CONTENTS

Introduction 2. Literature survey 3. Modeling 4. Results and Discussion 5. Conclusion 6. Sample simulation References
1.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.

Membrane Distillation

Classification of Membrane Distillation

2.

Direct Contact Membrane Distillation(DCMD)

Advantages of DCMD Application of DCMD

MEMBRANE DISTILLATION(MD)
Membrane distillation (MD) is a mass transport process of volatile components that takes place across the pores of non-wetted membranes. In this process, a hydrophobic porous membrane is used, which is in direct contact with a hot feed.

CLASSIFICATION OF MD

Direct contact Membrane Distillation(DCMD) Air gap membrane distillation(AGMD)

Sweep gas membrane distillation(SGMD) Vacuum membrane distillation(VMD)

DCMD

DCMD is thermally driven process. In DCMD the permeate side is in direct contact with cold aqueous solution. Trans-membrane temperature difference induces a vapour pressure difference causing vapour to pass through membrane pores. Evaporation of volatile component of a feed at warm feed membrane interface. Transfer of vapour. Condensation of permeate at the other end (distillate end). Almost negligible pressure difference across the membrane.

CONFIGURATION OF DCMD

ADVANTAGES OF DCMD

Practically complete (100%) rejection of dissolved non-volatile species. Lower operating pressure than pressure driven membrane. Reduced vapour space compared to conventional distillation. Lower operating temperature of feed enables the utilization of waste heat as a preferable energy resources. Theoretically almost 100 % of purity is possible.

APPLICATION OF DCMD
Vapor permeation Water purification Fruit juice concentration Concentration of acid solution Waste water treatment

2. LITERATURE SURVEY
Recent studies in DCMD Operating variables affecting DCMD process Mechanism: Desalination using DCMD Model review from literature Data Collected

RECENT STUDIES IN DCMD

Year Topic Researchers

2010

Modeling of Direct Contact Membrane Distillation for Desalination.

Edward Close, Eva Srensen, Department of Chemical Engineering, University College London (UCL), Torrington
Sai R. Pinappu, Chemical Engineering Department, New Mexico State University Francisco Suarez, Scott W. Tyler, Amy E. Childress, University of Nevada, Reno, USA Z.D. Hendren, J. Brant, M.R. Wiesner , Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Composite Membranes for Membrane Distillation Desalination Process.

A theoretical study of a direct contact membrane distillation system coupled to a salt-gradient solar pond for terminal takes reclamation. 2009 Surface modification of nanostructured ceramic membranes for direct contact membrane distillation.

Year 2008

Topic Solar desalination of brackish water using membrane distillation process.

Researchers Shuguang Deng , New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, New Mexico State University A.M. Alklaibi Jeddah College of Technology, KSA (i) M.S. El-Bourawi , (i)Z. Ding , R. Maa, (ii)M. Khayet (i)State Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing ,China (ii)Department of Applied Physics, University Complutense of Madrid, Spain

2007

The potential of membrane distillation as a stand-alone desalination process. A framework for better understanding membrane distillation separation process.

2006

Year 2005

Topic Mass transfer mechanisms and transport resistances in direct contact membrane distillation process Desalination by membrane distillation adopting a hydrophilic membrane

Reseacher Surapit Srisurichana, Ratana Jiraratananona , A.G. Faneb, King Mongkuts University of Technology Bangkok, Thailand Ping Peng, A.G. Fane, Xiaodong Li UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology, University of New South Wales, Australia . Tzahi Y. Cath, V. Dean Adams, Amy E. Childress University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA (i)Valery V. Ugrozova, (ii) Inga B. Elkinab (i)Moscow State University of Food Industry, Moscow, Russia (ii)Tufts University, Medford, MA

2004

2003

Experimental study of desalination using direct contact membrane distillation: a new approach to flux Mathematical modeling of influence of porous structure a membrane on its vaporconductivity in the process of membrane distillation

2002

Year
2001

Topic
DCMD with Crystallization Applied to NaCl Solution.

