperature above the low crit-
ical solution temperature (LCST) of PNIPAM was used to recover pure
product water.
Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of FO desalination process utilizing NH4HCO3 draw solution
[18,83,84] (adopted from [20]).
63
6.3. Applied hydraulic pressure draw solute recovery
Polymer hydrogels have also been used as draw agent in FO desali-
nation [214,215]. The flow of water from the feed to the draw solution
results in swelling of the hydrogels. Pressure, thermal, or solar irradia-
tion stimuli is then used to recover product water. Chung et al. [216]
used dissolved nanoparticles coated poly-acrylic acid and triethylene
glycol as draw solution. Product water was recovered using UF system.
However, multiple UF runs were required to recover pure water. The
schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 14 [216].
Polyacrylic acid sodium salts (PAA–Na) have also been suggested as
viable draw solutes in FO desalination [217]. PAA–Na salts exhibited
high solubility in water and high osmotic pressure. Regeneration was
performed using pressure-driven UF process. Also, Ling and Chung
[218] used draw solutions of surface-dissociated nanoparticle. However,
in this case, regeneration required integrated electric field and pressure-
driven NF system. Stewart et al. [219] used phosphazene salts as draw
solutes. The study, however, did not report the recovery of pure water
from the draw solution.
Ge et al. [226] utilized cupric and ferric hydroacid complexes as draw
solutes to desalinate model seawater. The water flux was observed to be
high and pressure-driven NF was used to recover pure water.
6.4. Applied magnetic field draw solute recovery
Adham et al. [210] used magnetic nanoparticles to dewater RO con-
centrate. A magnetic separator was used to product water from the
draw solution. However, the magnetic nanoparticles were found to be
unsuccessful in generating high osmotic pressure due to their large mo-
lecular weight and low solubility. Adham et al. [210] also used albumin
and dendrimers as draw solutions. Separation of product from albumin
draw solution involved heating, which resulted in solidification of albu-
min. However, the recovery was low. In case of dendrimers draw solu-
tion; UF was used to recover the product water. However, the process
requires further studies on pH-controlled removal of dendrimers from
the diluted draw solution. Chung and coworkers also used magnetic
nanoparticles as draw solutes [212,213]. In these studies, product
water was recovered by application magnetic field.
Recently, Na et al. [223] synthesized and used citrate-coated mag-
netic nanoparticles (cit-MNPs) as draw solutes in FO. The process is fea-
sible only under application of magnetic field in order to drive the
magnetic particles away from the FO membrane. Recovery of pure
water was not reported.
6.5. Precipitation draw solute recovery
Frank [204] used precipitation reaction with calcium hydroxide to
recover pure water from diluted aluminum sulfate draw solution. The
process does not require energy but involves toxic products of the pre-
cipitation reaction. Similarly, Alnaizy et al. used the method of metath-
esis precipitation to separate the draw solute from pure product water
without using energy. In their studies, two draw solutes, copper sulfate
[128] and magnesium sulfate [129], were used to desalinate brackish
and seawater. Schematic diagram for the FO desalination method utiliz-
ing copper sulfate draw solution is shown in Fig. 15 [60]. Similar sche-
matic for desalination using magnesium sulfate can be found in ref.
[129].
Copper sulfate draw solution, could not generate enough osmotic
pressure to desalinate seawater and was found to be a viable draw
solution only for brackish water desalination. Magnesium sulfate draw
solution, on the other hand, was successfully used to desalinate both
brackish and seawater. Pure water was recovered from the diluted draw
solution (copper sulfate or magnesium sulfate) by reacting it with stoi-
chiometric amount of barium hydroxide. The resulting metathesis precip-
itation reaction removed all soluble chemicals as insoluble precipitates.
Although no energy was used, the reaction products were toxic and
64 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
Fig. 13. Schematic diagram of FO desalination system utilizing SPS draw solution (adopted from [220]).
harmful. Both the draw solutions were also fully recovered to be further
used in the proposed FO desalination process.
6.6. Other methods for draw solute recovery
Sato et al. [225] proposed an interesting FO desalination method
using dimethyl ether as draw agent. The process requires pressurized
injection of dimethyl ether. Once water has been extracted, simple ex-
posure to air at ambient temperatures can be used to vaporize dimethyl
ether.
More recent developments in FO desalination draw solutes included
the use of electric-responsive polymer hydrogels [227]. Using this type
of draw agent, water was extracted into the hydrogel and fresh water
was released from the hydrogel by varying the voltage of an electric
field. Zhao et al. [228] employed poly (amidoamine) terminated with so-
dium carboxylate groups (PAMAM–COONa) draw solute to desalinate
seawater. High water flux was observed but regeneration required mem-
brane distillation. Tian et al. [229] used poly (sodium 4-styrenesulfonate)
as draw solute which required low-pressure UF for regeneration.
Hartanto et al. [230] used co-polymer microgel of N-
isopropylacrylamide and acrylic acid as draw agent and at the
same time developed a novel on-line conductivity method for
water flux determination (Fig. 16 [230]). The microgel was used to
absorb water in the FO process. Subsequently, water was released
by centrifugation at 40 °C and 12,000 rpm for 10 min.
Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of FO desalination system utilizing super hydrophilic
nanoparticles (adopted from [216]).
7. Challenges in FO desalination
The key challenges faced by FO desalination have already been
discussed in the previous sections. In this section, the close relationship
between all the FO challenges is illustrated. In summary, the challenges
faced in commercial and successful realization of FO desalination
include concentration polarization, membrane fouling, reverse solute
flux, lack of suitable commercial membranes, and unavailability of
ideal draw solutions. All these challenges are inextricably linked to
one another. First of all, the FO membrane production methods should
have high repeatability in order to facilitate commercialization. In
order to achieve high water flux at, relatively, low osmotic pressure
differences, the FO membrane should have low S value. In addition,
the active membrane layer should be highly selective in order to reduce
reverse solute flux, which in turn, will reduce the susceptibility of mem-
brane fouling. Also, the membrane porous support should be highly
porous in order to eliminate the adverse effects of ICP. However, con-
flicting situations arise during the selection of draw solutes. The ideal
draw solute should have small molecular size in order to reduce ICP ef-
fects but this will increase reverse solute flux and membrane fouling.
Therefore, all these factors must be considered while conducting re-
search on FO desalination.
Some recent studies have shown that FO seawater desalination con-
sumes higher energy compared to RO [231,232]. With respect to the
current technological developments and research results, FO does not
satisfy the economic feasibility expectations as a standalone process
for desalination. In fact, the biggest challenge for the commercialization
of the FO process comes from the economic feasibility. The economic
feasibility of a process can be related directly to its scalability and com-
mercialization [176]. Therefore, in order to make a relatively accurate
economic assessment for FO, several factors, such as draw solution se-
lection, draw solute recovery, and high performance membrane devel-
opment, should be taken into account. An economically feasible FO
process should satisfy all such factors in order to answer commonly
known issues and drawbacks in the FO process. These issues and draw-
backs can be summarized as:
• Concentration polarization
• Membrane Fouling
• Reverse solute flux
• Suitable commercial membranes
• Availability of ideal draw solutions
This comprehensive review article has summarized the majority
of the past and current research articles in order to make a relatively ac-
curate assessment of the FO process. Compared to the previous review
articles on FO desalination [20,21,49,61], this paper provides an up-to-
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
Fig. 15. Schematic diagram of FO desalination system utilizing copper sulfate draw solution [128] (adopted from [60]).
date review of all the major FO membrane and draw solution develop-
ments along with an up-to-date summary of all significant studies on
membrane fouling. In addition, this article adequately addresses all re-
search aspects of FO desalination by compiling majority of the research
efforts related to membrane and draw solution developments, present-
ing the advantages and disadvantage of each draw solution develop-
ment, and summarizing all mathematical models related water and
reverse solute flux. These aspects have not been addressed in a recent
review article on FO desalination [233].
