See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223573542

Osmotic distillation of oily feeds

Article  in  Journal of Membrane Science · February 1999

DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(98)00252-X

CITATIONS READS
36 303

2 authors:

Jaleh Mansouri A.G. Fane

UNSW Sydney UNSW Sydney
50 PUBLICATIONS   1,940 CITATIONS    668 PUBLICATIONS   32,937 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

modification of membranes View project

UNSW & NTU Singapore View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaleh Mansouri on 10 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120

Osmotic distillation of oily feeds

J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane*
UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

Received 15 May 1998; accepted 10 August 1998

Abstract

This paper describes the development of modi®ed hydrophobic membranes for osmotic distillation (OD) which are tolerant
to oily feeds. Three commercial membranes were chosen as substrates including the Celgard 2500, Millipore GVSP and the
UPVP. The focus has been on using PVA coatings which were found to have an insigni®cant effect on ¯ux.
For concentrated sucrose solutions, ¯ux was reduced signi®cantly by viscosity-related concentration polarisation effects.
The presence of the coating did not increase this effect, suggesting that the ¯ux limitation mostly occurred adjacent to the
feed-side of the laminate and not within the top-layer or inside the pores.
The laminate membrane is a necessity for oily feeds since the uncoated membranes were promptly wetted out even for low
concentration of oil (limonene) dispersion in water. The laminate membranes were all stable in oil emulsions when tested for
periods up to 24 h; i.e. the membranes did not wet out during ¯ux measurement and no visual damage nor coating detachment
was observed for laminates. These observations con®rm the ef®cacy of having coated membranes for OD of oily feeds.
# 1999 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Osmotic distillation; Polyvinylalcohol; Concentration polarisation; Oily feeds

1. Introduction The difference between OD and membrane distilla-

Temperature-driven transport of water in the vapour
phase through microporous hydrophobic membranes
was initially developed in the 1960s and since then has
been the subject of many studies [1±6]. The process is
called ``membrane distillation''. More recently a
development of this process called osmotic distillation
(OD), also known as isothermal membrane distilla-
tion, has been introduced [7±13]. In this paper we use
the former term.
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-385-4315; fax: +61-2-385-
5966; e-mail: a.fane@unsw.edu.au
tion (MD) is that in MD the physical origin of the
vapour pressure difference is temperature gradient,
whereas in OD the physical origin is composition
difference. OD is a process in which two aqueous
solutions (feed and brine) with different vapour pres-
sures are separated by a microporous hydrophobic
membrane; the pores of the membrane are not wetted
and allow vapour transport. The process is depicted in
Fig. 1. Transport by OD involves three stages:
1. evaporation at the feed side of the membrane;
2. transport of the vapour through the pores of the
hydrophobic membrane;
3. condensation of the vapour at the permeate side of
the membrane.

