Hubbry Logo
Membrane technologyMembrane technologyMain
Open search
Membrane technology
Community hub
Membrane technology
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Membrane technology
Membrane technology
Membrane technology
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Membrane technology encompasses the scientific processes used in the construction and application of membranes. Membranes are used to facilitate the transport or rejection of substances between mediums, and the mechanical separation of gas and liquid streams. In the simplest case, filtration is achieved when the pores of the membrane are smaller than the diameter of the undesired substance, such as a harmful microorganism. Membrane technology is commonly used in industries such as water treatment, chemical and metal processing, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, the food industry, as well as the removal of environmental pollutants.

After membrane construction, there is a need to characterize the prepared membrane to know more about its parameters, like pore size, function group, material properties, etc., which are difficult to determine in advance. In this process, instruments such as the Scanning Electron Microscope, the Transmission electron Microscope, the Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, X-ray Diffraction, and Liquid–Liquid Displacement Porosimetry are utilized.

Introduction

[edit]

Membrane technology covers all engineering approaches for the transport of substances between two fractions with the help of semi-permeable membranes. In general, mechanical separation processes for separating gaseous or liquid streams use membrane technology. In recent years, different methods have been used to remove environmental pollutants, like adsorption, oxidation, and membrane separation. Different pollution occurs in the environment like air pollution, waste water pollution etc.[1] As per industry requirement to prevent industrial pollution because more than 70% of environmental pollution occurs due to industries. It is their responsibility to follow government rules of the Air Pollution Control & Prevention Act 1981 to maintain and prevent the harmful chemical release into the environment.[2] Make sure to do prevention & safety processes after that industries are able to release their waste in the environment.[3]

Biomass-based Membrane technology is one of the most promising technologies for use as a pollutants removal weapon because it has low cost, more efficiency, & lack of secondary pollutants.[1]

Typically polysulfone, polyvinylidene fluoride, and polypropylene are used in the membrane preparation process. These membrane materials are non-renewable and non-biodegradable which create harmful environmental pollution.[4] Researchers are trying to find a solution to synthesize an eco-friendly membrane which avoids environmental pollution. Synthesis of biodegradable material with the help of naturally available material such as biomass-based membrane synthesis can be used to remove pollutants.[5]

Membrane Overview

[edit]
Ultrafiltration for a swimming pool
Venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation scheme

Membrane separation processes operate without heating and therefore use less energy than conventional thermal separation processes such as distillation, sublimation, or crystallization. The separation process is purely physical and both fractions (permeate and retentate) can be obtained as useful products. Cold separation using membrane technology is widely used in the food technology, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Furthermore, using membranes enables separations to take place that would be impossible using thermal separation methods. For example, it is impossible to separate the constituents of azeotropic liquids or solutes which form isomorphic crystals by distillation or recrystallization, but such separations can be achieved using membrane technology. Depending on the type of membrane, selective separation of certain individual substances or substance mixtures is possible. Important technical applications include the production of drinking water by reverse osmosis. In waste water treatment, membrane technology is becoming increasingly important. Ultra/microfiltration can be very effective in removing colloids and macromolecules from wastewater. This is needed if wastewater is discharged into sensitive waters especially those designated for contact water sports and recreation.

About half of the market is in medical applications such as artificial kidneys to remove toxic substances by hemodialysis and as artificial lung for bubble-free supply of oxygen in the blood.

The importance of membrane technology is growing in the field of environmental protection (Nano-Mem-Pro IPPC Database). Even in modern energy recovery techniques, membranes are increasingly used, for example in fuel cells and in osmotic power plants.

Mass transfer

[edit]

Two basic models can be distinguished for mass transfer through the membrane:

  • the solution-diffusion model and
  • the hydrodynamic model.

In real membranes, these two transport mechanisms certainly occur side by side, especially during ultra-filtration.