8. Concluding remarks
This review paper summarizes vast majority of the FO based desali-
nation efforts related to membrane and draw solution development and
water and reverse solute flux modeling. All accessible significant re-
search efforts in the area of FO desalination have been put together. In
conclusion, it is clear that research on FO desalination has still not
come to its maturity and it is still one of the highly pursued research
Fig. 16. Schematic diagram of FO desalination setup utilizing microgel draw agent and
online conductivity measurements for flux calculations (adopted from [230]).
65
interests. There is no scientific or research disagreement that FO desali-
nation is less susceptible to membrane fouling compared to the
pressure-driven RO. There exists a possibility of finding energy-
efficient means of draw solution regeneration and robust FO mem-
branes in order to overcome the existing challenges faced by FO desali-
nation. In addition, there is a pressing need to investigate FO
desalination on pilot-scale. It is interesting to note that today's
established RO market was once faced by the problem of disappointing
levels of water flux until Loeb and Sourirajan succeeded to fabricate
high performance RO membranes which were then commercialized
by Dow Chemical and DuPont through their R&D efforts. Likewise, suc-
cessful commercialization of FO desalination also requires industrial
R&D inputs. With the growing demand for pure water and the pressing
need to decrease the cost of pure water production, accelerated research
efforts may overcome the existing challenges faced by FO desalination
through efficient draw solution and membrane developments.
References
[1] Hot issues: water scarcity, http://www.fao.org/nr/water/issues/scarcity.html 2013
(accessed March 28, 2015).
[2] F.R. Rijsberman, Water scarcity: fact or fiction? Agric. Water Manag. 2006,
pp. 5–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.001.
[3] R. Das, S.B.A. Hamid, Md.E. Ali, A.F. Ismail, M.S.M. Annuar, S. Ramakrishna, Multi-
functional carbon nanotubes in water treatment: the present, past and future, De-
salination 354 (2014) 160–179, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.09.032.
[4] S. Burn, M. Hoang, D. Zarzo, F. Olewniak, E. Campos, B. Bolto, O. Barron, Desalina-
tion techniques — a review of the opportunities for desalination in agriculture, De-
salination 364 (2015) 2–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.01.041.
[5] W.L. Ang, A.W. Mohammad, N. Hilal, C.P. Leo, A review on the applicability of inte-
grated/hybrid membrane processes in water treatment and desalination plants,
Desalination 363 (2015) 2–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.03.008.
[6] L. Howell (Ed.), Global Risks 2013, 8th ed.World Economic Forum, 2013.
[7] Global Risks 2014, Geneva, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalRisks_
Report_2014.pdf2014 (accessed March 23, 2015).
[8] I.C. Escobar, A summary of challenges still facing desalination and water reuse, in:
I.C. Escobar, A.I. Schäfer (Eds.), Sustainability Science and Engineering, 2, Elsevier
2010, pp. 389–397, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1871-2711(09)00214-1.
[9] Water Scarcity: Overview, https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/water-scarcity
2015 (accessed March 29, 2015).
[10] United Nations, http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/2006_unwater_
coping_with_water_scarcity_eng.pdf2006.
[11] I. Karagiannis, P. Soldatos, Water desalination cost literature: review and assess-
ment, Desalination 223 (2008) 448–456, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.
02.071.
[12] A. Subramani, J.G. Jacangelo, Emerging desalination technologies for water treat-
ment: a critical review, Water Res. 75 (2015) 164–187, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2015.02.032.
[13] A. Subramani, M. Badruzzaman, J. Oppenheimer, J.G. Jacangelo, Energy minimiza-
tion strategies and renewable energy utilization for desalination: a review, Water
Res. 45 (2011) 1907–1920, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.12.032.
66 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
[14] R.G. Raluy, L. Serra, J. Uche, Life cycle assessment of desalination technologies inte-
grated with renewable energies, Desalination 183 (2005) 81–93, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.023.
[15] R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Global challenges in energy and water supply: the
promise of engineered osmosis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2008) 8625–8629,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es800812m.
[16] M. Elimelech, W.A. Phillip, The future of seawater desalination: energy, technology,
and the environment, Science 333 (2011) 712–717, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1200488.
[17] R. Semiat, Energy issues in desalination processes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2008)
8193–8201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es801330u.
[18] J.R. McCutcheon, R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, A novel ammonia-carbon dioxide
forward (direct) osmosis desalination process, Desalination 174 (2005) 1–11,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.002.
[19] S. Zhao, L. Zou, D. Mulcahy, Brackish water desalination by a hybrid forward
osmosis-nanofiltration system using divalent draw solute, Desalination 284
(2012) 175–181, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.08.053.
[20] T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis: principles, applications,
and recent developments, J. Membr. Sci. 281 (2006) 70–87, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2006.05.048.
[21] S. Zhao, L. Zou, C.Y. Tang, D. Mulcahy, Recent developments in forward osmosis:
opportunities and challenges, J. Membr. Sci. 396 (2012) 1–21, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2011.12.023.
[22] K. Lutchmiah, A.R.D. Verliefde, K. Roest, L.C. Rietveld, E.R. Cornelissen, Forward os-
mosis for application in wastewater treatment: a review, Water Res. 58 (2014)
179–197, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.045.
[23] D.K. Anderson, Concentration of Dilute Industrial Wastes by Direct Osmosis,
University of Rhode Island, Providence, 1977.
[24] B.D. Coday, P. Xu, E.G. Beaudry, J. Herron, K. Lampi, N.T. Hancock, et al., The sweet
spot of forward osmosis: treatment of produced water, drilling wastewater, and
other complex and difficult liquid streams, Desalination 333 (2014) 23–35,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.11.014.
[25] R.R. Said, Forward osmosis process for the treatment of wastewater from textile in-
dustries, University of Baghdad, 2011.
[26] F. Votta, S.M. Barnett, D.K. Anderson, Concentration of industrial waste by direct
osmosis: completion report, Providence, RI, 1974.
[27] S. Zhang, P. Wang, X. Fu, T.S. Chung, Sustainable water recovery from oily waste-
water via forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO–MD), Water Res. 52
(2014) 112–121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.12.044.
[28] R.J. York, R.S. Thiel, E.G. Beaudry, Full-scale experience of direct osmosis concentra-
tion applied to leachate management, Proceedings of the Seventh International
Waste Management and Landfill Symposium (Sardinia '99), Italy, 1999.
[29] R.W. Holloway, A.E. Childress, K.E. Dennett, T.Y. Cath, Forward osmosis for concen-
tration of anaerobic digester centrate, Water Res. 41 (2007) 4005–4014, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.05.054.
[30] E.R. Cornelissen, D. Harmsen, E.F. Beerendonk, J.J. Qin, H. Oo, K.F. De Korte, et al., The
innovative osmotic membrane bioreactor (OMBR) for reuse of wastewater, Water
Sci. Technol. 63 (2011) 1557–1565, http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.206.
[31] E.R. Cornelissen, D. Harmsen, K.F. de Korte, C.J. Ruiken, J.-J. Qin, H. Oo, et al., Membrane
fouling and process performance of forward osmosis membranes on activated sludge,
J. Membr. Sci. 319 (2008) 158–168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.03.048.
[32] K. Lutchmiah, E.R. Cornelissen, D.J.H. Harmsen, J.W. Post, K. Lampi, H. Ramaekers,
et al., Water recovery from sewage using forward osmosis, Water Sci. Technol.