0376-7388/99/$ ± see front matter # 1999 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0376-7388(98)00252-X
104 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
Fig. 1. Schematic presentation of OD [10].
OD is a relatively new process that is being inves-
tigated as an alternative to conventional separation
processes for product concentration in the food indus-
try. The conventional processes are thermal evapora-
tion and reverse osmosis. The former results in heat
degradation of the product while the latter is limited at
high concentrations which are dif®cult to achieve
because of the exponential increase in osmotic pres-
sure with concentration. While these problems are
largely avoided in membrane distillation, some loss
of volatile components and heat degradation may still
occur. OD, on the other hand, does not suffer from any
of the problems mentioned above when operated at
room temperature. It is therefore a convenient method
of concentration for the food and pharmaceutical
industries [10±13].
The advantages of OD compared to other separation
processes can be summarised as follows:
1. ambient operating temperature and pressure;
2. less demanding mechanical property requirements;
3. no or less degradation of heat-sensitive compo-
nents;
4. higher concentrated feed can be achieved.
OD has two limitations. Firstly, ¯uxes tend to be
low due to the low driving force. This restricts OD to
processing high value materials. The other limitation
of the process is the possibility of wetting of the
hydrophobic microporous membrane and consequent
loss of ¯ux and separation performance.
OD membrane material should be water repellent so
liquid water cannot enter the membrane pores. Mate-
rials precipitating or adhering to the membrane sur-
face may change the nature of the membrane from
hydrophobic to hydrophilic. Wetting places some
restrictions on the operating cycle of the process, like
fouling in other membrane processes. In order to
prevent wetting of the porous membrane layer by
organic materials present in different feeds (e.g. oil
in orange and grape juice) it is necessary to modify the
feed side surface properties of the membrane.
The main goal of the present research is the mod-
i®cation of OD membranes to adapt them to proces-
sing oil containing feeds. The approach in this work
was to prepare laminate membranes by coating the
feed side of the membrane with a thin layer of a
hydrophilic polymer. Two polymers have been
selected for the preparation of the top-layer: polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) and polyhydroxy 2-ethyl methacrylate
(PHEMA).
Poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVA) hydrogel polymers have
been widely used in the membrane ®eld [14±16].
Pritchard [17] and Finch [18] described the chemi-
cal/physical properties and applications of PVA in
some detail. PVA is an intrinsically water-soluble
polymer which when crosslinked can form hydrogels
with high water content to permit free penetration of
water and water soluble solutes. PVA hydrogel is a
good candidate for membrane preparation because it is
highly hydrophilic, easily processable, has low fouling
potential [19], exhibits high mechanical stability, and
is non-toxic so that it can be used in fruit juice
concentration which is currently the main application
of the OD process. Table 1 summarises the cross-
linking methods published in the literature for differ-
ent membrane applications.
PHEMA polymer, which has been used previously
in membrane modi®cation [20], has also been exam-
ined as a hydrophilic top-layer and since there is no
need for crosslinking and heat treatment the prepara-
tion procedure was expected to be less complicated
and less time-consuming.
Table 1
Applications of PVA membranes [14]
Cross linking agent Applications
Formaldehyde RO
Glutaraldehyde RO
Oxalic acid/boric acid RO
Heat treatment RO
Electron-bean radiation GS
Maleic acid PV
RO: Reverse osmosis; GS: gas separation; PV: pervaporation.
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
In this study the performance of the laminate mem-
branes was compared with the uncoated substrates.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Membranes
According to the models which are usually adopted
for membrane distillation and OD (Knudsen and
molecular diffusion) the permeability of the mem-
brane is directly proportional to the porosity, and is
inversely proportional to the membrane thickness.
Therefore, suitable membranes for OD should be thin
and have high porosity.
Three commercial hydrophobic membranes includ-
ing Celgard 2500 (PP/PE, Hoechst Celanese), Dura-
pore GVSP (PVDF, Millipore) and UPVP
(UHMWPE, Millipore) were used as substrate mem-
branes in ¯at sheet form. These membranes are por-
ous, hydrophobic and industrially used in ®ltration
processes; the principal characteristics are sum-
marised in Table 2.
2.1.2. Chemicals
MilliQ water was used in all experiments. PVA
(Aldrich Chemical) was a 99‡% hydrolysed powder
with an average molecular weight of (85±146k).
PHEMA (Mw: 300k) was from Aldrich. Maleic acid
(BDH) and glutaraldehyde (Ajax Chemicals, 25 wt%
aqueous solution, extra pure grade) were used as
crosslinkers. Other chemicals including sucrose, cal-
cium chloride, ethanol, acetone, hydrochloric acid,
acetic acid, sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide were
all analytical grade. All chemicals were used without
any further puri®cation.
Table 2
Substrate membrane specifications
Type Polymer
Celgard 2500 Polypropylene(PP/PE)
GVSP Surface modified polyvinylidene fluoride(PVDF)
UPVP Ultra high MW polyethylene(UHMWPE)
a
Manufacturers specifications.
b
Measured by micrometer.
105
2.2. Laminate membrane formation
2.2.1. PVA coating
2.2.1.1. Maleic acid (MA) as crosslinker. PVA was
crosslinked either by maleic acid or glutaraldehyde. In
the case of maleic acid the crosslinker was added to a
polymer solution and the mixture was stirred at 968C
until a clear solution was obtained. The deaerated
solution was coated on the surface of the substrate
membrane either by casting with a Gardner knife
(20 mm) or dip coating at a drawing speed of
17 mm minÿ1. Successful lamination required
pretreatment of the substrate with chromic acid
solution. The laminate membrane was heat treated
at a specific temperature (1458C for 20 min or 95±
988C for 90 min).
2.2.1.2. Glutaraldehyde (GA) as crosslinker.
Different approaches were examined for preparation
of PVA hydrogel crosslinked with glutaraldehyde.
Initially a Celgard/PVA laminate was attempted using
non-aqueous (e.g. acetone) solution of crosslinker and
addition of catalyst (e.g. sulphuric acid and HCl) in
order to prepare the laminate without heat treatment.
This was not successful because the coating solution
penetrated the membranes.
An alternative approach used aqueous solutions of
PVA and the preparation of laminates by a one or two-
step method, as described below.
2.2.1.3. Two-step method. PVA solution was cast onto
the pretreated membrane and after drying the laminate
it was soaked in a 50 vol% solution of GA for 120 min.
The equivalent water content (EWC) for the hydrogel
after drying (Stage 2, Fig. 3) was 50.341.98, the
water and GA uptake (at the end of Stage 6, Fig. 3)
Nominal pore Porosity Thickness
diameter (mm)a (%)a (mm)b
0.05 45 28
0.2 80 108
0.2 80 90
106 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
was 53.650.21 and the EWC for the X-linked
laminate was 41.250.19.
2.2.1.4. One-step method. In the one-step approach a
mixture of GA, catalyst (sulfuric acid, hydrochloric
acid) and quencher (methanol) was added to the PVA
solution and the hydrogel was cast onto the substrate
membrane. The amount of glutaraldehyde was varied
so that membranes could be prepared with initial
(nominal) crosslinking ratio, Xr, from 0.0025 to
0.01 moles of glutaraldehyde per mole of PVA
repeating unit. These solutions were then cast onto
the Celgard membrane and kept at room temperature
(258C) to dry (20 h).
These hydrogels showed the tendency for gel for-
mation after a few days storage at ambient conditions.
In order to overcome the gel formation a small amount
of methanol as quencher and also acetic acid as buffer
were added to the solution. The addition of methanol
to the recipe postponed the gel forming to some extent
but it could not be eliminated. Thus for preparation of
the PVA/GA hydrogel the two-step approach was
considered more feasible. Figs. 2 and 3 summarise
optimum experimental protocols of laminate prepara-
tion for both cases.
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram for preparation of laminate membranes of Celgard and PVA/MA hydrogel.
2.2.2. PolyHEMA coating
2.2.2.1. Celgard membrane. PolyHEMA was exam-
ined as an alternative material for top-layer coating
of membranes. The main problem with coating of
Celgard with PHEMA was the penetration of an
ethanol solution of this polymer into the membrane
pores. In an attempt to overcome this problem water
(as non-solvent) was added to the ethanol polymer
solution. A 10 wt% polymer solution in ethanol/water
(90:10 wt%) was prepared. This solution still penetrated
theCelgardmembrane.Thisalsohappenedwhen20wt%
polymer solution was used for coating. In-creasing the
amount of water led to a more viscous solution which
could not penetrate the Celgard, but formed a dispersion
that was not suitable for film forming.
As an alternative a membrane (attached to a glass
plate) was pre-wetted by soaking in EtOH and a thick
solution of PHEMA (20 wt%) was cast on this mem-
brane. The coating was dried with a hot-air blower.
However, the coating did not look homogenous, prob-
ably due to partial wetting of the substrate. Taking
these dif®culties into consideration, the PHEMA coat-
ing was excluded as an alternative coating for Celgard
membranes.
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120 107

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram for preparation of laminate membranes of Celgard and PVA/GA hydrogel.

2.2.2.2. GVSP membrane. The GVSP membrane

could be coated with PHEMA due to its greater
hydrophobicity and surface morphology. GVSP/
PHEMA (1) was prepared as follows: the GVSP
membrane was acid treated and 12 wt% polyHEMA
solution was cast onto the membrane. Coating was
repeated three times. The laminate was left at room
temperature for three days to dry and then immersed in
water for flux measurement. For the GVSP/PHEMA
(2) laminate 20 wt% polymer solution was prepared in
a mixture of ethanol and water (90:10) and the
laminate was dried at 408C for 2 h and then soaked
in water before flux measurement. The coating
appeared homogenous and continuous. The dry
thickness of the top layer coating (measured by the
weight±area±density method) for GVSP/PHEMA(1)
was about 11 mm and for GVSP/PHEMA (2) was
about 20 mm (Fig. 4). The coating layer became
brittle when the polyHEMA content in the coating
layer was high (more than 15 wt%). Fig. 4. Cross-section of GVSP/PHEMA laminate membrane.