Researchers
M. GRYTA, Institute of Chemical Technology and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Szczecin, Poland M. Tomaszewska Institute of Inorganic Chemical Technology, Technical University of Szczecin, Poland

2000

Membrane Distillation: Applications in Technology and Environmental Protection.

OPERATING VARIABLES AFFECTING DCMD PROCESS

Feed inlet concentration Feed temperature Cold liquid temperature Feed circulation velocity and stirring rate Permeate velocity Vapor pressure difference Membrane parameter
Pore size Porosity Thickness

MECHANISM: DESALINATION USING DCMD

MODEL REVIEW FROM LITERATURE

From: Edward Close and Eva Sorensen, Modelling of DCMD for Desalination, Department of Chemical Engineering, University College London, Torrington

Rm(t) : membrane resistance Rc(t): concentration polarization resistance Rf(t): membrane fouling resistance Yln: logarithm mean pressure of gas

From: Yanbin Yun, Runyu Ma, Wenzhen Zhang, A.G.Fane, Jiding Li, DCMD mechanism for high Concentration NaCl Solutions, Department of Chemical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

LIST OF DATA USED FROM LITERATURE

Porosity: = 0.6 Membrane thickness: = 100m Nominal pore size: r= 0.3 m Tortuosity: = 2 (/) = 3000 m-1 We are using standard form of correlation for heat transfer: Nu= 0.023 Re0.8 Pr 0.33 {Duittus-Boiler correlation} Nu= Nussel number Re= Reynolds number : 1035<Re<5125 Pr= Prendtle number : 2.7<Pr<3.9 For feed side: Ref = 1300 Velocity: uf = 0.1 m/s =0.54cp Density of feed: = 1034Kg/m3 Prandtle number: Pr = 3.1

Nu=12.16 Nu=hf.D/K From experiment we took, D=1.6cm Kwater= 0.58 W/m Thus, hf=760W/m2K hm= (kg + (1-)km )/ kg= 0.016 km=0.05 hm=296 W/m2 K

For permeate side: Rep= 676 hp = 222 W/m2K Hv=2270 Joules/Kg

ADDITIONAL EQUATIONS USED

f= [(2160 xf+ (1-xf) 1:0.0002] cp= C1+ C2exp(x1T) +C3exp(x3m) +C4exp[x3(0.01T+m)] +C5exp[x4(0.01T-m)] Cpf= (xfCpNaCl/MNaCl) + (1-xf)(a+bT+cT2+ dT3)MNaCl m= molality of solution = 1000 Xf/58.5

999.8395

FROM: aOzbek,

H., Viscosity of aqueous sodium chloride solutions from 0 150oC, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory- 09-10-2010 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3jp6n2bf b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity c Himmelblau David M., Basic principles and calculations in chemical engineering, Sixth Edit-ion, Pearson Education

3. MODELING
Assumptions used in mathematical modeling:
The contribution of Poiseuille flow to mass

transfer is neglected. Kinetic effect at the vapour liquid interface are neglected. Membrane should not alter vapour liquid equilibrium of different components. The permeation of vapour through the membrane is regulated by Knudsen-molecular diffusion mechanism.

Mass Transfer in DCMD:

Heat transfer in DCMD:

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSTION

Effect of feed flow rate on flux

Effect of salt concentration

Effect of feed temperature on permeate flux Effect of permeate temperature on flux

Effect of membrane thickness on Flux

Effect of membrane porosity on Flux Effect of membrane pore diameter on flux

Effect of Feed side Heat transfer coefficient

The computational simulation of each operating parameter v/s permeate flux have been carried out using MATLAB The experimental data were collected from the following:
1. Stephanie Lacoursiere, Water purification by membrane distillation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada (2005) 2. Dr. Kamalesh K. Sirkar, Dr. Baoan Li, Novel membrane and device for Direct contact membrane distillation-based desalination process: phase II , New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey (July 2003)

EFFECT OF FEED FLOW RATE ON FLUX

Feed flow rate increases sharply at lower flow rate and reaches asymptotes at higher flow rates.

