Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4, 2005
G. Zakrzewska-Trznadel
Department of Nuclear Methods in Process Engineering,
Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology,
Dorodna 16, Warsaw, Poland
Fax: +48-22-8111532
E-mail: gzakrzew@orange.ichtj.waw.pl
Abstract: Membrane distillation (MD) is a relatively novel membrane
technology considered by the researchers as a potential method for seawater
desalination. In the first issue of this journal, the possibility of nuclear
desalination by MD was discussed comparing various MD configurations. The
present paper firstly reviews the membranes used in MD and the methods of
their characterisation, among them wet/dry flow method, gas permeation test,
scanning electron microscopy, field emission scanning electron microscopy
and atomic force microscopy. The membrane parameters, which have to be
known before selection of the membranes for some specific applications such
as liquid entry pressure of water, pore size, pore size distribution, porosity and
pore tortuosity, were determined. The knowledge on membranes themselves,
membrane materials and morphology is very important for engineering of
polymer barriers for MD and development of industrial membrane units. The
availability of the industrial MD modules is up to now one of the limitations
for further process implementation.
Keywords: membrane distillation; nuclear desalination; membrane; membrane
characterisation.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Khayet, M., Mengual, J.I.
and Zakrzewska-Trznadel, G. (2005) Direct contact membrane distillation for
nuclear desalination. Part I: Review of membranes used in membrane
distillation and methods for their characterisation, Int. J. Nuclear
Desalination, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.435449.
435
436
Introduction
Membrane distillation (MD) technique has been known for about forty years and is still
being developed. The first MD patent was obtained by Bodell (1963) in 1963 and the
first MD publication was made by Findley (1967) in 1967. In the previous years, interest
in MD is increasing significantly and direct contact membrane distillation (DCMD) is the
configuration most used. DCMD refers to a thermally driven transport of water through
microporous hydrophobic membranes. The membrane is maintained between a hot
solution (i.e., feed side) and cold pure water (i.e., permeate side). Due to the hydrophobic
nature of the membrane, liquid water cannot penetrate inside the dry membrane pores
unless a trans-membrane hydrostatic pressure exceeding the liquid entry pressure of
water (LEPw), which is characteristic of each membrane, is applied. In this manner the
trans-membrane vapour pressure, which is the driving force in MD, is created by
maintaining a temperature difference between both liquids. Under these conditions,
evaporation takes place at the hot feed interface and, after water vapour is transported
437
through the membrane pores, condensation takes place at the cold permeate interface
inside the membrane module.
DCMD is successfully applied for production of high-purity water, concentration of
non-volatile aqueous solutions and removal of trace volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from dilute wastewater (Lawson and Lloyd, 1997; Mengual and Pea, 1997). In fact,
desalination is the best-known DCMD application. It must be stated that in the case of a
solution with non-volatile components, only water molecules flow through the membrane
pores. Therefore, the retention degree of solutes is very close to 100%. The membrane
acts only as a physical support for the liquidliquid interfaces and the MD separation is
based on the liquidvapour equilibrium state of the feed solution. In a previous paper, the
possibility of nuclear desalination by MD was discussed by comparing various MD
configurations (Khayet, Godino and Mengual, 2003).
It must be pointed out that the first membranes used in MD processes were
commercial membranes manufactured for micro-filtration. This means that there are few
membranes manufactured specifically for MD studies. In other words, a lot of effort has
been devoted in recent years to theoretical MD transport models and less attention has
been paid to the preparation and characterisation of MD membranes (Lawson and Lloyd,
1997). The successful application of MD may be aided by a good knowledge of the
properties of the membranes. For the same commercial membranes used in MD, different
values were associated to the membrane parameters. One of the objectives of this study is
to first give an overview of commercial membranes used in MD and laboratory-made
MD membranes, together with the applied characterisation techniques to obtain the
necessary parameters in MD and comparison between the results obtained from the
different methods. The possibility of application of MD for nuclear desalination warrants
the broad study of the membrane parameters, which are key for the design of big
industrial units.