2.3. Characterisation methods mical stability, adhesion strength to substrate and

thickness. The laminate membranes were charac-
Coating layers were characterised for equivalent terised for water vapour permeability and resistance
water content (EWC), integrity of the coating, che- to oily feeds.
108 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Coating layer properties
3.1.1. Determination of EWC and water structure
The water absorbed by a hydrogel is quantitatively
expressed by the equilibrium water content (EWC).
This is the ratio of the weight of water in the hydrogel
to the weight of the hydrogel at equilibrium hydration,
expressed as a percentage. EWC is the most important
property of a hydrogel as this can in¯uence other
properties such as permeability, selectivity and
mechanical properties. The water present in a hydro-
gel exists in a continuum of states between two
extremes; water strongly bonded to the polymer net-
work through hydrogen bonding, bound water (Wb),
and water with a much greater degree of mobility, free
water (Wf). The water structure of the hydrogels was
estimated by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC).
EWC studies showed that PVA coatings are highly
hydrated gels. Tables 3 and 4 show typical results for
two different series of laminate membranes prepared
with maleic acid and glutaraldehyde as crosslinkers.
DSC heating curves for water-swollen samples of
PVA/GA002 and PVA/GA003 revealed the presence
of three different states of water namely free freezing
water (Wf, unbound water in the polymer having
transition temperature and enthalpy similar to those
of pure water), freezing bound water (Wfb , intermedi-
ate water having a phase transition temperature lower
than 08C) and nonfreezing water or bound water (Wb,
water with no phase transition). For PVA/GA001
which has the lowest amount of crosslinker only free
and nonfreezing waters were detected (Table 4).
It can be seen that increasing the crosslinker ratio
reduces the water content, although the effect is not
very signi®cant. Table 4 also shows the amount of free
and nonfreezing water per gram of the hydrogel. As
can be seen free water content drops from 0.33 to 0.20
with increasing the crosslink ratio from 0.0025 to 0.01.
3.1.2. Determination of the laminate structure
The cross-section and surface morphology of the
laminate membranes were observed with FESEM
(®eld emission electron microscopy) (Figs. 5 and
6). Fig. 5 shows the SEM of GVSP membrane which
is deliberately half-coated with PVA. As can be seen
the top-layer hydrogel is homogenous and free of
artefacts. Fig. 6 shows the cross-section for the
GVSP/PVA laminate membrane. No penetration of
coating layer into the pores of the membrane was
observed.

Table 3
EWC for PVA hydrogels crosslinked with maleic acid

PVA hydrogel PVA (wt%) MA (wt%) Xra Viscosityb(Pa s) EWC (wt%)

PVA/MA(1) 9 1.8 0.076 0.072 691.5

PVA/MA(2) 8 2 0.095 0.123 670.9
PVA/MA(3) 8 3.5 0.118 0.330 641.9
a
Nominal crosslink ratio, described as: mole of maleic acid/mole of monomeric unit of PVA.
b
Viscosity measured by Haake VT500, using MV1 and NV sensors.

Table 4
EWC and water structure for PVA hydrogel crosslinked with glutaraldehyde

PVA hydrogela Xr EWC (wt%) Wf‡Wfb (wt%) Wb (wt%) Wf per 1 g of Wb per 1 g of

polymer (g gÿ1) polymer (g gÿ1)