Solution-diffusion model

[edit]

In the solution-diffusion model, transport occurs only by diffusion. The component that needs to be transported must first be dissolved in the membrane. The general approach of the solution-diffusion model is to assume that the chemical potential of the feed and permeate fluids are in equilibrium with the adjacent membrane surfaces such that appropriate expressions for the chemical potential in the fluid and membrane phases can be equated at the solution-membrane interface. This principle is more important for dense membranes without natural pores such as those used for reverse osmosis and in fuel cells. During the filtration process a boundary layer forms on the membrane. This concentration gradient is created by molecules which cannot pass through the membrane. The effect is referred to as concentration polarization and, occurring during the filtration, leads to a reduced trans-membrane flow (flux). Concentration polarization is, in principle, reversible by cleaning the membrane which results in the initial flux being almost totally restored. Using a tangential flow to the membrane (cross-flow filtration) can also minimize concentration polarization.

Hydrodynamic model

[edit]

Transport through pores – in the simplest case – is done convectively. This requires the size of the pores to be smaller than the diameter of the two separate components. Membranes that function according to this principle are used mainly in micro- and ultrafiltration. They are used to separate macromolecules from solutions, colloids from a dispersion, or remove bacteria. During this process, the retained particles or molecules form a pulpy mass (filter cake) on the membrane, and this blockage of the membrane hampers the filtration. This blockage can be reduced by the use of the cross-flow method (cross-flow filtration). Here, the liquid to be filtered flows along the front of the membrane and is separated by the pressure difference between the front and back of the membrane into retentate (the flowing concentrate) on the front and permeate (filtrate) on the back. The tangential flow on the front creates a shear stress that cracks the filter cake and reduces the fouling.

Membrane operations

[edit]

According to the driving force of the operation, it is possible to distinguish:

Membrane shapes and flow geometries

[edit]
Cross-flow geometry
Dead-end geometry

There are two main flow configurations of membrane processes: cross-flow (or tangential flow) and dead-end filtrations. In cross-flow filtration the feed flow is tangential to the surface of the membrane, retentate is removed from the same side further downstream, whereas the permeate flow is tracked on the other side. In dead-end filtration, the direction of the fluid flow is normal to the membrane surface. Both flow geometries offer some advantages and disadvantages. Generally, dead-end filtration is used for feasibility studies on a laboratory scale. The dead-end membranes are relatively easy to fabricate which reduces the cost of the separation process. The dead-end membrane separation process is easy to implement and the process is usually cheaper than cross-flow membrane filtration. The dead-end filtration process is usually a batch-type process, where the filtering solution is loaded (or slowly fed) into the membrane device, which then allows passage of some particles subject to the driving force. The main disadvantage of dead-end filtration is the extensive membrane fouling and concentration polarization. The fouling is usually induced faster at higher driving forces. Membrane fouling and particle retention in a feed solution also builds up a concentration gradients and particle backflow (concentration polarization). The tangential flow devices are more cost and labor-intensive, but they are less susceptible to fouling due to the sweeping effects and high shear rates of the passing flow. The most commonly used synthetic membrane devices (modules) are flat sheets/plates, spiral wounds, and hollow fibers. Flat membranes used in filtration and separation processes can be enhanced with surface patterning, where microscopic structures are introduced to improve performance. These patterns increase surface area, optimize water flow, and reduce fouling, leading to higher permeability and longer membrane lifespan. Research has shown that such modifications can significantly enhance efficiency in water purification, energy applications, and industrial separations.[6]

Flat plates are usually constructed as circular thin flat membrane surfaces to be used in dead-end geometry modules. Spiral wounds are constructed from similar flat membranes but in the form of a "pocket" containing two membrane sheets separated by a highly porous support plate.[7] Several such pockets are then wound around a tube to create a tangential flow geometry and to reduce membrane fouling. Hollow fiber modules consist of an assembly of self-supporting fibers with dense skin separation layers, and a more open matrix helping to withstand pressure gradients and maintain structural integrity.[7] The hollow fiber modules can contain up to 10,000 fibers ranging from 200 to 2500 μm in diameter; The main advantage of hollow fiber modules is the very large surface area within an enclosed volume, increasing the efficiency of the separation process.