EFFECT OF SALT CONCENTRATION

Slight decreases in flux is observed with increase in feed concentration

EFFECT OF FEED TEMPERATURE ON PERMEATE FLUX

Flux increases exponentially with increase in feed temperature

EFFECT OF PERMEATE TEMPERATURE ON FLUX

Decrease in flux observed on increase in permeate temperture

EFFECT OF MEMBRANE THICKNESS ON FLUX

Flux decreases sharply with increase in membrane thickness

EFFECT OF POROSITY ON FLUX

A steep increase in flux is observed on increasing the porosity

EFFECT OF PORE DIAMETER ON FLUX

Flux increases almost linearly on increase in pore diameter

EFFECT OF FEED SIDE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT

Flux increases linearly with increase in feed side heat transfer coefficient

5. CONCLUSION
Close relation was found between the results given by the model and actual experiments presented in the literature. Using this model, we can now determine the optimal operation and design of this unit. Where there were conflicting results in the literature regarding the effect of the variables on the flux, the model was able to provide an explanation.

6. SAMPLE SIMULATION IN MATLAB

Thickness v/s Flux d2=[.000025 .000045 .000056 .000098 .000150 .000250 .000350]; for i=1:7 Tf=323; Tp=298; E=0.6; M=.018; M1=.0585; R=8.314; d1=3.*10.^-7;%pore dia D=.016;%dia of duct Pt=(1.01).*(10.^5); t=2;%totiosity Ks=0.05; Kg=0.0235; Kf=.58; Kp=.58; Km=((E).*(Kg)+((1-E).*(Ks))); Hm=((Km)./(d2(i))); Xf=.03; Xfm(1)=Xf; m=(Xf.*1000)./(58.5); Tfm(1)=Tf; Tpm(1)=Tp; %Reynolds Number Feed Side df=(Xf.*((2.16).*(10.^3))+(1Xf).*((999.8395)./(1+0.0002.*(Tf-273)))); Vf=.1; A11=0.1256735+(1.265347).*exp((-0.04296718).*(Tf273))-(1.105369).*exp((0.3710073).*m); B11=(0.2044679).*exp(0.4230889.*((0.01).*(Tf273)+m))+(1.308779).*exp((-0.3259828).*((0.01).*(Tf273)-m)); Uf=(A11+B11).*(10.^-3); Ref=(df.*Vf.*(D))./(Uf); %Reynolds Number Permeate Side Vp=.1; dp=(999.8395)./(1+0.0002.*(Tp-273)); Up=((2.414).*(10.^-5).*10.^((247.8)./(Tp-140))); Rep=(dp.*Vp.*(D))./(Up); %Feed side Cpf Aa=18.2964; Bb=(47.212).*(10.^-2); Cc=(-133.88).*(10.^-5); Dd=(1314.2).*(10.^-9); Cpf=(Xf.*50.*(M1.^-1)+(1Xf).*(Aa+(Bb.*Tf)+(Cc.*(Tf.^2))+Dd.*(Tf.^3)).*(M.^-1)); % permeate side Cpp Cpp=(Aa+(Bb.*Tp)+(Cc.*(Tp.^2))+Dd.*(Tp.^3)).*(M.^-1);

S=(2.303).*(8.3144); Ppm(1)=exp(23.238-(3841./(Tpm(1)-45))); Pofm(1)=exp(23.238-(3841./(Tfm(1)-45))); Pfm(1)=(1-Xfm(1)).*(1-0.5.*(Xfm(1))10.*(Xfm(1).^2)).*(Pofm(1)); Tm(1)=((Tfm(1)+Tpm(1))./2); Dab(1)=(((1.895).*(10.^(-5))).*(Tm(1).^2.02))./(Pt); SS(1)=((1.895).*(10.^(-5))).*(Tm(1).^2.02); YY(1)=(Pt-Pfm(1)); Y(1)=(YY(1))./(SS(1));