Experimental method
2.1 Membranes
Commercial micro-porous hydrophobic membranes made of polypropylene (PP),
polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, Teflon), available in
capillary or flat sheet forms have been used in MD experiments. Table 1 summarises the
commercial membranes used in MD studies together with their principal characteristics
as specified by the manufacturers. Among the membranes studied are commercial
module units, formed in shell-and-tube, plate-and-frame and spiral wound configurations
that were tested in laboratory and pilot plant experiments. Table 2 shows laboratorymade micro-porous hydrophobic flat-sheet membranes developed in Polish laboratories
together with their experimental characteristics (Chlubek and Tomaszewska, 1989;
Chmielewski et al., 1995; Buczkowski et al., 1998, 2001). Further prepared membranes
for MD may be found mentioned in Khayet and Matsuura (2001) and Khayet, Khulbe
and Matsuura (2004).
438
Manufacturer
Material
dp
LEPw
(kPa)
0.20
282
TF200
Gelman
TF450
PTFE/PP
178
80
1.00
TF1000
GVHP
Millipore
HVHP
FGLP
PVDF b
PTFE/PP
Accurel S6/2
MD020CP2N
Microdyn
Enka A.G.
BFMF 06-30-33 d
Euro-Sep
Sartorius
G-4.0-6-7 f
a
AkzoNobel
c
Accurel
Notes:
0.45
GoreTex
Sep GmbH
110
0.22
140
0.45
175
0.20
450
0.2
PP
48
75
70
280
140
Polyolefine
100
0.20
0.22
0.20
80
70
200
PTFE
138
439
Gas permeation test: This method allows determination of the mean pore size (dp)
and the effective porosity (/Lp), defined as the ratio of the porosity and the effective
pore length (Lp) that takes into account the tortuosity () of the membrane pores. Air
and nitrogen were employed as standard gases. The gas permeation flux of each dry
membrane is measured at various trans-membrane pressures. The theoretical
procedure and the experimental set-ups used were reported elsewhere (Khayet and
Matsuura, 2001; Khayet et al., 2002). It must be mentioned that one of the
limitations of this method is the determination of pore size distribution.
Wet/dry flow method: The bubble point together with the gas permeation test known
as the wet/dry flow method can be employed for determining the maximum pore
size, the mean pore size and the pore size distribution of MD membranes. First, the
gas permeation is measured though a dry membrane. Generally a straight line is
observed between the gas permeation and the trans-membrane pressure difference.
Subsequently, the membrane is wetted by a liquid with low surface tension such as
isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and again the gas permeation is measured at different
trans-membrane pressures. In this case the dependence of the gas flux with the
applied trans-membrane pressure is not lineal. At low trans-membrane pressure, the
pores remain filled with IPA and the gas flux is practically zero, whereas for higher
pressure than the bubble point of the membrane, the largest pores will be empty and
the gas flux starts to increase with the pressure because smaller pores are opened
with the increase of the pressure until all pores become empty at the pressure
corresponding to the minimum pore size. In this method, air was used for liquid
displacement through the membrane pores and the theoretical procedure used to
determine the pore size distribution and the mean pore sizes together with the
experimental set-up used may be found in Khayet and Matsuura (2001) and Khayet,
Velzquez and Mengual (2004). It must also be mentioned here that a Coulter
Porometer II (Coulter Electronics Ltd., GmbH) based on wet/dry flow method has
been used for characterisation of the membranes given in Table 2 (Chlubek and
Tomaszewska, 1989; Buczkowski et al., 2001).
440
Porosity: The ratio between the volume of the pores and the total volume of the
membrane is the membrane porosity, which also called membrane void volume ().
For hydrophobic membranes, can be determined by measuring the density of the
membrane using two types of liquids. A wetting liquid such as isopropyl alcohol
(IPA), which penetrates inside the pores and non-wetting liquid such as water, which
does not enter the pores because of the hydrophobicity of the membrane material. In
this method, a pyknometer and a balance are necessary. The method was explained
in detail in previous papers (Khayet and Matsuura, 2001; Khayet et al., 2002).