Spiral wound membrane module
  • Hollow fiber membrane module
    Hollow fiber membrane module
  • Separation of air into oxygen and nitrogen through a membrane
    Separation of air into oxygen and nitrogen through a membrane

The Disc tube module uses a cross-flow geometry and consists of a pressure tube and hydraulic discs, which are held by a central tension rod, and membrane cushions that lie between two discs.[8]

Membrane performance and governing equations

[edit]

The selection of synthetic membranes for a targeted separation process is usually based on few requirements. Membranes have to provide enough mass transfer area to process large amounts of feed stream. The selected membrane has to have high selectivity (rejection) properties for certain particles; it has to resist fouling and to have high mechanical stability. It also needs to be reproducible and to have low manufacturing costs. The main modeling equation for the dead-end filtration at constant pressure drop is represented by Darcy's law:[7]

where Vp and Q are the volume of the permeate and its volumetric flow rate respectively (proportional to same characteristics of the feed flow), μ is dynamic viscosity of permeating fluid, A is membrane area, Rm and R are the respective resistances of membrane and growing deposit of the foulants. Rm can be interpreted as a membrane resistance to the solvent (water) permeation. This resistance is a membrane intrinsic property and is expected to be fairly constant and independent of the driving force, Δp. R is related to the type of membrane foulant, its concentration in the filtering solution, and the nature of foulant-membrane interactions. Darcy's law allows for calculation of the membrane area for a targeted separation at given conditions. The solute sieving coefficient is defined by the equation:[7]

where Cf and Cp are the solute concentrations in feed and permeate respectively. Hydraulic permeability is defined as the inverse of resistance and is represented by the equation:[7]

where J is the permeate flux which is the volumetric flow rate per unit of membrane area. The solute sieving coefficient and hydraulic permeability allow the quick assessment of the synthetic membrane performance.

Membrane separation processes

[edit]

Membrane separation processes have a very important role in the separation industry. Nevertheless, they were not considered technically important until the mid-1970s. Membrane separation processes differ based on separation mechanisms and size of the separated particles. The widely used membrane processes include microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, electrolysis, dialysis, electrodialysis, gas separation, vapor permeation, pervaporation, membrane distillation, and membrane contactors.[9] All processes except for pervaporation involve no phase change. All processes except electrodialysis are pressure driven. Microfiltration and ultrafiltration is widely used in food and beverage processing (beer microfiltration, apple juice ultrafiltration), biotechnological applications and pharmaceutical industry (antibiotic production, protein purification), water purification and wastewater treatment, the microelectronics industry, and others. Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membranes are mainly used for water purification purposes. Dense membranes are utilized for gas separations (removal of CO2 from natural gas, separating N2 from air, organic vapor removal from air or a nitrogen stream) and sometimes in membrane distillation. The later process helps in the separation of azeotropic compositions reducing the costs of distillation processes.

Ranges of membrane based separations

Pore size and selectivity

[edit]
The pore distribution of a fictitious ultrafiltration membrane with the nominal pore size and the D90

The pore sizes of technical membranes are specified differently depending on the manufacturer. One common distinction is by nominal pore size. It describes the maximum pore size distribution[10] and gives only vague information about the retention capacity of a membrane. The exclusion limit or "cut-off" of the membrane is usually specified in the form of NMWC (nominal molecular weight cut-off, or MWCO, molecular weight cut off, with units in Dalton). It is defined as the minimum molecular weight of a globular molecule that is retained to 90% by the membrane. The cut-off, depending on the method, can by converted to so-called D90, which is then expressed in a metric unit. In practice the MWCO of the membrane should be at least 20% lower than the molecular weight of the molecule that is to be separated.

Using track etched mica membranes[11] Beck and Schultz[12] demonstrated that hindered diffusion of molecules in pores can be described by the Rankin[13] equation.

Filter membranes are divided into four classes according to pore size:

Pore size Molecular mass Process Filtration Removal of
> 10  "Classic" filter
> 0.1 μm > 5000 kDa microfiltration < 2 bar larger bacteria, yeast, particles
100–2 nm 5–5000 kDa ultrafiltration 1–10 bar bacteria, macromolecules, proteins, larger viruses
2-1 nm 0.1–5 kDa nanofiltration 3–20 bar viruses, 2- valent ions[14]
< 1 nm < 100 Da reverse osmosis 10–80 bar salts, small organic molecules

The form and shape of the membrane pores are highly dependent on the manufacturing process and are often difficult to specify. Therefore, for characterization, test filtrations are carried out and the pore diameter refers to the diameter of the smallest particles which could not pass through the membrane.