64 (2011) 1443–1449, http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.773.
[33] R. Valladares Linares, Z. Li, M. Abu-Ghdaib, C.H. Wei, G. Amy, J.S. Vrouwenvelder,
Water harvesting from municipal wastewater via osmotic gradient: an evaluation
of process performance, J. Membr. Sci. 447 (2013) 50–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2013.07.018.
[34] E. Beaudry, J. Herron, Direct osmosis for concentrating wastewater, SAE Technical
Paper 972270, 1997http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/972270.
[35] J.L. Cartinella, T.Y. Cath, M.T. Flynn, G.C. Miller, K.W. Hunter, A.E. Childress, Removal
of natural steroid hormones from wastewater using membrane contactor process-
es, Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (2006) 7381–7386, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es060550i.
[36] T.Y. Cath, S. Gormly, E.G. Beaudry, M.T. Flynn, V.D. Adams, A.E. Childress, Mem-
brane contactor processes for wastewater reclamation in space: part I. Direct os-
motic concentration as pretreatment for reverse osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 257
(2005) 85–98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.08.039.
[37] T.Y. Cath, D. Adams, A.E. Childress, Membrane contactor processes for wastewater
reclamation in space: II. Combined direct osmosis, osmotic distillation, and mem-
brane distillation for treatment of metabolic wastewater, J. Membr. Sci. 257
(2005) 111–119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.07.039.
[38] J. Su, T.S. Chung, B.J. Helmer, J.S. de Wit, Enhanced double-skinned FO membranes
with inner dense layer for wastewater treatment and macromolecule recycle using
Sucrose as draw solute, J. Membr. Sci. 396 (2012) 92–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2012.01.001.
[39] V. Sant'Anna, L.D.F. Marczak, I.C. Tessaro, Membrane concentration of liquid foods
by forward osmosis: process and quality view, J. Food Eng. 111 (2012) 483–489,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.01.032.
[40] E.M. Garcia-Castello, J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Performance evaluation of su-
crose concentration using forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 338 (2009) 61–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.04.011.
[41] K.B. Petrotos, P.C. Quantick, H. Petropakis, Direct osmotic concentration of tomato
juice in tubular membrane — module configuration. II. The effect of using clarified
tomato juice on the process performance, J. Membr. Sci. 160 (1999) 171–177,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(99)00072-1.
[42] K.B. Petrotos, P. Quantick, H. Petropakis, A study of the direct osmotic concentra-
tion of tomato juice in tubular membrane — Module configuration. I. The effect
of certain basic process parameters on the process performance, J. Membr. Sci.
150 (1998) 99–110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00216-6.
[43] B. Jiao, A. Cassano, E. Drioli, Recent advances on membrane processes for the con-
centration of fruit juices: a review, J. Food Eng. 63 (2004) 303–324, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2003.08.003.
[44] K.B. Petrotos, H.N. Lazarides, Osmotic concentration of liquid foods, J. Food Eng. 49
(2001) 201–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(00)00222-3.
[45] B.E. Logan, M. Elimelech, Membrane-based processes for sustainable power gener-
ation using water, Nature 488 (2012) 313–319, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature11477.
[46] K.L. Lee, R.W. Baker, H.K. Lonsdale, Membranes for power generation by pressure-
retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 8 (1981) 141–171, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0376-7388(00)82088-8.
[47] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, Power generation with pressure retarded osmo-
sis: an experimental and theoretical investigation, J. Membr. Sci. 343 (2009)
42–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.07.006.
[48] A. Seppälä, M.J. Lampinen, Thermodynamic optimizing of pressure-retarded osmo-
sis power generation systems, J. Membr. Sci. 161 (1999) 115–138, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0376-7388(99)00108-8.
[49] T.-S. Chung, S. Zhang, K.Y. Wang, J. Su, M.M. Ling, Forward osmosis processes: yes-
terday, today and tomorrow, Desalination 287 (2012) 78–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2010.12.019.
[50] N.Y. Yip, M. Elimelech, Performance limiting effects in power generation from sa-
linity gradients by pressure retarded osmosis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011)
10273–10282, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203197e.
[51] S. Loeb, Production of energy from concentrated brines by pressure-retarded os-
mosis: I. Preliminary technical and economic correlations, J. Membr. Sci. 1 (1976)
49–63, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(00)82257-7.
[52] J.W. Post, J. Veerman, H.V.M. Hamelers, G.J.W. Euverink, S.J. Metz, K. Nymeijer,
et al., Salinity-gradient power: evaluation of pressure-retarded osmosis and re-
verse electrodialysis, J. Membr. Sci. 288 (2007) 218–230, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2006.11.018.
[53] S. Loeb, F.V. Hessen, D. Shahaf, Production of energy from concentrated brines by
pressure-retarded osmosis: II. Experimental results and projected energy costs,
J. Membr. Sci. 1 (1976) 249–269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(00)82271-1.
[54] S. Loeb, Large-scale power production by pressure-retarded osmosis, using river
water and sea water passing through spiral modules, Desalination 143 (2002)
115–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00233-3.
[55] S. Loeb, Energy production at the Dead Sea by pressure-retarded osmosis: chal-
lenge or chimera? Desalination 120 (1998) 247–262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0011-9164(98)00222-7.
[56] T. Thorsen, T. Holt, The potential for power production from salinity gradients by
pressure retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 335 (2009) 103–110, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2009.03.003.
[57] S. Loeb, Method and apparatus for generating power utilizing pressure-retarded
osmosis, US Patent US Patent 3,906,250 (1975).
[58] N.Y. Yip, M. Elimelech, Thermodynamic and energy efficiency analysis of power
generation from natural salinity gradients by pressure retarded osmosis, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 5230–5239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es300060m.
[59] L. Chekli, S. Phuntsho, H.K. Shon, S. Vigneswaran, J. Kandasamy, A. Chanan, A re-
view of draw solutes in forward osmosis process and their use in modern applica-
tions, Desalin. Water Treat. 43 (2012) 167–184, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
19443994.2012.672168.
[60] H. Luo, Q. Wang, T.C. Zhang, T. Tao, A. Zhou, L. Chen, X. Bie, A review on the recov-
ery methods of draw solutes in forward osmosis, J. Water Process Eng. 4 (2014)
212–223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2014.10.006.
[61] R.V. Linares, Z. Li, S. Sarp, Sz.S. Bucs, G. Amy, J.S. Vrouwenvelder, Forward osmosis
niches in seawater desalination and wastewater reuse, Water Res. 66 (2014)
122–139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.08.021.
[62] R.W. Holloway, T.Y. Cath, K.E. Dennett, A.E. Childress, Forward osmosis for concen-
tration of anaerobic digester centrate, Proceedings of the AWWA Membrane Tech-
nology Conference and Exposition, Phoenix, 2005.
[63] R.W. Field, J.J. Wu, Mass transfer limitations in forward osmosis: are some potential
applications overhyped? Desalination 318 (2013) 118–124, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2013.01.025.
[64] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, E.A. Marchand, A.E. Childress, The forward osmosis membrane
bioreactor: a low fouling alternative to MBR processes, Desalination 238 (2009)
10–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.02.022.
[65] D. Emadzadeh, W.J. Lau, A.F. Ismail, Synthesis of thin film nanocomposite for-
ward osmosis membrane with enhancement in water flux without sacrificing
salt rejection, Desalination 330 (2013) 90–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2013.10.003.