Table 2
(m)
dmin
(m)
dp
(m)
dmax
(m)
(%)
62
0.16
0.21
0.27
81
2.1 (2.7)
60
0.34
65
(2.2)
Tarflen5
84.5
0.25
59
(2.7)
Tarflen6
72.7
0.19
21
(3.2)
12
0.22
0.28
0.31
10
Material
Tarflen1
Tarflen2
PTFE a
Estrofol
Notes:
PET
a
441
Table 3
Gas Permeation
Membrane Trade
Name
a
(m)
(%)
LEPw
(kPa)
dp (nm)
/Lp (m-1)
TF200
54.8
68.7
276
198.96
7878.1
TF450
60.0
64.3
149
418.82
7439.0
TF1000
58.4
67.1
58
844.32
9744.5
GVHP
117.7
70.1
204
283.15
2781.9
HVHP
115.8
71.3
105
463.86
2904.7
Note:
The mean pore size was determined from the gas permeation test, wet/dry flow method
and AFM technique. The results are shown in Tables 24. It can be noted that for
Gelman membrane the mean pore size determined from the gas permeation test (Table 3)
is similar to the one given by the manufacturer for TF200 membrane (Table 1) and is
442
6.9% and 15.6% smaller for TF450 and TF1000 membranes, respectively. Nevertheless,
for Millipore membranes such as GVHP and HVHP, the mean pore size obtained from
the gas permeation test is larger than that given by the manufacturer (28.7% for GVHP
and 3% for HVHP). From the wet/dry flow method, the mean pore size is up to 17.4%
larger than that obtained from the gas permeation test (that is for TF450 membrane) and
12.7% smaller for TF1000 membrane.
Three-dimensional AFM pictures of GVHP, HVHP and TF1000 membranes are
shown in Figure 1 as example. More AFM images may be found in Khayet, Khulbe and
Matsuura (2004). As expected, a difference in the morphology of the membrane surfaces
can be observed and the pores are seen as dark depressions. The pore sizes were
measured on various portions of the membrane surface and image analysis was done by
the built-in computer program. The mean pore size and the geometric standard deviation
were calculated for each membrane. The results are presented in Table 4. For all
membranes, the mean pore size evaluated from the AFM technique is greater than
that given by the manufacturers. For Gelman membranes the deviation is up to 25.4%
(that is for TF200 membrane) and for Millipore membranes the deviation is up to 125.3%
(that is for GVHP membrane). These results may be attributed to the fact that the pores
have maximum openings at the surface entrance and an amalgamate of a few small pores
could easily be misinterpreted as one large pore, resulting in an overestimation of the
pore size. Similar results were found for flat-sheet and hollow-fibre ultra-filtration
membranes (Khayet and Matsuura, 2003). It was observed that the pore sizes at the
membrane surface are larger than the bulk membrane pore sizes and the mean pore sizes
determined by AFM analysis were 2.1 and 1.7 times larger than those determined from
the gas permeation test for flat-sheet and hollow-fibre membranes, respectively.
Figure 1
Three-dimensional AFM images of the membranes: (a) GVHP, (b) HVHP and (c)
TF1000
443
Membrane characteristics determined from wet/dry flow method and AFM technique:
mean pore size, dp; geometric standard deviation, p; surface porosity, s, pore
tortuosity,
Wet/Dry Flow Method
AFM Technique
dp
(nm)
(%)
dp
(nm)
(%)
TF200
233.38
1.07
43.18
1.59
250.72
1.23
33.97
2.02
TF450
491.67
1.10
44.65
1.44
538.67
1.29
30.86
2.08
TF1000
736.84
1.09
56.90
1.18
1185.34
1.27
34.24
1.96
GVHP
265.53
1.12
32.74
2.14
495.70
1.69
25.28
2.77
HVHP
451.23
1.19
33.64
2.12
644.67
1.65
24.63
2.90
As stated earlier, pore size distribution can also be obtained from wet/dry flow method
and AFM technique. Figure 2 shows both the cumulative pore size and probability
density curves of Gelman and Millipore membranes determined from wet/dry flow
method. When compared to TF200 membrane, it can be observed that the pore size
distribution curves of the other membranes shift to the right and are lower and broader
around their corresponding mean pore size. It can be seen that the pore size given by the
manufacturer is included in the pore size distribution of each membrane. Moreover, in
Figure 3, a comparison between the pore size distribution obtained from wet/dry flow
method and AFM technique is presented for the membranes GVHP and TF450 as an
example. Similar figures were plotted for the other membranes (HVHP, TF200 and
TF450). For all these membranes the pore sizes determined from AFM technique were
larger than those obtained from wet/dry flow method.