The rejection can be determined in various ways and provides an indirect measurement of the pore size. One possibility is the filtration of macromolecules (often dextran, polyethylene glycol or albumin), another is measurement of the cut-off by gel permeation chromatography. These methods are used mainly to measure membranes for ultrafiltration applications. Another testing method is the filtration of particles with defined size and their measurement with a particle sizer or by laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). A vivid characterization is to measure the rejection of dextran blue or other colored molecules. The retention of bacteriophage and bacteria, the so-called "bacteria challenge test", can also provide information about the pore size.

Nominal pore size micro-organism ATCC root number
0.1 μm Acholeplasma laidlawii 23206
0.3 μm Bacillus subtilis spores 82
0.5 μm Pseudomonas diminuta 19146
0.45 μm Serratia marcescens 14756
0.65 μm Lactobacillus brevis

To determine the pore diameter, physical methods such as porosimeter (mercury, liquid-liquid porosimeter and Bubble Point Test) are also used, but a certain form of the pores (such as cylindrical or concatenated spherical holes) is assumed. Such methods are used for membranes whose pore geometry does not match the ideal, and we get "nominal" pore diameter, which characterizes the membrane, but does not necessarily reflect its actual filtration behavior and selectivity.

The selectivity is highly dependent on the separation process, the composition of the membrane and its electrochemical properties in addition to the pore size. With high selectivity, isotopes can be enriched (uranium enrichment) in nuclear engineering or industrial gases like nitrogen can be recovered (gas separation). Ideally, even racemics can be enriched with a suitable membrane.

When choosing membranes selectivity has priority over a high permeability, as low flows can easily be offset by increasing the filter surface with a modular structure. In gas phase filtration different deposition mechanisms are operative, so that particles having sizes below the pore size of the membrane can be retained as well.

Membrane Classification

[edit]

Bio-Membrane is classified in two categories, synthetic membrane and natural membrane. synthetic membranes further classified in organic and inorganic membranes. Organic membrane sub classified polymeric membranes and inorganic membrane sub classified ceramic polymers.[15]

Synthesis of Biomass Membrane

[edit]

The composite biomass membrane

[edit]

Green membrane or Bio-membrane synthesis is the solution to protected environments which have largely comprehensive performance. Biomass is used in the form of activated carbon nanoparticles, like using cellulose based biomass coconut shell, hazelnut shell, walnut shell, agricultural wastes of corn stalks etc.[4] which improve  surface hydrophilicity, larger pore size, more and lower surface roughness therefore, the separation and anti-fouling performance of membranes are also improved simultaneously.[16]

Fabrication of pure biomass based membrane

[edit]

A biomass-based membrane is a membrane made from organic materials such as plant fibers.[4] These membranes are often used in water filtration and wastewater treatment applications. The fabrication of a pure biomass-based membrane is a complex process that involves a number of steps. The first step is to create a slurry of the organic materials. This slurry is then cast onto a substrate, such as a glass or metal plate.[17] The cast is then dried, and the resulting membrane is then subjected to a number of treatments, such as chemical or heat treatments, to improve its properties. One of the challenges in the fabrication of biomass-based membranes is to create a membrane with the desired properties.[18]

Equipment and instruments used in the process

[edit]

List of instruments used in membrane synthesis procedures:

Membrane Characterization

[edit]

After casting and synthesis of membrane there is need to characterize the prepared membrane to know more details about membrane parameters, like pore size, functional groups, wettability, surface charge, etc. It is important to know membrane properties so we are able to remove and treat a particulate pollutant, which causes pollution in the environment.[19] For characterization following different instruments are used:

Biomass Membrane Applications

[edit]

Water treatment

[edit]

Water treatment is any process that improves the quality of water to make it more acceptable for a specific end-use. Membranes can be used to remove particulates from water by either size exclusion or charge separation.[20] In size exclusion, the pores in the membrane are sized such that only particles smaller than the pores can pass through. The pores in the membrane are sized such that only water molecules can pass through, leaving dissolved contaminants behind.[21]

Gas separation

[edit]

Utilization of membranes in gas separation, like carbon dioxide (CO2), Nitrogen oxides (NO
x),  Sulphur oxides (SO
x), harmful gasses can be removed to protect the environment.[22] Biomass Membrane gas separation more effective than commercial membrane.[23]

Hemodialysis

[edit]

Membrane application in hemodialysis is a process of using a semipermeable membrane to remove waste products and excess fluids from the blood.[24]

See also

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Membrane technology.