[66] A. Altaee, G. Zaragoza, H.R. van Tonningen, Comparison between Forward Osmosis-
Reverse Osmosis and Reverse Osmosis processes for seawater desalination, Desalina-
tion 336 (2014) 50–57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.01.002.
[67] V. Yangali-Quintanilla, Z. Li, R. Valladares, Q. Li, G. Amy, Indirect desalination of Red
Sea water with forward osmosis and low pressure reverse osmosis for water reuse,
Desalination 280 (2011) 160–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.06.066.
[68] T.Y. Cath, N.T. Hancock, C.D. Lundin, C. Hoppe-Jones, J.E. Drewes, A multi-barrier
osmotic dilution process for simultaneous desalination and purification of im-
paired water, J. Membr. Sci. 362 (2010) 417–426, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2010.06.056.
[69] M. Xie, L.D. Nghiem, W.E. Price, M. Elimelech, Relating rejection of trace organic
contaminants to membrane properties in forward osmosis: measurements,
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
modelling and implications, Water Res. 49 (2014) 265–274, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2013.11.031.
[70] A.A. Alturki, J.A. McDonald, S.J. Khan, W.E. Price, L.D. Nghiem, M. Elimelech, Remov-
al of trace organic contaminants by the forward osmosis process, Sep. Purif.
Technol. 103 (2013) 258–266, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2012.10.036.
[71] M. Xie, L.D. Nghiem, W.E. Price, M. Elimelech, Comparison of the removal of hydro-
phobic trace organic contaminants by forward osmosis and reverse osmosis, Water
Res. 46 (2012) 2683–2692, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.02.023.
[72] X. Jin, Q. She, X. Ang, C.Y. Tang, Removal of boron and arsenic by forward osmosis
membrane: influence of membrane orientation and organic fouling, J. Membr. Sci.
389 (2012) 182–187, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.10.028.
[73] A. Yokozeki, Osmotic pressures studied using a simple equation-of-state and its ap-
plications, Appl. Energy 83 (2006) 15–41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2004.10.015.
[74] J.M. Smith, H.C. Van Ness, M.M. Abbott, Introduction to Chemical Engineering Ther-
modynamics, 7th Edition, 2005.
[75] J.J. Kozak, W.S. Knight, W. Kauzmann, Solute-solute interactions in aqueous solu-
tions, J. Chem. Phys. 48 (1968) 675.
[76] V.L. Vilker, C.K. Colton, K.A. Smith, The osmotic pressure of concentrated protein
solutions: effect of concentration and ph in saline solutions of bovine serum albu-
min, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 79 (1981) 548–566, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-
9797(81)90106-5.
[77] A. Seppälä, M.J. Lampinen, On the non-linearity of osmotic flow, Exp. Thermal Fluid
Sci. 28 (2004) 283–296, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2003.10.001.
[78] OLI Stream Analyzer 2.0, OLI Systems Inc., Morris Plains, NJ, 2005. (http://www.
olisystems.com/).
[79] M. Mulder, Basic principles of membrane technology, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
The Netherlands, 1991.
[80] W. Pusch, R. Riley, Relation between salt rejection r and reflection coefficient [sigma]
of asymmetric cellulose acetate membranes, Desalination 14 (1974) 389–393.
[81] S. Loeb, L. Titelman, E. Korngold, J. Freiman, Effect of porous support fabric on os-
mosis through a Loeb-Sourirajan type asymmetric membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 129
(1997) 243–249, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(96)00354-7.
[82] Q. Ge, M. Ling, T.S. Chung, Draw solutions for forward osmosis processes: develop-
ments, challenges, and prospects for the future, J. Membr. Sci. 442 (2013) 225–237,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.046.
[83] J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal
concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci.
284 (2006) 237–247, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.07.049.
[84] G.T. Gray, J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Internal concentration polarization in for-
ward osmosis: role of membrane orientation, Desalination 197 (2006) 1–8, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.02.003.
[85] A.L. Zydney, Stagnant film model for concentration polarization in membrane sys-
tems, J. Membr. Sci. 130 (1997) 275–281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-
7388(97)00006-9.
[86] H. Zhang, S. Cheng, F. Yang, Use of a spacer to mitigate concentration polarization
during forward osmosis process, Desalination 347 (2014) 112–119, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.05.026.
[87] Y. Gao, Y.N. Wang, W. Li, C.Y. Tang, Characterization of internal and external con-
centration polarizations during forward osmosis processes, Desalination 338
(2014) 65–73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.01.021.
[88] B.S. Chanukya, S. Patil, N.K. Rastogi, Influence of concentration polarization on flux
behavior in forward osmosis during desalination using ammonium bicarbonate,
Desalination 312 (2013) 39–44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.05.018.
[89] J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Modeling water flux in forward osmosis: implica-
tions for improved membrane design, AICHE J. 53 (2007) 1736–1744, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/aic.11197.
[90] J.R. McCutcheon, R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Desalination by ammonia–carbon di-
oxide forward osmosis: influence of draw and feed solution concentrations on pro-
cess performance, J. Membr. Sci. 278 (2006) 114–123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2005.10.048.
[91] M.F. Gruber, C.J. Johnson, C.Y. Tang, M.H. Jensen, L. Yde, C. Hélix-Nielsen, Computa-
tional fluid dynamics simulations of flow and concentration polarization in for-
ward osmosis membrane systems, J. Membr. Sci. 379 (2011) 488–495, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.06.022.
[92] G. Li, X. Li, Y. Liu, D. Wang, T. He, C. Gao, Forward osmosis and concentration polar-
ization, Huaxue Jinzhan 22 (2010) 812–821.
[93] J. Su, T.S. Chung, Sublayer structure and reflection coefficient and their effects on
concentration polarization and membrane performance in FO processes, J.
Membr. Sci. 376 (2011) 214–224, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.04.031.
[94] D. Anastasio, J.R. McCutcheon, Using forward osmosis to teach mass transfer funda-
mentals to undergraduate chemical engineering students, Desalination 312 (2013)
10–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.10.037.
[95] C.H. Tan, H.Y. Ng, Modified models to predict flux behavior in forward osmosis in
consideration of external and internal concentration polarizations, J. Membr. Sci.
324 (2008) 209–219, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.07.020.
[96] J.C. Su, S. Zhang, M.M. Ling, T.S. Chung, Forward osmosis: an emerging technology for
sustainable supply of clean water, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 14 (2012) 507–511.
[97] G.D. Mehta, S. Loeb, Internal polarization in the porous substructure of a semiper-
meable membrane under pressure retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 4 (1978)
261–265, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(00)83301-3.
[98] J.J. Qin, S. Chen, M.H. Oo, K.A. Kekre, E.R. Cornelissen, C.J. Ruiken, Experimental
studies and modeling on concentration polarization in forward osmosis, Water
Sci. Technol. 61 (2010) 2897–2904, http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.078.
[99] C.Y. Tang, Q. She, W.C.L. Lay, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, Coupled effects of internal concen-
tration polarization and fouling on flux behavior of forward osmosis membranes
67
during humic acid filtration, J. Membr. Sci. 354 (2010) 123–133, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.02.059.
[100] S. Zhao, L. Zou, Relating solution physicochemical properties to internal concentra-
tion polarization in forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 379 (2011) 459–467, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.06.021.