PVA/GA001 0.0025 77.8 43.420.58b 56.580.58 0.33 0.44

PVA/GA002 0.005 73.0 35.962.04 64.042.04 0.26 0.47
PVA/GA003 0.010 71.3 27.862.30 72.142.3 0.20 0.51
PVA/GA(1) ± 73.2 40.278.50b 59.728.5 0.29 0.44
a
Different amounts of GA (2 wt%) were added to the same amount of PVA (5 wt%) in the preparation of these laminates.
b
No freezing bound water was detected for these samples.
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
Fig. 5. Surface morphology of GVSP/PVA laminate membrane.
Fig. 6. Cross-section of GVSP/PVA laminate membrane.
3.1.3. Determination of adhesion strength
T-peel strength was measured according to ASTM
D1876-93 for GVSP/hydrogel membranes to ®nd out
the effect of membrane pre-treatment on adhesion
strength between coating and substrate. It was found
that for acid etched membranes the peeling strength is
almost four times that of the untreated one, indicating
109
Table 5
T-peel strength of GVSP/PVA composite
Laminate Peel strength (lb inÿ1)
GVSP/PVA(1) 0.21350.0455
GVSP/PVA(2) 0.13020.0950
GVSP/PVA(3)a 0.04810.0042
a
Not pretreated by acid etch.
the improving effect of pre-treatment of the mem-
branes (Table 5). For the Celgard membrane it was not
possible to get reproducible results, mainly due to the
thinness of the substrate and limitations implied by the
equipment.
3.1.4. Determination of the thickness of coating
Wet thicknesses of the top-layer for laminate mem-
branes were obtained using dry thickness (obtained by
the weight±area±density method) and taking into
account the water content of the hydrogel. For some
samples the SEM was also used to measure the dry
thickness which varied in the range 2±15 mm depend-
ing on the type of hydrogel, crosslinker and coating
method. The wet thicknesses were in the range 3±
25 microns depending on the water content of the
hydrogel.
3.1.5. Determination of integrity of coating
For Celgard and UPVP membranes the integrity of
the coating was examined using a mixture of wetting
agent and dye. To a 1 wt% solution of Triton X-100 a
small amount of water soluble dye (neutral red) was
added. The coated surface of a small piece of mem-
brane was swabbed with this solution. The back side of
membrane was examined for the presence of colour
spots. The substrates could be easily wetted out with
surface active solution. However, for coated mem-
branes no penetration of wetting agent to the back side
of membranes was observed, indicating the integrity
of the top-layer.
3.1.6. Determination of chemical stability of coating
Laminate membranes should have adequate toler-
ance to chemical materials which are usually used for
cleaning the membranes in the OD process. In order to
evaluate this for laminate membranes Celgard mem-
branes coated with different types of PVA hydrogel
were examined for chemical stability against an alka-
110 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
line solution. A piece of laminate membrane was stuck
on the bottom of a beaker and the beaker (covered with
a lid) was kept in a 508C water bath. A droplet of warm
(508C) caustic soda (0.5 wt% NaOH, pH: 14) was then
put on an area of about 1 cm2 of the coated membrane
for periods of 5±30 min. The exposed spots were
marked and the membrane was kept in an oven
(508C) until it was dry. Then the exposed areas were
brushed with oil. The absence of transparency of the
membrane at those spots were taken as an indication of
the chemical stability of the coating. Various Celgard/
PVA laminate membranes were tested for periods of 5
and 30 min. No wetting out was observed for these
laminate membranes.
3.2. Performance of membranes
3.2.1. Permeation rate of laminate membranes
3.2.1.1. Experimental setup. The water permeability
of membranes was measured using a two
compartment cell. The experimental setup was
similar to that used by Godino et al. [21] and is
illustrated in Fig. 7. The central part of the
experimental device is a cell, which consists of two
symmetric cylindrical semicells of 7.6 cm length and
3.6 cm in diameter separated by the membrane. The
membrane surface area exposed to the solution was
Fig. 7. Experimental setup for OD permeation rate measurement.
10.2 cm2. The effective volume of each chamber was
74 ml.
In order to ensure uniformity of temperatures and
concentrations in each chamber, the solutions were
stirred. The stirrer in each chamber was composed of a
Te¯on-coated magnetic bar and a blade which was
mounted on a polypropylene shaft and held in the
chamber by means of a plastic bracket to the Perspex
wall. The stirring speed was adjusted to 475 rpm using
a stroboscope. Experiments were carried out in an air-
conditioned room (258C) and all solutions were stored
in a water bath maintained at 258C prior to use. The
cell was also kept in a water bath maintained at
2518C.
The feed chamber was ®lled with water, sucrose
solutions and oil-containing feeds and the brine cham-
ber with calcium chloride solution. The brine chamber
was connected to a pipette and the feed chamber to a
feed reservoir. Both pipette and reservoir were posi-
tioned at the same level in order to ensure the absence
of hydrostatic pressure difference across the mem-
brane. The level of the brine in the pipette and the mass
of feed in the reservoir were recorded every 5 or
10 min and ¯ux was calculated from the slope of
the weight decrease (or brine volume increase) over
the steady region versus time. Flux was normalised to
water vapour pressure difference between feed and
brine.
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
3.2.1.2. Feed solutions. Pure water, different
concentrations of sucrose solutions (40, 55, 60, 65,
and 68 wt%), concentrated feed (Gordo grape juice,
688 Brix i.e. ca. 68 wt% sucrose) and different oil
(limonene) dispersions (0.2, 0.5 and 1 wt% in water
and in sucrose solution) were used as feed. Sucrose
solutions were chosen for experimentation because
they behave similarly to fruit juices. The physical
properties of sucrose (vapour pressure, viscosity and
diffusivity) vary significantly with concentration.
Variation of viscosity at 258C is shown in Fig. 10
[22].
Vapour pressure is expressed by the following
equation [23]:
log …Pv =Pvsat † ˆ log …Xw † ÿ 2:6X 2 ;
where X is the mole fraction of sucrose in the feed, Xw
the mole fraction of water, Pv the vapour pressure and
Pvsat is the saturated vapour pressure.
3.2.1.3. Strip solutions. The main criteria for choice
of brine are that it does not wet the membrane, it is
non-volatile, the vapour pressure is below that of the
feed and it is relatively cheap. Considering these
requirements calcium chloride (24.5 and 36 wt%
CaCl2) was chosen as the strip solution in this
work. The physical properties (such as viscosity) of
this salt are much less sensitive to concentration than
those of sucrose solutions.
3.2.2. Normalised flux for pure water
Results for pure water and 24.5 wt% brine
(
Pvˆ649 Pa) for the uncoated membranes showed
that the normalised ¯ux for the UPVP membrane
Table 6
Normalised flux for different substrates
Membrane Feed (wt%)/ Flux (kg mÿ2 hÿ1) measured from
brine (wt%)
Brine side
Celgard 0/24.5 0.7960.008
GVSP 0/24.5 0.9230.002
UPVP 0/24.5 1.4670.003
Celgard/PVA(1)a 0/24.5 0.8810.004
GVSP/PVA(1) 0/24.5 0.8720.006
UPVP/PVA(1) 0/24.5 1.2920.085
a
10 wt% PVA ‡2 wt% maleic acid.
111
is the highest and the Celgard is the lowest (Table 6).