Figure 2(a)
444
Figure 2(b)
Figure 3
Pore size distribution of GVHP and TF-450 obtained from wet/dry flow method and
AFM technique
445
required to take the FESEM images. For the same membranes, by using the Coulter
Porometer system, Martnez et al. (2002, 2003) found 310 nm for TF200, 470 nm for
TF450, 650 nm for TF1000, 320 nm for GVHP and 660 nm for HVHP. The deviation
between these values and the values reported in Table 4 for wet/dry flow method are
between 4.4% (that is for TF450 membrane) and 46.2% (that is for HVHP membrane).
The examples of micrographs of Tarflen, Estrofol and FGLP membranes are shown
in Figure 4. The Tarflen membranes, which were made by the stretching method, have
different appearance depending on selected sample. Some of them have a sponge-like
structure while others have more fibrous structure. The differences depend not only on
manufacturing conditions, but also on the initial material, which is an industrial product
(PTFE tape). The surface of the membrane is not homogenous. It must be stated that
during microscopic observation some regions free of pores are noticed, which is
disadvantageous and needs further improvement of manufacturing technique. The pores
are irregular in shape and the pore size distribution is variable depending on the
membrane. In DCMD experiments, the membranes of different mean pore size and
different pore size distribution were used.
The commercial FGLP membrane has more homogenous, sponge-like structure and
uniform surface, without void regions. The pores of the membrane are irregular, but as
similar to Tarflen membranes, the pore size distribution of FGLP is rather small.
The images of cross sections also show sponge-like symmetrical structure of the
membranes (Figure 4).
The images of Estrofol membranes, which were prepared by another technique, i.e.
by heavy ion irradiation, show uniform arrangement of the pores, which are regular and
circular in shape. The pore size distribution assessed from the micrographs is expected to
be small. An example of the pore size distribution curves obtained with Coulter
Porometer II is given in Figure 5 for two membrane samples (FGLP and Tarflen1) and
the statistical parameters such as maximal (dmax) minimal (dmin) and mean (dp) pore
diameters are presented in Table 2. Four Tarflen membranes characterised in Table 2
have different dmax and, as reported in the second part of this paper, their permeabilities
measured in DCMD experiments were different. As was expected, Estrofol track
membranes exhibit the most narrow pore size distribution curves. The pore diameters are
very uniform; some differences are caused by variation of glancing angle of bombarding
heavy ions (that also changes the tortuosity), or possibilities of joining the neighbouring
pores together.
In addition, the obtained values of the geometrical standard deviation, p, determined
from the wet/dry flow method (Table 4) were close to each other (near unity) for all
membranes. p is higher for PVDF membranes (i.e. GVHP, HVHP membranes) than for
PTFE membranes (TF200, TF450 and TF1000 membranes). It was found that p
determined by AFM is higher than that obtained by wet/dry flow method. This is the
reason why the pore size distribution from AFM was broader around the mean pore size
than that determined from wet/dry flow method. p obtained by AFM for PVDF
membranes was also greater than that of PTFE membranes. Based on FESEM study,
lower p values, 1.04 and 0.94, were reported for GVHP and TF200 membranes,
respectively (Phattaranawik, Jiraratananon and Fane, 2003).
The measured porosity of the membranes (TF200, TF450, TF1000, GVHP and
HVHP) is given in Table 3. For all these membranes, the measured values are lower than
those given by the manufacturers. This may be attributed to the different measurement
446
techniques used. Moreover, the effective porosity of these membranes was evaluated
from the gas permeation test and the results are also shown in Table 3. The effective
porosity is higher for PTFE membranes having lower thickness than for PVDF
membranes (GVHP, HVHP) although the measured porosities of both membrane types
are not so different. It must be pointed out that the same observations can be made for the
effective porosity obtained by other authors using the Coulter Porometer (7900 m1 for
TF200, 8900 m1 for TF450, 11100 m1 for TF1000, 3350 m1 for GVHP and 3790 m1
for GVHP) (Martnez et al., 2002, 2003).