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Membrane technology

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Membrane technology involves pressure-driven or diffusion-based separation processes using thin, selective semi-permeable barriers to separate mixtures based on differences in molecular size, solubility, diffusivity, or charge. These membranes, typically polymeric or ceramic, operate without phase changes and provide energy efficiencies often superior to thermal methods like distillation. Key types include microfiltration for particle removal, ultrafiltration for macromolecules, nanofiltration for multivalent ions, reverse osmosis for desalination, and gas permeation for separations such as oxygen and nitrogen from air. Developed in the mid-20th century with asymmetric cellulose acetate membranes for reverse osmosis, the technology has expanded to industrial scales, particularly in water purification and desalination, where plants produce over 100 million cubic meters of potable water daily from seawater and brackish sources. Applications extend to gas processing for natural gas sweetening and hybrid systems for wastewater treatment, though challenges persist, including membrane fouling that reduces flux and requires cleaning, as well as scalability issues from high pressures and material degradation under harsh conditions.

Historical Development

Early Concepts and Initial Applications

The selective permeability of biological cell membranes, which regulate the transport of solutes and solvents across cellular boundaries, served as a foundational inspiration for artificial membrane concepts. These natural structures, observed through early and physiological studies, demonstrated phenomena like and that later guided synthetic mimics. In 1748, French physicist Jean-Antoine Nollet conducted the first documented laboratory demonstration of , using a pig's bladder stretched over a vessel containing and immersing it in alcohol, whereby permeated the toward the higher solute concentration, causing visible swelling. This experiment established the principle of semipermeable barriers, though practical artificial alternatives like were explored in the for studies, revealing limitations in durability and control over pore uniformity. By the early , advancements shifted toward synthetic materials for . In , Heinrich Bechhold developed collodion (nitrocellulose) membranes with graded pore sizes, enabling the separation of colloids and , and he coined the term "" while devising a bubble pressure method to assess pore dimensions. These isotropic structures, however, exhibited low selectivity and due to uneven pore distribution and susceptibility to , constraining broader utility. In the 1930s, William J. Elford refined graded membranes for bacteriological applications, particularly virus separation, by controlling preparation variables to achieve average pore diameters from 12 to 240 nm, allowing size-based retention of filterable agents like those causing ectromelia. Concurrently, initial dialysis applications emerged, with Georg Haas performing the first human in 1924 using hirudin-anticoagulated blood circulated through semipermeable celloidin tubes, followed by substitution in 1927, though low efficiency from membrane fragility limited clinical . Early gas separation trials remained rudimentary, hampered by poor permselectivity in available materials.

Post-War Advancements and Commercialization

Following , membrane technology accelerated due to U.S. government initiatives addressing water shortages through research. The Office of , created in 1952 under the Saline Water Conversion Act, expanded funding in the 1950s and 1960s to develop practical seawater conversion methods, including . This support facilitated breakthroughs at institutions like UCLA, where Sidney Loeb and Srinivasa Sourirajan developed the first integrally skinned asymmetric membranes in 1959–1960. These membranes featured a thin, selective skin layer atop a porous substructure, enabling water fluxes up to 100 times higher than symmetric membranes while achieving salt rejections exceeding 98%, thus making viable for large-scale . Industrial commercialization followed swiftly, with DuPont launching its Permasep reverse osmosis permeators in 1969 using hollow-fiber configurations based on asymmetric membrane principles. Pilot plants in the late 1960s transitioned to commercial scale-up, culminating in the B-10 permeator introduced in 1974, which processed seawater at capacities of approximately 5.7 m³/day per module and demonstrated economic feasibility for brackish and seawater treatment. Concurrently, the 1970s marked the market entry of ultrafiltration and microfiltration modules, pioneered for applications in food processing and biotechnology, such as whey protein concentration and microbial removal, with early systems operating at low pressures (1–5 bar) to separate particles from 0.1 to 10 µm. Despite these advances, early reverse osmosis systems encountered practical constraints, including rapid fouling and the necessity for elevated trans-membrane pressures (800–1000 psi) to balance flux and rejection, resulting in energy demands of 15–25 kWh/m³—substantial relative to thermal distillation's heat equivalents but highlighting inherent trade-offs where higher rejection demanded reduced permeability per Darcy's law analogs. Membrane lifetimes were initially limited to months, necessitating frequent replacements and elevating operational costs until material refinements improved durability. These limitations underscored causal dependencies on material asymmetry for performance, driving iterative engineering toward modular designs that facilitated broader adoption in municipal and industrial water treatment by the late 1970s.