These results which identify the obtainable ¯ux
for a given driving force for different membranes
are predictable according to the structure of these
membranes. Celgard has the lowest porosity and
pore diameter and the UPVP membrane has the
same porosity and pore diameter as GVSP with less
thickness (see Table 2). For laminate membranes
when ¯ux is normalised to vapour pressure differ-
ence, the Celgard has a comparable ¯ux to the
GVSP laminates (within experimental error the
laminates have similar ¯uxes to the substrates) but
signi®cantly less than the UPVP laminate membrane
(Table 6).
(1)
3.2.3. Discrepancy between feed and brine flux
There is a trend that the ¯ux from the feed side is
higher than that from the brine side. This difference is
generally higher for concentrated feeds (Fig. 8). Esti-
mates of the volume reduction on mixing could not
explain the difference. Errors due to entrapped bub-
bles were suspected but no gas bubbles were observed
and the use of deaerated water had no effect. Other
attempts were made to reduce or eliminate this dif-
ference by more precise control of the temperature of
solutions prior to and during the experiments. The fact
that the difference is more in the case of concentrated
feeds suggests that this discrepancy could be related to
non-uniformity in temperature or concentration due to
inadequate mixing which is unavoidable in the present
cell. Comparisons between membranes in this paper
are based on brine-side ¯ux data; the feed and brine
¯ux discrepancies do not effect the overall conclu-
sions.
Normalised flux (kg mÿ2 hÿ1 kPaÿ1)
measured from
Feed side Brine side Feed side
0.8600.012 1.226 1.325
0.9030.009 1.422 1.391
1.5870.064 2.253 2.347
0.9030.005 1.357 1.391
0.8660.018 1.344 1.334
1.2140.015 2.369 2.393
112 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
Fig. 8. Ratio of feed flux to brine flux for different feeds (water, sucrose solutions and oil emulsions (ones designated by %)) using Celgard
and Celgard laminate membranes.
3.2.4. Concentrated feed
Different concentrations of sucrose solution (55±
68 wt%) and one concentrated feed (Gordo grape
juice, 688 Brix, i.e. ca. 68 wt% sucrose) were used
as feed. In these experiments the brine concentration
was 36 wt%.
1. It was found that by increasing the sucrose content
of the feed, normalised ¯ux has been reduced signi-
®cantly (Fig. 9). For UPVP substrate this reduc-
tion is about 20% for 55 wt% sucrose solution.
When the feed is 65 wt% the sucrose solution ¯ux
reduced by up to 90% for uncoated substrate and
by up to 60% for the laminate membrane. These
observations indicate that there is solute polarisa-
tion at these sucrose concentrations, which may be
linked to viscosity effects (see below).
Fig. 9. Normalised flux (brine side) for different Celgard laminate
membranes and UPVP membranes.
2. The presence of the coating did not enhance this
polarisation effect, suggesting that the polarisation
has occurred adjacent to the feed-side of the lami-
nate and not within the top-layer or inside the
pores.
3. Celgard data show a wider spread of normalised
fluxes compared to the UPVP membranes, parti-
cularly at 0 wt% sucrose (Fig. 9). Similar to results
obtained for UPVP membranes, it was found that
by increasing the sucrose content of the feed, flux
has been reduced significantly for Celgard mem-
branes. This reduction is about 20% for 55 wt%
sucrose solution and up to 90% for 68 wt% sucrose
solution. The reduction in flux for 60 and 65 wt%
sucrose solutions is marginally less than those for
UPVP. Celgard has a smoother surface morphology
and probably the risk of local polarisation at these
concentrations is less for this membrane compared
to UPVP.
4. As can be seen at concentrations below 40 wt% the
normalised flux varies almost proportionally to the
membrane permeability, indicating that the process
is controlled by the membrane. The flux for the
more permeable membrane (UPVP) is therefore
higher. At higher concentration (55±68 wt%) the
characteristics of the feed-side dominate, and there
is no advantage in using a more permeable mem-
brane without improving the hydrodynamic con-
ditions.
The feed concentration of around 40 wt% is
representative of the beginning of the transition
from a membrane limited process to a feed-limited
process. This onset concentration is expected to be
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
Fig. 10. Normalised flux (brine side) and bulk viscosity of sucrose (at 258C) versus sugar concentration in the bulk feed.
improved by modification of experimental condi-
tions (e.g. temperature, hydrodynamic conditions
of flow, etc.).
5. Celgard data over the range of concentrations
suggest that the coating has only a small adverse
effect, if any, on the flux. For high concentrations
of sucrose two of the laminates (Celgard/PVA/
MA(3) and Celgard/PVAG(1)) show slightly
higher flux and lower flux decline as can be seen
in Figs. 9 and 10.
6. The fact that the coatings have very little (if any)
effect on flux shows that ``highly hydrated'' hydro-
gel coatings offer very little resistance to water
permeation relative to that offered by the micro-
porous substrate in this OD process.
7. No sugar crystals were observed at the surface of
the feed side of the membranes confirming that
there was no excessive local polarisation and
saturation at the membrane surface.
Tables 7 and 8 list the normalised ¯ux data for
Celgard and Celgard laminate membranes.
3.2.5. Viscous polarisation
Observation of the normalised ¯uxes for uncoated
and coated membranes has shown that in general
¯uxes decline as concentration of sucrose increases.
This dramatic decline in ¯uxes occurs at about the
same concentration (higher than 40 wt%) where the
viscosity of sucrose increases rapidly, as can be seen in
Fig. 10 which shows the variation of ¯ux for Celgard
113
and viscosity of sucrose [22] against the bulk sucrose
concentration in the feed.
Fig. 11 demonstrates that there is a semi-logarith-
mic correlation between normalised ¯ux of Celgard
membranes and bulk feed concentration for feed
concentrations above 40 wt%. This is similar to rela-
tionships based on the ®lm model for ultra®ltration.
An empirical relationship between ¯ux and bulk
viscosity is evident from Fig. 12, which can be
expressed in the form
Flux ˆ a ln …fb † ‡ b: (2)
The in¯uence of viscosity will be greater than that
implied in Eq. (2) due to concentration and viscosity
gradients in the boundary layer. Fig. 13 depicts the
boundary layer pro®les anticipated in OD. It is pos-
sible to estimate Cwf and hence wf from our data. In
the OD process the strip-side mass transfer resistance
is very low compared to the feed and membrane
(usually less than 1%) and is not the limiting resis-
tance. In order to make an estimation of the concen-
tration at the wall the simple membrane distillation
equation for the case of deaerated feed and assuming
Knudsen ¯ow was used [24]. Since the pores in the
Celgard membrane (0.0190.05 mm) are smaller
than the free path of the water vapour (0.18 mm)
it is reasonable to assume that the dominant resistance
is the polymer network and thus the dominant ¯ow is
Knudsen. The following is the semi-empirical equa-
tion, based on the above assumptions:
114 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120