[101] P. Grathwohl, Diffusion in Natural Porous Media: Contaminant Transport, Sorp-
tion/Desorption and Dissolution Kinetics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
[102] R.E. Beck, J.S. Schultz, Hindered diffusion in microporous membranes with known
pore geometry, Science 170 (1970) 1302–1305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
170.3964.1302.
[103] N.-N. Bui, J.T. Arena, J.R. McCutcheon, Proper accounting of mass transfer Resistances
in forward osmosis: improving the accuracy of model predictions of structural param-
eter, J. Membr. Sci. (2015)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.02.001 (in press).
[104] W. Li, Y. Gao, C.Y. Tang, Network modeling for studying the effect of support struc-
ture on internal concentration polarization during forward osmosis: model devel-
opment and theoretical analysis with FEM, J. Membr. Sci. 379 (2011) 307–321,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.05.074.
[105] A. Sagiv, R. Semiat, Finite element analysis of forward osmosis process using NaCl
solutions, J. Membr. Sci. 379 (2011) 86–96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.
2011.05.042.
[106] D.H. Jung, J. Lee, D.Y. Kim, Y.G. Lee, M. Park, S. Lee, et al., Simulation of forward os-
mosis membrane process: effect of membrane orientation and flow direction of
feed and draw solutions, Desalination 277 (2011) 83–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2011.04.001.
[107] D. Xiao, W. Li, S. Chou, R. Wang, C.Y. Tang, A modeling investigation on optimizing
the design of forward osmosis hollow fiber modules, J. Membr. Sci. 392–393
(2012) 76–87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.12.006.
[108] S.J. You, X.H. Wang, M. Zhong, Y.J. Zhong, C. Yu, N.Q. Ren, Temperature as a factor
affecting transmembrane water flux in forward osmosis: steady-state modeling
and experimental validation, Chem. Eng. J. 198–199 (2012) 52–60, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.087.
[109] C.H. Tan, H.Y. Ng, Revised external and internal concentration polarization models
to improve flux prediction in forward osmosis process, Desalination 309 (2013)
125–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.09.022.
[110] A. Sagiv, A. Zhu, P.D. Christofides, Y. Cohen, R. Semiat, Analysis of forward osmosis
desalination via two-dimensional FEM model, J. Membr. Sci. 464 (2014) 161–172,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.04.001.
[111] S. Phuntsho, S. Hong, M. Elimelech, H.K. Shon, Osmotic equilibrium in the for-
ward osmosis process: modelling, experiments and implications for process
performance, J. Membr. Sci. 453 (2014) 240–252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2013.11.009.
[112] S. Benavides, A.S. Oloriz, W.A. Phillip, Forward osmosis processes in the limit of os-
motic equilibrium, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015 (54) (2014) 480–490, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1021/ie5038787.
[113] G. Gadêlha, H. Gadêlha, N. Hankins, Water flux dynamics in closed-loop, batch-
mode forward osmosis systems, J. Membr. Sci. 476 (2015) 457–468, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.11.056.
[114] N.T. Hancock, T.Y. Cath, Solute coupled diffusion in osmotically driven membrane
processes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 6769–6775, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1021/es901132x.
[115] W.C.L. Lay, T.H. Chong, C.Y. Tang, A.G. Fane, J. Zhang, Y. Liu, Fouling propensity of
forward osmosis: investigation of the slower flux decline phenomenon, Water
Sci. Technol 2010, pp. 927–936, http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.835.
[116] W.A. Phillip, J.S. Yong, M. Elimelech, Reverse draw solute permeation in forward
osmosis: modeling and experiments, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010)
5170–5176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es100901n.
[117] 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) 356–362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.10.030.
[118] J.S. Yong, W.A. Phillip, M. Elimelech, Coupled reverse draw solute permeation and
water flux in forward osmosis with neutral draw solutes, J. Membr. Sci. 392–393
(2012) 9–17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.11.020.
[119] C. Suh, S. Lee, Modeling reverse draw solute flux in forward osmosis with external
concentration polarization in both sides of the draw and feed solution, J. Membr.
Sci. 427 (2013) 365–374, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.08.033.
[120] B. Kim, S. Lee, S. Hong, A novel analysis of reverse draw and feed solute fluxes in
forward osmosis membrane process, Desalination 352 (2014) 128–135, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.08.012.
[121] R.W. Baker, Membrane technology and applications, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd., New York, NY, 2004.
[122] S. Loeb, Pressure-retarded osmosis revisited: the prospects for osmotic power at
the Dead Sea, Proceedings of the Euromembrane Conference, UK, 1995.
[123] J.T. Arena, B. McCloskey, B.D. Freeman, J.R. McCutcheon, Surface modification of
thin film composite membrane support layers with polydopamine: Enabling use
of reverse osmosis membranes in pressure retarded osmosis, J. Memb. Sci. 375
(2011) 55–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.01.060.
[124] I. Goosens, A. Van-Haute, The use of direct osmosis tests as complementary exper-
iments to determine the water and salt permeabilities of reinforced cellulose ace-
tate membranes, Desalination 26 (1978) 299–308.
[125] I.L. Alsvik, M.B. Hägg, Pressure retarded osmosis and forward osmosis membranes:
materials and methods, Polymers (Basel) 5 (2013) 303–327, http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/polym5010303.
[126] G.D. Mehta, S. Loeb, Performance of Permasep B-9 and B-10 membranes in various
osmotic regions and at high osmotic pressures, J. Membr. Sci. 4 (1979) 335–349.
[127] HTI, History of HTI, http://www.htiwater.com/company/hti_history.html2010
(accessed April 2, 2015).
68 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
[128] R. Alnaizy, A. Aidan, M. Qasim, Copper sulfate as draw solute in forward osmosis
desalination, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1 (2013) 424–430, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jece.2013.06.005.
[129] R. Alnaizy, A. Aidan, M. Qasim, Draw solute recovery by metathesis precipitation in
forward osmosis desalination, Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (2013) 1–10, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/19443994.2013.770238.
[130] K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, J.J. Qin, Polybenzimidazole (PBI) nanofiltration hollow fiber
membranes applied in forward osmosis process, J. Membr. Sci. 300 (2007) 6–12,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2007.05.035.
[131] K.Y. Wang, Q. Yang, T.S. Chung, R. Rajagopalan, Enhanced forward osmosis from
chemically modified polybenzimidazole (PBI) nanofiltration hollow fiber mem-
branes with a thin wall, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 1577–1584, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ces.2008.12.032.
[132] Q. Yang, K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, Dual-layer hollow fibers with enhanced flux as
novel forward osmosis membranes for water production, Environ. Sci. Technol.
43 (2009) 2800–2805, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es803360t.
[133] R. Wang, L. Shi, C.Y. Tang, S. Chou, C. Qiu, A.G. Fane, Characterization of novel for-
ward osmosis hollow fiber membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 355 (2010) 158–167, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.03.017.
[134] S. Chou, L. Shi, R. Wang, C.Y. Tang, C. Qiu, A.G. Fane, Characteristics and potential
applications of a novel forward osmosis hollow fiber membrane, Desalination
261 (2010) 365–372, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.06.027.
[135] K.Y. Wang, R.C. Ong, T.S. Chung, Double-skinned forward osmosis mem-
branes for reducing internal concentration polarization within the porous
sublayer, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49 (2010) 4824–4831, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1021/ie901592d.
[136] N.Y. Yip, A. Tiraferri, W.A. Phillip, J.D. Schiffman, M. Elimelech, High performance
thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44
(2010) 3812–3818, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1002555.