X(1)=(Pt-Ppm(1))./SS(1); C(1)=((.75)./d1).*((((6.28).*M)./(R.*Tm(1))).^(0.5)); B(1)=(E./(t.*d2(i))).*(SS(1)./(R.*Tm(1))).*log((X(1)+C(1))./(Y(1)+C(1))) ; for j=1:10 Z(j)=(Pfm(j)./Ppm(j)); a(j)=(Tpm(j).^(-1)); b(j)=Tfm(j).^(-1); TT(j)=((a(j))-(b(j))).^(-1); A(j)=(S).*(log10(Z(j))).*(TT(j)).*((.018).^-1)./(10.^3);%heat of vaporisation Dab(j)=(((1.895).*(10.^(-5))).*(Tm(j).^2.02))./(Pt); % Schmidt Number Scf(j)=(Uf)./((df).*(Dab(j))); %Pradetal Number of Feed Side Prf(j)=((Uf.*Cpf)./(Kf)); %Prandetal Number of permeate side Prp(j)=((Up.*Cpp)./(Kp)); %Nusselt Number for feed side Nuf(j)=(0.023).*((Ref).^0.8).*((Prf(j)).^0.3); %Nusselt Number for Permeate side Nup(j)=(0.023).*((Rep).^0.8).*((Prp(j)).^0.3); % Feed side Heat transfer coefficient Hf(j)=((Kf).*(Nuf(j)))./(D); Ks(j)=((0.023).*((Ref).^0.8).*((Scf(j)).^0.33).*(Dab(j)))./(D); %Permeate side Heat transfer coefficient Hp(j)=((Kp).*(Nup(j)))./(D); Tfm(j+1)=(Hm.*(Tp+Tf.*(Hf(j)./Hp(j)))+Hf(j).*Tf-

pm(j+1)=(Hm.*(Tf+(Tp.*(Hp(j)./Hf(j))))+Hp(j).*Tp+(B(j)).*(A(j)))./(H m+Hp(j).*(1+(Hm./Hf(j)))); Xfm(j+1)=(Xf).*exp((B(j))./((Kf).*(df))); Ppm(j+1)=exp(23.238-(3841./(Tpm(j+1)-45))); Pofm(j+1)=exp(23.238-(3841./(Tfm(j+1)-45))); Pfm(j+1)=(1-Xfm(j+1)).*(1-0.5.*(Xfm(j+1))10.*(Xfm(j+1).^2)).*(Pofm(j+1)); Tm(j+1)=((Tfm(j+1)+Tpm(j+1))./2); SS(j+1)=((1.895).*(10.^(-5))).*(Tm(j+1).^2.02); YY(j+1)=(Pt-Pfm(j+1)); Y(j+1)=(YY(j))./(SS(j)); X(j+1)=(Pt-Ppm(j+1))./SS(j+1); C(j+1)=((.75)./d1).*((((6.28).*M)./(R.*Tm(j+1))).^(0.5)); B(j+1)=(E./(t.*d2(i))).*(SS(j+1)./(R.*Tm(j+1))).*log((X(j+1)+C(j+1))./ (Y(j+1)+C(j+1))); if B(j+1)<B(j) AA(j+1)=B(j+1); BB(j+1)=B(j); else AA(j+1)=B(j); BB(j+1)=B(j+1); end FF(j+1)=((.05).*(B(j+1))); if le((BB(j+1)-AA(j+1)),FF(j+1))==1 V(i)=B(j+1); break end end h1=plot(d2,V); set(h1,'marker','<','markerFacecolor','g','linewidth',2) title('Graph-Thickness v/s Flux','fontsize',20) xlabel('Thickness (micro meter)') ylabel('Flux(N) [Kg.m^-2.Sec^-1]') hold on V=[.0845 .0754 .0689 .0468 .0465 .0298 .0197]; h2=plot(d2,V,'linestyle','none'); set(h2,'marker','s','markerFacecolor','r') legend('Theoritical Data','experiment Data') hold off

REFERENCES

El-Bourawi, M. S., Ding, Z., Ma, R., and Khayet, M. (2006). "A framework for better understanding membrane distillation separation process." Journal of Membrane Science, 285(1-2), 4-29.