Table 7
Normalised water flux for Celgard membranes with different feed concentrations (maleic acid as crosslinker)

Sample Membrane Feed (wt%)/
P (Pa) J Flux (kg mÿ2 hÿ1) Jn Normalised flux (kg mÿ2
brine (wt%) measured from hÿ1 kPaÿ1) measured from

Brine side Feed Side Brine side Feed Side

1 Celgard 2500 0/36 1148 1.471 1.664 1.281 1.450

40/36 1018 1.406 1.828 1.381 1.796
55/36 893 0.885 1.205 0.991 1.348
60/36 824 0.410 0.682 0.497 0.827
65/36 733 0.182 ± 0.248 ±
68/36 662 0.088 ± 0.133 ±
Concentrated-feed/36 0.123 0.212

2 Celgard/PVA/MA(1) 0/36 1148 1.541 1.882 1.342 1.639

40/36 1018 1.471 1.985 1.445 1.950
55/36 893 0.633 1.011 0.709 1.132
60/36 824 0.315 0.553 0.382 0.671
65/36 733 0.158 0.265 0.216 0.361
68/36 662 0.065 0.135 0.098 0.204
Concentrated-feed/36 0.129 0.188

3 Celgard/PVA/MA(2) 0/36 1148 1.0930.126 1.1990.101 0.952 1.044

55/36 893 0.6620.042 0.8640.029 0.741 0.967
60/36 824 0.312 0.540 0.378 0.655

4 Celgard/PVA/MA(3) 0/36 1148 1.2860.266 1.5080.256 1.120 1.313

55/36 893 0.7220.028 1.0580.076 0.809 1.185
60/36 824 0.469 0.729 0.569 0.885
65/36 733 0.180 0.253 0.246 0.345
68/36 662 0.088 0.253 0.133 0.382

Table 8
Normalised water flux for Celgard/PVA/GA membranes with different feed concentrations

Sample Membrane Feed (wt%)/
P (Pa) J Flux (kg mÿ2 hÿ1) Jn Normalised flux (kg mÿ2
brine (wt%) measured from h kPaÿ1) measured from

Brine side Feed side Brine side Feed side

1 Celgard/PVAG(1) 0/36 1148 1.647 2.046 1.435 1.782

40/36 1018 1.430 1.952 1.405 1.917
55/36 893 0.762 1.105 0.853 1.235
60/36 824 0.504 0.694 0.612 0.842
65/36 733 0.117 0.165 0.159 0.225
68/36 662 0.088 0.230 0.133 0.347

2 Celgard/PVA/GA002 0/36 1148 0.8170.032 1.1110.012 0.712 1.348

60/36 824 0.410 0.764 0.497 0.927

3 Celgard/PVA/GA003 0/36 1148 1.7140.085 1.9690.053 1.493 1.715

60/36 824 0.369 0.605 0.447 0.724
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120 115

Fig. 11. The normalised flux for sucrose solution as a function of bulk feed concentration for Celgard membranes.

Fig. 12. Normalised flux as a function of bulk viscosity of sucrose at 258C. Line shown based on Eq. (2) with aˆÿ0.272, bˆ1.548.

J ˆ C…
Pv †; (3) similar characteristics; e.g. values of 6.310ÿ7 and

where C is the membrane mass transfer coef®cient
(kg mÿ2 sÿ1 Paÿ1), J the mass ¯ux through membrane
(kg mÿ2 sÿ1), and
Pv is the water vapour pressure
drop across membrane (Pa).
Using this equation and considering the experimen-
tal data for pure water (zero feed mass resistance),
``C'' for the Celgard membrane can be calculated:
Cˆ3.5610ÿ7 kg mÿ2 sÿ1 Paÿ1.
Similar membrane coef®cients were obtained
for Celgard laminates (3.1110ÿ7 kg mÿ2 sÿ1 Paÿ1
for Celgard/PVA/MA(3) and 3.7310ÿ7 kg mÿ2 sÿ1
Paÿ1 for Celgard/PVA/MA(1)). These values are simi-
lar to the ones reported previously for membranes with
1.610ÿ6 were reported, respectively, for Durapore
0.45 mm and Enka 0.2 mm, by Scho®eld [25].
The concentration at the membrane surface, Cw for
a given feed solution, Cb can be estimated by estimat-
ing the vapour pressure at the wall using the membrane
coef®cient and experimental data for ¯ux at this
concentration:
J ˆ C‰Pvwf ÿ Pvwb Š; (4)
where Pvwf is the vapour pressure of sucrose solution at
the membrane surface, and Pvwb is the vapour pressure
of brine solution (36 wt%).
Considering the correlation between vapour pres-
sure and concentration, the sucrose concentration at
116 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120

Fig. 13. Schematic diagram of concentration, viscosity and vapour

pressure profile in OD process.

Table 9
Concentration and viscous polarisation for Celgard and Celgard/
PVA/MA(3) laminate

Cb (wt%) Celgard Celgard/PVA/MA(3)

Cw Cw/Cb w/b Cw Cw/Cb w/b

55 66.5 1.21 6.8 67 1.22 7.5

60 77 1.28 73.7 75 1.25 34.8
65 80.5 1.24 162.2 81 1.24 204.0
68 81.5 1.20 148.6 81.3 1.19 131.8

membrane surface was calculated for a range of feed

concentrations for the Celgard and the Celgard/PVA/
MA(3). The results are summarised in Table 9. It is
worth noting that in this analysis it is assumed that the
Cb and b were constant during each run of experiment
(60±180 min). In reality concentration had minor
changes (less than 1 wt%), which could cause a var-
iation of bulk viscosity of up to 50% (more signi®cant
for more concentrated feed).
Columns 3 and 6 in Table 9 give the estimated
values for concentration polarisation modulus (Cw/
Cb). It can be seen that the concentrations at the
membrane are up to 20±30% higher than the bulk
concentrations. These results also show that the con-
centration polarisation modulus (Cw/Cb) is almost
independent of the sucrose solution concentration in
the bulk feed. This is consistent with the classical
model of concentration polarisation. However, the
viscosity increase is much higher (up to 200 times)
with the highest viscous polarisation occurring at a
sucrose concentration of 65 wt% for both uncoated
Fig. 14. Normalised flux as a function of viscosity ratio for: (a)
Celgard membrane and (b) Celgard/PVA/MA(3) laminate mem-
brane.
and coated membranes. It would be expected that
viscosity effects or ``viscous polarisation'' would have
a signi®cant effect on the boundary layer mass transfer
and be the major cause of ¯ux reduction for OD of
sucrose solution.
Fig. 14 shows how normalised ¯ux varies with w/
b for the Celgard, and its laminate for feed concen-
trations in the range 55±68 wt%. As can be seen there
is evidence of a ¯ux minimum at 68 wt% sucrose
solution. This effect, which was also observed for
Celgard/PVA/MA(1), suggests that by increasing the
feed concentration from 65 to 68 wt% the viscous
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120 117