Recent Milestones (1980s–Present)

In the , membrane technology saw the commercialization of separation systems, such as Monsanto's hydrogen separation unit, which marked the first large-scale application for recovering from refinery streams with selectivity driven by polymeric materials like . Concurrently, nanofiltration (NF) membranes matured from experimental loose variants developed in the , achieving commercial viability by the late for applications like through divalent ion retention exceeding 90% while allowing monovalent passage. emerged as a viable dehydration process in the same decade, leveraging hydrophobic membranes to separate water from organic solvents via vapor pressure differences, with early pilots demonstrating flux rates up to 1-2 kg/m²·h for ethanol-water mixtures. The 1990s and 2000s focused on enhancing membrane flux and durability, particularly through composite thin-film developments. Thin-film composite (TFC) layers on porous supports enabled higher permeate fluxes—often 20-50% improvements over asymmetric —in and NF, reducing energy demands for to below 4 kWh/m³ in optimized systems. These advancements supported broader industrial adoption, including EU-backed research into polymeric gas separation for , where selectivity for CO₂/CH₄ reached 20-30 via rubbery polymers like poly(ethylene oxide). mitigation remained a persistent challenge, with early anti-fouling coatings extending operational life but not eliminating the need for frequent cleaning cycles that increased operational costs by 10-20%. From the 2010s onward, (FO) gained traction for , utilizing osmotic draw solutions to achieve lower propensity than pressure-driven processes, with lab-scale systems recovering up to 80% of water from municipal effluents at fluxes of 10-20 L/m²·h. (MD) pilots in the 2020s targeted in oilfields, demonstrating salt rejections over 99.9% in direct contact configurations, though scalability was limited by thermal efficiency losses from temperature polarization reducing effective fluxes to 5-15 L/m²·h. In June 2025, prototyped an electrically conductive membrane, incorporating conductive polymers to enable in-situ electrochemical cleaning, enhancing salt rejection to levels comparable to traditional polyamides while mitigating organic accumulation. Market integration reflected these efficiency gains, with the global membranes sector expanding from roughly $4 billion in 2010 to approximately $8.3 billion by 2024, propelled by demand in and bioprocessing amid industrial growth in . Projections indicate continued rise to $8.8 billion in 2025, tempered by fouling-related downtime that can comprise 15-25% of operational budgets in high-salinity feeds.

Fundamental Principles

Mass Transfer Mechanisms

In membrane technology, mass transfer across the selective layer occurs predominantly through solution-diffusion or pore-flow mechanisms, each dominant in distinct membrane architectures based on empirical permeation studies. The solution-diffusion mechanism governs transport in dense, non-porous membranes, where solutes or solvents sorb into the polymer matrix at the feed interface, diffuse molecularly through the material, and desorb at the permeate side, with flux proportional to diffusion coefficients measured via time-lag permeation experiments adhering to Fick's laws. In contrast, the pore-flow mechanism prevails in porous membranes, involving sieving and viscous convection of species smaller than pore dimensions under applied pressure gradients, as evidenced by Hagen-Poiseuille flow correlations in microporous structures validated through scanning electron microscopy and flux measurements. These mechanisms are driven by thermodynamic forces, including concentration gradients that induce diffusive flux per Fick's first law, hydrostatic pressure differentials that propel convective flow, and overarching gradients that represent the net motive force for selective permeation, as derived from irreversible and confirmed in non-equilibrium simulations. Empirical permeability tests, such as constant-volume variable-pressure methods, quantify these via species-specific coefficients (typically 10^{-6} to 10^{-10} cm²/s in polymers) and hydraulic permeabilities, revealing that solution- favors selectivity in glassy polymers while pore-flow enhances flux in but risks lower resolution. A key empirical constraint arises in gas separation membranes, where solution-diffusion transport exhibits an inherent permeability-selectivity , encapsulated by Robeson's upper bound—a logarithmic correlation between pure-gas permeability and ideal selectivity, initially formulated in 1991 from over 100 polymers and refined in 2008 with expanded datasets incorporating mixed-gas effects and aging, underscoring causal limits from free-volume distribution and chain rigidity rather than idealized continuum assumptions. Recent molecular simulations challenge the universality of solution-diffusion even in , proposing pore-like nanoscale channels as the actual conduits based on anomalies under high pressure, highlighting how institutional modeling preferences may overlook such data-driven revisions.