Toraj Mohammadi , Mohammad Ali Safavi,Application of Taguchi method in optimization of desalination by vacuum membrane distillation,222-252
Yanbin Yuna, Runyu Mab, Wenzhen Zhangc, A.G. Fanec, Jiding Lia,

Direct contact membrane distillation mechanism for high concentration NaCl solu

tion

M. GRYTA, Department of Water Technology and Environmental Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Szczecin, Poland Valery V. Ugrozova*, Inga B. Elkinaba,Moscow State University of Food Industry, 11 Volokolamskoe Rd., Moscow, 125080, Russia Tufts University, Chemical and Biological Engineering Department, 4 Colby St., Medford, MA 02155, USA Tzahi Y. Cath, V. Dean Adams, Amy E. ChildressDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA Ping Peng, A.G. Fane, Xiaodong Li ,UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology, University of New South Wales, Australia Surapit Srisurichan a, Ratana Jiraratananon , A.G. Fane ,Department of chemical engineering, King Mongkut University of Technology Thonburi, 10140 Bangkok, Thailand s

 M.S. El-Bourawi a, Z. Ding a, R. Maa, M. Khayet, State Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, PR China Department of Applied Physics I, Faculty of Physics, University Complutense of Madrid, Avda. Complutense of Madrid s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain A.M. Alklaibi, Jeddah College of Technology, P.O. Box 46716, Jeddah 21542, KSA

Edward Close, Eva Srensen,Department of Chemical Engineering, University College London (UCL), Torrington Dr. Kamalesh K. Sirkar, Dr. Baoan Li ,Novel membrane and device for DCMDbased desalination process: phase-II ,New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey Stephanie Lacoursiere, Water purification by membrane distillation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

M. Tomaszewska Institute of Inorganic Chemical Technology, Technical University of Szczecin,Poland Bouguecha, S., Chouikh, R., and Dhahbi, M. (2003). "Numerical study of the

Calabro, V., Jiao, B. L., and Drioli, E. (1994). "Theoretical and experimental study on membrane distillation in the concentration of orange juice." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 33(7), 1803-1808. Cath, T. Y., Adams, V. D., and Childress, A. E. (2004). "Experimental study of desalination using direct contact membrane distillation: a new approach to flux enhancement." Journal of Membrane Science, 228(1), 5-16.

Chernyshov, M. N., Meindersma, G. W., and de Haan, A. B. (2003). "Modelling temperature and salt concentration distribution in membrane distillation feed channel**." Desalination, 157(1-3), 315324.
Close, E., and Srensen, E. (2010). "Modelling of Direct Contact Membrane Distillation for Desalination." Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 28, 649-654. Foster, P. J., Burgoyne, A., and Vahdati, M. M. (2001). "Improved process topology for membrane distillation." Separation and Purification Technology, 21(3), 205-217. Gryta, M., and Tomaszewska, M. (1998). "Heat transport in the membrane distillation process." Journal of Membrane Science, 144(1-2), 211-222

Izquierdo-Gil, M. A., and Jonsson, G. (2003). "Factors affecting flux and ethanol separation performance in vacuum membrane distillation (VMD)." Journal of membrane science, 214(1), 113130.
Kimura, S., and Nakao, S. I. (1987). "Transport phenomena in membrane distillation* 1." Journal of Membrane Science, 33(3), 285-298.

THANK YOU