Table 10
Normalised flux for Celgard and Celgard laminate membranes for oil containing feeds

Sample Membrane Feed (wt%)/
P (Pa) J Flux (kg mÿ2 hÿ1) Jn, Normalised flux (kg mÿ2
brine (wt%) measured from hÿ1 kPa) measured from

Brine side Feed side Brine side Feed side

1 Celgard 2500 0/36 1148 1.471 1.664 1.281 1.450

40/36 1018 1.406 1.828 1.381 1.796
55/36 893 0.885 1.205 0.991 1.348
60/36 824 0.410 0.682 0.497 0.827
65/36 733 0.182 ± 0.248 ±
68/36 662 0.088 ± 0.133 ±
0.2 wt% oil/36 Membrane ±
wet out promptly

2 Celgard/PVA/MA(3) 0/36 1148 1.1820.26 1.4020.25 1.029 1.221

0.2 wt% oil/36 1.037 1.205
0.5 wt% oil/36 0.721 0.858
0/36 1148 1.148 1.470 1 1.280
1/36 1.388 1.652
0 wt% oil/36 1148 1.483 1.711 1.292 1.490

3 CE/PVAMA(1) 0/36 1148 1.240.115 1.5100.150 0.923 1.191

55/36 0.697 1.099
0.5 wt% oil in 0.633 1.088
55 wt%/36
0/36 1148 1.143 1.470 0.996 1.280
0.5 wt% oil/36 1.025 1.281
0/36 1.120 1.310
1 wt%/36 1.330 ±
0/36 1148 1.500 1.934 1.306 1.685

4 CE/PVAGA 0/36 1148 1.6050.968 1.8630.052 1.398 1.623

55/36 893 0.808 1.164 0.905 1.303
0.5 wt% oil in 0.691 0.941
55/36
0/36 1148 1.588 1.976 1.383 1.721
0.5 wt% oil/36 1.441 1.752
0/36 1148 1.459 1.793 1.271 1.561
1 wt% oil/36 1.371 1.605
0/36 1148 1.441 1.729 1.255 1.505

polarisation has been reduced. However, this reduc-
tion did not result in a more rapid mass transfer as the
normalised ¯ux is lower for 68 wt% feed.
A similar effect has been observed for ultra®ltration
of high viscosity solutions [26]. In this case ¯ux
showed a minimum with concentration for laminar
¯ow conditions. The effect was ascribed to the
increase in the shear stress in the boundary layer
leading to improved mass transfer. This phenomena
may explain our observed ¯ux minima with viscous
polarisation.
An alternative interpretation of the effect of high
concentration on normalised ¯ux is that the raised
viscosity leads to ``viscous ®ngering'' across the
membrane surface [27]. This phenomena, typically
found in two-phase ¯ow through porous media, can
lead to regions of stagnation near the membrane sur-
face. Further evidence to support this interpretation is
that OD of concentrated feed in a conventional hollow
®bre module experienced a dramatic drop in normal-
ised ¯ux (75% drop as feed increased from 60 to
70 wt%), which implies serious maldistribution due to
118 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
``viscous ®ngering''. Use of a helically-wound module
with improved ¯ow distribution overcomes this pro-
blem [28]. Similarly the Hoechst Celanese Liqui
CelTM module, which has transverse ¯ow across hol-
low ®bres, is also much less sensitive to feed con-
centrate when used for OD [13].
3.2.6. Flux for oil containing feeds
One of the aims of this work is to improve the
operation of OD membranes with oily feeds. Limo-
nene was chosen for the model solutions since this is
one of the major oil components of orange juice.
Table 10 compares the ¯uxes for oily feeds to pure
water and sucrose solutions for various coated and
uncoated membranes. 0.2, 0.5 and 1 wt% limonene
emulsions were used as candidates for oily feed; the
concentrations chosen are typical of industrial feeds.
The ¯ux for one concentration of oil in sucrose solu-
tion (0.5 wt% in 55 wt% sucrose solution) was also
measured.
The results can be summarised as follows:
1. Oily feed could only be used with laminate
membranes as the uncoated membrane was
promptly wetted out even for 0.2 wt% oil disper-
sion in water. This con®rms the importance of
having coated membranes for OD of oily feeds.
2. Laminate membranes were all stable against oil
emulsions; i.e. the membranes did not wet out
during flux measurement (no transparent spots
on the surface of membranes were observed). No
visual damage nor coating detachment was
observed for laminates. These observations con-
firm the validity of hydrogel coating as an approach
to eliminate wetting out of the Celgard membrane
for oily feeds without any significant effect on
permeability.
3. Fluxes for laminates when oil emulsions in water
were used as feed were not significantly different
(within experimental error) from ones when feed
was pure water. This suggests that the coatings are
basically free of defects.
4. For selected laminates the water flux measurement
was repeated after running the tests for oil emul-
sions. These fluxes were not significantly lower
than the initial flux (Samples 3 and 4; Table 10).
This suggests that membrane exposure to oil dis-
persion had no adverse effect on the coating layer
properties.
5. For oil dispersions of 0.2, 0.5 and 1 wt% the
experiments were continued for 24 h while the
feed in the cell and in the container was stirred
in order to maintain the dispersion concentration of
oil as uniform as possible. The laminate mem-
branes were visually examined for the presence
of any damage or transparency at specific intervals
of time. These long-term experiments were carried
out for three of the membranes prepared at opti-
mum conditions. Visual examination of mem-
branes after the experiments revealed that the
laminates remained intact with no visual damage
or any detachment from the substrate. The water
flux which was measured after this period of time
for membranes remained unchanged, confirming
the performance stability of laminate membranes.
6. Flux was measured for sucrose solution and oil in
sucrose solutions (similar to fruit juice) for some
laminates. There was only a slight reduction in flux
after the addition of oil to the sucrose solution. For
Samples 2 and 3 this reduction is 9 and 14 wt%,
respectively.
4. Conclusions
In this work the validity of PVA hydrogel as a top-
layer coating for hydrophobic membranes used in OD
to improve their resistance against oily feed has been
proved.
The tolerance of laminates was evaluated against oil
containing feeds in short and long term experiments.
For concentrations up to 1 wt% oil laminate mem-
branes remained unchanged when the experiment
continued for up to 24 h. In contrast, membranes
without the hydrogel coating were wetted out very
rapidly by the oily feed.
Due to their high water content and the small
thickness of the hydrogel, the water permeabilities
for laminate membranes in most cases were not sig-
ni®cantly lower than the ones for uncoated substrate.
This means that laminates with comparable perme-
ability and superior resistance to organic solution have
been fabricated.
We have also shown that in OD concentration and
viscous polarisation is signi®cant for feed concentra-
tions in excess of 40 wt%. This is accompanied by a
dramatic decrease in ¯ux and normalised ¯ux. The
 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120 119