Figure 4
SEM micrographs of flat-sheet membranes: (a) FGLP, (b) FGLP cross section, (c)
Tarflen2, (d) Tarflen1, (e) Estrofol and (f) Estrofol cross section
447
The pore density was obtained by counting the number of pores on the AFM images of
the membranes and the surface porosity was calculated using the pore size distribution
obtained from AFM (Khayet, Khulbe and Matsuura, 2004). The surface porosity can also
be determined from the pore size distribution obtained from wet/dry flow method as
stated in (Khayet, Velzquez and Mengual, 2004). The results are given in Table 4.
The surface porosities of PVDF membranes are lower than that of PTFE membranes,
whereas the void volume of the PVDF membranes is higher (Table 3). This may be
attributed to the larger thickness of the PVDF membranes used. When comparing surface
porosity from wet/dry flow method and AFM technique, the one obtained from AFM was
lower for all membranes. Moreover, it is worth noting that the surface porosity (s) values
obtained from the AFM analysis is lower than the void volume () given in Table 3 even
though the membranes are the same.
Figure 5
Pore size distribution curves determined by Coulter Porometer II: (a) FGLP,
(b) Tarflen1
The tortuosity factor was calculated from the void volume, , and the effective porosity,
/Lp, determined by the gas permeation test (i.e. Lp = ). The obtained values are given
in Table 4. It can be observed that values calculated based on AFM results are higher
than those calculated from wet/dry flow method and the values of PVDF membranes
are higher than those of PTFE membranes. This may be attributed partly to the higher
membrane thickness of the PVDF membranes. In MD studies, a pore tortuosity factor of
2 is frequently assumed (Phattaranawik, Jiraratananon and Fane, 2003). Furthermore, it
was found that for the same membrane, the tortuosity factor calculated from AFM is
higher than that calculated from wet/dry flow method. The tortuosities determined from
gas permeation tests for the laboratory made Tarflen membranes are shown in Table 2.
For those membranes for which dp was not determined the tortuosities were calculated
with dmax values, and the reported values are certainly a little overestimated.
The FGLP membrane was also characterised by Coulter Porometer II, the obtained
pore sizes are 0.29, 0.35 and 0.39 m for the minimum, mean and maximum pore sizes.
The mean pore size specified by manufacturer 0.2 m is lower than dmin measured by
Coulter porometer. This discrepancy may be due to the different measurement technique
used by the manufacturer. The thickness of this membrane without the PP supporting
448
grid is 65 m, its porosity is 70% and the calculated pore tortuosity from gas permeation
measurements is 1.44.
For the PP-Accurel membrane, the minimum, mean and maximum obtained values
of pore sizes are 0.22, 0.27 and 0.45 m, respectively. The thickness of this membrane is
160 m and its porosity is 80%.
Concluding remarks
Acknowledgement
The authors of this paper acknowledge the bilateral SpanishPolish Project, No 004/R98
002/R97.
References
Bodell, B.R. (1963) Silicone rubber vapour diffusion in saline water distillation, United States
Patent Serial No. 285,032.
Buczkowski, M., Sartowska, B., Wawszczak, D. and Starosta, W. (2001) Radiation resistance of
track etched membranes, Radiation Measurements, Vol. 34, pp.597599.
Buczkowski, M., Starosta, W., Wawszczak, D. and towski, T. (1998) Application of particle
track membranes Polish experiences, Oganesjan, Y.T. and Kalpakcheva, R. (Eds.): Proc.
VI Int. School-Seminar on Heavy Ion Physics, 2227 Sept., 1997, World Scientific, Dubna,
Russia, pp.761769.
Chlubek, N. and Tomaszewska, M. (1989) Some properties of hydrophobic membranes for
membrane distillation, Environ. Prot. Eng., Vol. 15, pp.95103.
Chmielewski, A.G., Zakrzewska-Trznadel, G., Miljevi, N. and Van Hook, W.A. (1995)
Membrane distillation employed for separation of water isotopic compounds, Sep. Sci.
Technol., Vol. 30, pp.16531667.
Findely, M.E. (1967) Vaporization through porous membranes, Ind. & Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev., Vol. 6, pp.226230.
449