[137] J. Su, Q. Yang, J.F. Teo, T.S. Chung, Cellulose acetate nanofiltration hollow fiber
membranes for forward osmosis processes, J. Membr. Sci. 355 (2010) 36–44,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.03.003.
[138] S. Zhang, K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, H. Chen, Y.C. Jean, G. Amy, Well-constructed cellu-
lose acetate membranes for forward osmosis: minimized internal concentration
polarization with an ultra-thin selective layer, J. Membr. Sci. 360 (2010)
522–535, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.05.056.
[139] M. Sairam, E. Sereewatthanawut, K. Li, A. Bismarck, A.G. Livingston, Method for the
preparation of cellulose acetate flat sheet composite membranes for forward
osmosis-desalination using MgSO4 draw solution, Desalination 273 (2011)
299–307, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.01.050.
[140] Q. Saren, C.Q. Qiu, C.Y. Tang, Synthesis and characterization of novel forward osmo-
sis membranes based on layer-by-layer assembly, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011)
5201–5208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es200115w.
[141] L. Setiawan, R. Wang, K. Li, A.G. Fane, Fabrication of novel poly(amide-imide) for-
ward osmosis hollow fiber membranes with a positively charged nanofiltration-
like selective layer, J. Membr. Sci. 369 (2011) 196–205, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2010.11.067.
[142] N. Widjojo, T.S. Chung, M. Weber, C. Maletzko, V. Warzelhan, The role of
sulphonated polymer and macrovoid-free structure in the support layer for thin-
film composite (TFC) forward osmosis (FO) membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 383
(2011) 214–223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.08.041.
[143] J. Wei, C. Qiu, C.Y. Tang, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, Synthesis and characterization of flat-
sheet thin film composite forward osmosis membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 372 (2011)
292–302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.02.013.
[144] Y. Yu, S. Seo, I.C. Kim, S. Lee, Nanoporous polyethersulfone (PES) membrane with
enhanced flux applied in forward osmosis process, J. Membr. Sci. 375 (2011)
63–68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.02.019.
[145] S. Zhang, K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, Y.C. Jean, H. Chen, Molecular design of the cellulose
ester-based forward osmosis membranes for desalination, Chem. Eng. Sci. 66
(2011) 2008–2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2011.02.002.
[146] X. Song, Z. Liu, D.D. Sun, Nano gives the answer: breaking the bottleneck of internal
concentration polarization with a nanofiber composite forward osmosis mem-
brane for a high water production rate, Adv. Mater. 23 (2011) 3256–3260,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.201100510.
[147] N.N. Bui, M.L. Lind, E.M.V. Hoek, J.R. McCutcheon, Electrospun nanofiber supported
thin film composite membranes for engineered osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. (2011)
10–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.08.002.
[148] C. Qiu, S. Qi, C.Y. Tang, Synthesis of high flux forward osmosis membranes by
chemically crosslinked layer-by-layer polyelectrolytes, J. Membr. Sci. 381 (2011)
74–80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.07.013.
[149] R.C. Ong, T.S. Chung, B.J. Helmer, J.S. De Wit, Novel cellulose esters for forward os-
mosis membranes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (2012) 16135–16145, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1021/ie302654h.
[150] G. Han, T.S. Chung, M. Toriida, S. Tamai, Thin-film composite forward osmosis
membranes with novel hydrophilic supports for desalination, J. Membr. Sci.
423–424 (2012) 543–555, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.09.005.
[151] A. Tiraferri, Y. Kang, E.P. Giannelis, M. Elimelech, Highly hydrophilic thin-film composite
forward osmosis membranes functionalized with surface-tailored nanoparticles, ACS
Appl. Mater. Interfaces 4 (2012) 5044–5053, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/am301532g.
[152] L. Setiawan, R. Wang, L. Shi, K. Li, A.G. Fane, Novel dual-layer hollow fiber mem-
branes applied for forward osmosis process, J. Membr. Sci. 421–422 (2012)
238–246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.07.020.
[153] L. Setiawan, R. Wang, K. Li, A.G. Fane, Fabrication and characterization of for-
ward osmosis hollow fiber membranes with antifouling NF-like selective
layer, J. Membr. Sci. 394–395 (2012) 80–88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2011.12.026.
[154] P. Sukitpaneenit, T.S. Chung, High performance thin-film composite forward osmo-
sis hollow fiber membranes with macrovoid-free and highly porous structure for
sustainable water production, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 7358–7365,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301559z.
[155] N. Ma, J. Wei, R. Liao, C.Y. Tang, Zeolite-polyamide thin film nanocomposite
membranes: towards enhanced performance for forward osmosis, J.
Membr. Sci. 405–406 (2012) 149–157, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.
2012.03.002.
[156] S. Qi, C.Q. Qiu, Y. Zhao, C.Y. Tang, Double-skinned forward osmosis membranes based
on layer-by-layer assembly-FO performance and fouling behavior, J. Membr. Sci.
405–406 (2012) 20–29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.02.032.
[157] C. Qiu, L. Setiawan, R. Wang, C.Y. Tang, A.G. Fane, High performance flat sheet
forward osmosis membrane with an NF-like selective layer on a woven fabric em-
bedded substrate, Desalination 287 (2012) 266–270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2011.06.047.
[158] Y. Wang, R. Ou, Q. Ge, H. Wang, T. Xu, Preparation of polyethersulfone/carbon
nanotube substrate for high-performance forward osmosis membrane, Desalination
330 (2013) 70–78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.09.028.
[159] M. Amini, M. Jahanshahi, A. Rahimpour, Synthesis of novel thin film nanocompos-
ite (TFN) forward osmosis membranes using functionalized multi-walled carbon
nanotubes, J. Membr. Sci. 435 (2013) 233–241, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2013.01.041.
[160] F.J. Fu, S. Zhang, S.P. Sun, K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, POSS-containing delamination-free
dual-layer hollow fiber membranes for forward osmosis and osmotic power gener-
ation, J. Membr. Sci. 443 (2013) 144–155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.
2013.04.050.
[161] Y.H. Cho, J. Han, S. Han, M.D. Guiver, H.B. Park, Polyamide thin-film composite
membranes based on carboxylated polysulfone microporous support membranes
for forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 445 (2013) 220–227, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2013.06.003.
[162] K. Goh, L. Setiawan, L. Wei, W. Jiang, R. Wang, Y. Chen, Fabrication of novel func-
tionalized multi-walled carbon nanotube immobilized hollow fiber membranes
for enhanced performance in forward osmosis process, J. Membr. Sci. 446 (2013)
244–254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.06.022.
[163] M. Tian, C. Qiu, Y. Liao, S. Wei, R. Wang, Preparation of polyamide thin film com-
posite forward osmosis membranes using electrospun polyvinylidene fluoride
(PVDF) nanofibers as substrates, Sep. Purif. Technol. 118 (2013) 727–736, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.08.021.
[164] N. Widjojo, T.S. Chung, M. Weber, C. Maletzko, V. Warzelhan, A sulfonated
polyphenylenesulfone (sPPSU) as the supporting substrate in thin film composite
(TFC) membranes with enhanced performance for forward osmosis (FO), Chem.
Eng. J. 220 (2013) 15–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.01.007.
[165] S. You, C. Tang, C. Yu, X. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Han, et al., Forward osmosis with a novel
thin-film inorganic membrane, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 8733–8742, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401555x.
[166] A. Saraf, K. Johnson, M.L. Lind, Poly(vinyl) alcohol coating of the support layer of
reverse osmosis membranes to enhance performance in forward osmosis, Desali-
nation 333 (2014) 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.11.024.