main reason for this is the signi®cant increase in References

viscosity at these concentrations. Operating factors
that are expected to enhance the performance of the [1] M.E. Findley, Vaporisation through porous membranes, Ind.
process are using higher temperature than ambient (to Eng. Chem., Proc. Des. Dev. 6 (1967) 226.
[2] E. Drioli, Y. Wu, Membrane distillation: an experimental
increase the driving force, decrease the viscosity and
study, Desalination 53 (1985) 339.
to enhance the solute diffusivity) and improvement of [3] R.W. Schofield, A.G. Fane, C.J. Fell, Heat and mass transport
the cell hydrodynamic conditions in the OD module. in membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 33 (1987) 299.
Examples of this include the use of a novel helically- [4] A.C. Franken, J.A.M. Nolten, C.A. Smolders, Wetting criteria
wound hollow ®bre module [28] and a transverse ¯ow for the applicability of membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci.
hollow ®bre module [13]. 33 (1987) 315.
[5] K. Lawson, D.R. Lloyd, Membrane distillation. II. Direct
contact MD, J. Membr. Sci. 120 (1996) 123.
[6] K. Lawson, D.R. Lloyd, Membrane distillation. I. Module
5. Nomenclature design and performance evaluation using vacuum membrane
distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 120 (1996) 111.
C membrane mass transfer coefficient [7] M.S. Lefebvre, Method of performing osmotic distillation,
US Patent no. 47818137, 1988.
(kg mÿ2 sÿ1 Paÿ1) [8] M.S. Lefebvre, Osmotic distillation process and semiperme-
Cb bulk concentration able barriers thereof, US Patent no. 5098566, 4 March 1992.
Cw wall concentration [9] R.A. Johnson, R.H. Valks, M.S. Lefebvre, Osmotic distilla-
J mass flux (kg mÿ2 hÿ1) tion ± a low temperature concentration technique, Austral. J.
Jn normalised mass flux (kg mÿ2 hÿ1 Paÿ1) Biotechnol. 3 (1989) 206.
[10] W. Kunz, A. Benhabiles, R. Ben-Aim, Osmotic evaporation
X mole fraction of sucrose in the feed through microporous hydrophobic membranes: a survey of
Xw mole fraction of water current research and applications, J. Membr. Sci. 121 (1996) 25.
Wf freezing water [11] D. Thompson, The application of osmotic distillation for the
Win intermediate water wine industry, Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 328
Wb bound water (1991) 11.
[12] R.J. Durham, M.H. Nguyen, Hydrophobic membrane evalua-
tion and cleaning for osmotic distillation of tomato puree, J.
Greek letters Membr. Sci. 87 (1994) 181.
[13] P.A. Hogan, R.P. Canning, P. Peterson, R.A. Johnson, A.S.
 boundary layer thickness Michaels, A new option: osmotic distillation, Chem. Eng.

Pv water vapour pressure drop across mem- Progr. 7 (1998) 49±61.
[14] R.Y. Huang, J.W. Rhim, Modification of poly(vinyl alcohol)
brane (Pa) using maleic acid and its application to the separation of
b bulk viscosity acetic acid±water mixtures by the pervaporation technique,
w wall viscosity Polym. Int. 30 (1993) 129.
[15] R.H. Li, T.A. Barbari, Performance of PVA thin-gel
Subscripts composite ultrafiltration membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 105
(1995) 71.
[16] K. Yoshizuka, M. Ishimaru, Selective separation of flavonoids
w membrane wall with a polyvinyl alcohol membrane, J. Membr. Sci. 118
f feed (1996) 41.
b brine [17] J.G. Prichard, Poly(vinyl alcohol) Basic Properties and Uses,
Gordon and Breach, London, 1970.
[18] C.A. Finch, Poly (vinyl alcohol) Properties and Applications,
Acknowledgements Wiley, London, 1973.
[19] H. Matsuyama, M. Teramoto, H. Urano, Analysis of solute
The authors wish to thank Wingara Wine Group diffusion in poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel membrane, J.
Australia, for support. Dr. Alan Michaels is also Membr. Sci. 126 (1997) 151.
thanked for his stimulating comments and advice [20] M. Ulricht, G. Belfort, Surface modification of ultrafiltration
membranes by low temperature plasma, J. Membr. Sci. 111
during the course of this work. Initial work in this (1996) 193.
project was performed by Dr. F. Zha, who is gratefully [21] M.P. Godino, L. Pena, J.M. Ortiz De Zarate, J.I. Mengual,
acknowledged. Coupled phenomena membrane distillation and osmotic
120 J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane / Journal of Membrane Science 153 (1999) 103±120
distillation through a porous hydrophobic membrane, Sep.
Sci. Technol. 30(6) (1995) 993.
[22] R.C. Weast, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 65th ed.,
CRC press, Cleveland, OH, 1984±1985.
[23] P.X. Hoynak, G.N. Bollenback, This is Liquid Sugar. Refined
Syrups and Sugars, 2nd ed., 1966, New York.
[24] V. Calabro, B.L. Jiao, E. Drioli, Theoretical and experimental
study on membrane distillation in the concentration of orange
juice, Ind. Chem. Res. 33 (1994) 1803.
View publication stats
[25] R.W. Schofield, A.G. Fane, C.J.D. Fell, Gas and vapour
transport through microporous membranes, J. Membr. Sci. 53
(1990) 159.
[26] M. Pritchard, R. Field, J.A. Howell, The ultrafiltration of
viscous fluids, J. Membr. Sci. 102 (1995) 223.
[27] A.S. Michaels, Personal communication.
[28] P. Hogan, Thermal and isothermal membrane distillation,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, 1996.