[167] J.M.C. Puguan, H.S. Kim, K.J. Lee, H. Kim, Low internal concentration polarization in
forward osmosis membranes with hydrophilic crosslinked PVA nanofibers as po-
rous support layer, Desalination 336 (2014) 24–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2013.12.031.
[168] J.T. Arena, S.S. Manickam, K.K. Reimund, B.D. Freeman, J.R. McCutcheon, Solute and
water transport in forward osmosis using polydopamine modified thin film com-
posite membranes, Desalination 343 (2014) 8–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2014.01.009.
[169] Q. Jia, H. Han, L. Wang, B. Liu, H. Yang, J. Shen, Effects of CTAC micelles on the mo-
lecular structures and separation performance of thin-film composite (TFC) mem-
branes in forward osmosis processes, Desalination 340 (2014) 30–41, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.02.017.
[170] N. Niksefat, M. Jahanshahi, A. Rahimpour, The effect of SiO2 nanoparticles on morphol-
ogy and performance of thin film composite membranes for forward osmosis applica-
tion, Desalination 343 (2014) 140–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.03.031.
[171] L. Luo, P. Wang, S. Zhang, G. Han, T.S. Chung, Novel thin-film composite tri-bore
hollow fiber membrane fabrication for forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 461
(2014) 28–38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.03.007.
[172] D. Emadzadeh, W.J. Lau, T. Matsuura, M. Rahbari-Sisakht, A.F. Ismail, A novel thin
film composite forward osmosis membrane prepared from PSf-TiO2 nanocompos-
ite substrate for water desalination, Chem. Eng. J. 237 (2014) 70–80, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.081.
[173] Z. Zhou, J.Y. Lee, T.S. Chung, Thin film composite forward-osmosis membranes with
enhanced internal osmotic pressure for internal concentration polarization reduction,
Chem. Eng. J. 249 (2014) 236–245, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.03.049.
[174] X. Liu, H.Y. Ng, Fabrication of layered silica–polysulfone mixed matrix substrate mem-
brane for enhancing performance of thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane,
J. Membr. Sci. 481 (2015) 148–163, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.02.012.
[175] G. Zhang, H. Yan, S. Ji, Z. Liu, Self-assembly of polyelectrolyte multilayer
pervaporation membranes by a dynamic layer-by-layer technique on a hydrolyzed
polyacrylonitrile ultrafiltration membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 292 (2007) 1–8, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.11.023.
[176] S. Lee, C. Boo, M. Elimelech, S. Hong, Comparison of fouling behavior in forward os-
mosis (FO) and reverse osmosis (RO), J. Membr. Sci. 365 (2010) 34–39, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.036.
[177] D.L. Shaffer, J.R. Werber, H. Jaramillo, S. Lin, M. Elimelech, Forward osmosis: where
are we now? Desalination 356 (2015) 271–284, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.
2014.10.031.
 M. Qasim et al. / Desalination 374 (2015) 47–69
[178] W. Guo, H.H. Ngo, J. Li, A mini-review on membrane fouling, Bioresour. Technol.
122 (2012) 27–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.04.089.
[179] B. Mi, M. Elimelech, Chemical and physical aspects of organic fouling of forward os-
mosis membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 320 (2008) 292–302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
memsci.2008.04.036.
[180] M.I. Baoxia, M. Elimelech, Gypsum scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis: mea-
surements and mechanisms, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 2022–2028, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903623r.
[181] B. Mi, M. Elimelech, Organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes: fouling re-
versibility and cleaning without chemical reagents, J. Membr. Sci. 348 (2010)
337–345, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.11.021.
[182] Y. Kim, M. Elimelech, H.K. Shon, S. Hong, Combined organic and colloidal fouling in
forward osmosis: fouling reversibility and the role of applied pressure, J. Membr.
Sci. 460 (2014) 206–212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.02.038.
[183] Y. Chun, F. Zaviska, E. Cornelissen, L. Zou, A case study of fouling development and
flux reversibility of treating actual lake water by forward osmosis process, Desali-
nation 357 (2015) 55–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.11.009.
[184] Y. Wang, F. Wicaksana, C.Y. Tang, A.G. Fane, Direct microscopic observation of for-
ward osmosis membrane fouling, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010) 7102–7109,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es101966m.
[185] S. Zhao, L. Zou, D. Mulcahy, Effects of membrane orientation on process perfor-
mance in forward osmosis applications, J. Membr. Sci. 382 (2011) 308–315,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2011.08.020.
[186] S. Zou, Y.N. Wang, F. Wicaksana, T. Aung, P.C.Y. Wong, A.G. Fane, et al., Direct mi-
croscopic observation of forward osmosis membrane fouling by microalgae: criti-
cal flux and the role of operational conditions, J. Membr. Sci. 436 (2013)
174–185, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.02.030.
[187] Z.Y. Li, V. Yangali-Quintanilla, R. Valladares-Linares, Q. Li, T. Zhan, G. Amy, Flux pat-
terns and membrane fouling propensity during desalination of seawater by for-
ward osmosis, Water Res. 46 (2012) 195–204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.
2011.10.051.
[188] S. Zhao, L. Zou, Effects of working temperature on separation performance, mem-
brane scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis desalination, Desalination 278
(2011) 157–164, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.05.018.
[189] Y. Kim, S. Lee, H.K. Shon, S. Hong, Organic fouling mechanisms in forward osmosis
membrane process under elevated feed and draw solution temperatures, Desalina-
tion 355 (2015) 169–177, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.041.
[190] V. Parida, H.Y. Ng, Forward osmosis organic fouling: effects of organic loading, cal-
cium and membrane orientation, Desalination 312 (2013) 88–98, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.04.029.
[191] M. Park, J. Lee, C. Boo, S. Hong, S.A. Snyder, J.H. Kim, Modeling of colloidal fouling in
forward osmosis membrane: effects of reverse draw solution permeation, Desali-
nation 314 (2013) 115–123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.01.009.
[192] M.M. Motsa, B.B. Mamba, A. D'Haese, E.M.V. Hoek, A.R.D. Verliefde, Organic fouling
in forward osmosis membranes: the role of feed solution chemistry and mem-
brane structural properties, J. Membr. Sci. 460 (2014) 99–109, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2014.02.035.
[193] J. Lee, B. Kim, S. Hong, Fouling distribution in forward osmosis membrane process,
J. Environ. Sci. (China) 26 (2014) 1348–1354, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1001-
0742(13)60610-5.
[194] C. Boo, M. Elimelech, S. Hong, Fouling control in a forward osmosis process inte-
grating seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation, J. Membr. Sci. 444
(2013) 148–156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.05.004.
[195] S. Romero-Vargas Castrillón, X. Lu, D.L. Shaffer, M. Elimelech, Amine enrichment
and poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) surface modification of thin-film composite for-
ward osmosis membranes for organic fouling control, J. Membr. Sci. 450 (2014)
331–339, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.09.028.
[196] M. Ben-Sasson, X. Lu, E. Bar-Zeev, K.R. Zodrow, S. Nejati, G. Qi, et al., In situ forma-
tion of silver nanoparticles on thin-film composite reverse osmosis membranes for
biofouling mitigation, Water Res. 62 (2014) 260–270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2014.05.049.
[197] X. Lu, S. Romero-Vargas Castrillón, D.L. Shaffer, J. Ma, M. Elimelech, In situ surface
chemical modification of thin-film composite forward osmosis membranes for en-
hanced organic fouling resistance, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 12219–12228,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es403179m.
[198] K.R. Zodrow, M.E. Tousley, M. Elimelech, Mitigating biofouling on thin-film com-
posite polyamide membranes using a controlled-release platform, J. Membr. Sci.
453 (2014) 84–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.10.058.
[199] D.L. Shaffer, H. Jaramillo, S.R. Castrillón, X. Lu, M. Elimelech, Post-fabrication mod-
ification of forward osmosis membranes with a poly(ethylene glycol) block copol-
ymer for improved organic fouling resistance, J. Membr. Sci. 490 (2015) 209–219,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.04.060.
[200] T. Kim, Y. Kim, C. Yun, H. Jang, W. Kim, S. Park, Systematic approach for draw solute
selection and optimal system design for forward osmosis desalination, Desalina-
tion 284 (2012) 253–260, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.09.008.
[201] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, Selection of inorganic-based draw solutions for
forward osmosis applications, J. Membr. Sci. 364 (2010) 233–241, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.010.
[202] G.W. Batchelder, Process for the demineralization of water, US Patent 3,171,799
(1965).
[203] D.N. Glew, Process for liquid recovery and solution concentration, US Patent
3,216,930 (1965).
[204] B.S. Frank, Desalination of sea water, US Patent 3,670,897 (1972).
[205] R.E. Kravath, J.A. Davis, Desalination of seawater by direct osmosis, Desalination 16
(1975) 151–155.
69
[206] J.O. Kessler, C.D. Moody, Drinking water from sea water by forward osmosis,
Desalination 18 (1976) 297–306.
[207] K. Stache, Apparatus for transforming seawater, brackish water, polluted water
or the like into a nutrious drink by means of osmosis, US Patent 4,879,030
(1989).
[208] J. Yaeli, Method and apparatus for processing liquid solutions of suspensions
particularly useful in the desalination of saline water, US Patent 5,098,575
(1992).
[209] R.L. McGinnis, Osmotic desalination process, US Patent 6,391,205 B1 (2002).
[210] S. Adham, J. Oppenheimer, L. Liu, M. Kumar, Dewatering reverse osmosis concen-
trate from water reuse using forward osmosis, Water Reuse Foundation Research
Report 2007, pp. 1–52 (Product No. 05-009-01).
[211] S.K. Yen, F. Mehnas, N. Haja, M. Su, K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, Study of draw solutes
using 2-methylimidazole-based compounds in forward osmosis, J. Membr. Sci.
364 (2010) 242–252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2010.08.021.
[212] Q. Ge, J. Su, T.-S. Chung, G. Amy, Hydrophilic superparamagnetic nanoparticles:
synthesis, characterization, and performance in forward osmosis processes, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (2011) 382–388, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie101013w.
[213] M.M. Ling, K.Y. Wang, T.S. Chung, Highly water-soluble magnetic nanoparticles as
novel draw solutes in forward osmosis for water reuse, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49
(2010) 5869–5876, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie100438x.
[214] D. Li, X. Zhang, J. Yao, G.P. Simon, H. Wang, Stimuli-responsive polymer hydrogels
as a new class of draw agent for forward osmosis desalination, Chem. Commun.
(Camb.) 47 (2011) 1710–1712, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c0cc04701e.
[215] D. Li, X. Zhang, J. Yao, Y. Zeng, G.P. Simon, H. Wang, Composite polymer hydrogels
as draw agents in forward osmosis and solar dewatering, Soft Matter 7 (2011)
10048, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c1sm06043k.
[216] M.M. Ling, T.S. Chung, Desalination process using super hydrophilic nanoparticles
via forward osmosis integrated with ultrafiltration regeneration, Desalination
278 (2011) 194–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.05.019.
[217] Q. Ge, J. Su, G.L. Amy, T.S. Chung, Exploration of polyelectrolytes as draw solutes in
forward osmosis processes, Water Res. 46 (2012) 1318–1326, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.watres.2011.12.043.
[218] M.M. Ling, T.S. Chung, Surface-dissociated nanoparticle draw solutions in forward
osmosis and the regeneration in an integrated electric field and nanofiltration
System, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51 (2012) 15463–15471, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
ie302331h.
[219] M.L. Stone, A.D. Wilson, M.K. Harrup, F.F. Stewart, An initial study of hexavalent
phosphazene salts as draw solutes in forward osmosis, Desalination 312 (2013)
130–136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.09.030.
[220] M.L. Stone, C. Rae, F.F. Stewart, A.D. Wilson, Switchable polarity solvents as draw
solutes for forward osmosis, Desalination 312 (2013) 124–129, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.034.
[221] R. Ou, Y. Wang, H. Wang, T. Xu, Thermo-sensitive polyelectrolytes as draw
solutions in forward osmosis process, Desalination 318 (2013) 48–55, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.03.022.
[222] Y. Cai, W. Shen, S.L. Loo, W.B. Krantz, R. Wang, A.G. Fane, et al., Towards tempera-
ture driven forward osmosis desalination using Semi-IPN hydrogels as reversible
draw agents, Water Res. 47 (2013) 3773–3781, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2013.04.034.
[223] Y. Na, S. Yang, S. Lee, Evaluation of citrate-coated magnetic nanoparticles as draw
solute for forward osmosis, Desalination 347 (2014) 34–42, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2014.04.032.
[224] D. Zhao, P. Wang, Q. Zhao, N. Chen, X. Lu, Thermoresponsive copolymer-based
draw solution for seawater desalination in a combined process of forward osmosis
and membrane distillation, Desalination 348 (2014) 26–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.desal.2014.06.009.
[225] N. Sato, Y. Sato, S. Yanase, Forward osmosis using dimethyl ether as a draw solute,
Desalination 349 (2014) 102–105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.06.028.
[226] Q. Ge, F. Fu, T.S. Chung, Ferric and cobaltous hydroacid complexes for forward os-
mosis (FO) processes, Water Res. 58 (2014) 230–238, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2014.03.024.
[227] H. Zhang, J. Li, H. Cui, H. Li, F. Yang, Forward osmosis using electric-responsive
polymer hydrogels as draw agents: Influence of freezing–thawing cycles, voltage,
feed solutions on process performance, Chem. Eng. J. 259 (2015) 814–819,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.08.065.
[228] D. Zhao, S. Chen, P. Wang, Q. Zhao, X. Lu, A dendrimer-based forward osmosis draw
solute for seawater desalination, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53 (2014) 16170–16175,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie5031997.
[229] E. Tian, C. Hu, Y. Qin, Y. Ren, X. Wang, X. Wang, P. Xiao, X. Yang, A study of poly (so-
dium 4-styrenesulfonate) as draw solute in forward osmosis, Desalination 360
(2015) 130–137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.01.001.
[230] Y. Hartanto, S. Yun, B. Jin, S. Dai, Functionalized thermo-responsive microgels for
high performance forward osmosis desalination, Water Res. 70 (2015) 385–393,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.12.023.
[231] R.K. McGovern, J.H. Lienhard V, On the potential of forward osmosis to energetical-
ly outperform reverse osmosis desalination, J. Membr. Sci. 469 (2014) 245–250,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.05.061.
[232] Y. Kim, J.H. Lee, Y.C. Kim, K.H. Lee, I.S. Park, S.-J. Park, Operation and simulation of
pilot-scale forward osmosis desalination with ammonium bicarbonate, Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 94 (2015) 390–395, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.08.015.
[233] N. Akther, A. Sodiq, A. Giwa, S. Daer, H.A. Arafat, S.W. Hasan, Recent advancements
in forward osmosis desalination: a review, Chem. Eng. J. 281 (2015) 502–522,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.080.