Key Theoretical Models

The solution-diffusion model posits that transport through dense, non-porous occurs via sequential dissolution of permeants into the membrane phase followed by diffusion driven by a gradient, without invoking pores or convective flow. The permeate JJ for a given is expressed as J=P(Δc)J = P (\Delta c), where PP is the intrinsic permeability coefficient (product of SS and DD) and Δc\Delta c represents the concentration difference across the membrane, often adjusted for activity. This framework, originally formulated by Lonsdale, Merten, and Riley in 1965, has been validated against experimental permeation data for and gas separation processes, where measured fluxes align closely with predictions under dilute conditions and low pressures. However, the model's assumption of uniform solubility and negligible polymer chain mobility leads to systematic deviations in high-concentration feeds, as evidenced by empirical studies showing reduced fluxes due to solute-membrane interactions, plasticization, or clustering that alter diffusivity beyond simple Fickian behavior. Recent analyses, incorporating two-phase partitioning between free volume elements and polymer matrix, better reconcile these discrepancies with neutron scattering and positron annihilation data, highlighting the model's limitations as an idealized approximation rather than a universal causal mechanism. For porous membranes in and , hydrodynamic sieving models treat separation as size-based exclusion coupled with viscous Poiseuille flow through tortuous capillaries, augmented by for macroscopic permeability. The Hagen-Poiseuille equation approximates local flux through cylindrical pores as J=ΔPr28μτLJ = \frac{\Delta P r^2}{8 \mu \tau L}, where ΔP\Delta P is the transmembrane , rr the pore radius, μ\mu the , τ\tau the , and LL the effective thickness; aggregate forms like the Kozeny-Carman relation extend this to polydisperse structures by integrating over pore size distributions derived from mercury porosimetry. Experimental validation via pure water permeability tests and solute rejection curves confirms for Newtonian fluids at low Reynolds numbers, though introduces cake-layer resistance modeled as an additional Darcy term Rc=αmR_c = \alpha m, where α\alpha is specific cake resistance and mm mass deposited, as quantified in cross-flow trials. Irreversible thermodynamics frameworks, rooted in Onsager's reciprocal relations, address coupled solvent-solute transport via the Kedem-Katchalsky equations, framing volume flux Jv=Lp(ΔP−σΔπ)J_v = L_p (\Delta P - \sigma \Delta \pi) and solute flux Js=Pˉ(Δc)+(1−σ)CˉJvJ_s = \bar{P} (\Delta c) + (1 - \sigma) \bar{C} J_v, where LpL_p is hydraulic permeability, σ\sigma the Staverman reflection coefficient (0-1, indicating sieving efficiency), Pˉ\bar{P} the solute permeability, and Cˉ\bar{C} the mean concentration. The Spiegler-Kedem extension of 1966 refines this for concentration-dependent profiles within the membrane, solving differential forms to predict rejection as R=σ(1−F)1−σFR = \frac{\sigma (1 - F)}{1 - \sigma F} with FF a Peclet-like parameter; parameter estimation from transient permeation experiments yields values aligning with nanofiltration data for electrolytes, though friction coefficients require cautious interpretation due to assumptions of local equilibrium. These models empirically capture electrokinetic and Donnan effects in charged systems but overpredict coupling in highly asymmetric membranes without pore-scale corrections.

Driving Forces and Selectivity Factors

The primary driving forces in membrane separations arise from gradients across the membrane, including differences for hydraulic processes, concentration gradients for diffusive processes, and electrical potential differences for charged separations. In -driven systems such as (RO) and , transmembrane hydraulic (ΔP) serves as the dominant force, propelling solvent flux via approximation, J_v = L_p (ΔP - Δπ), where L_p is the hydraulic permeability coefficient, Δπ is , and deviations from ideality occur due to reducing the effective ΔP. For dialysis and , chemical gradients drive selective diffusion, while in gas permeation, partial differences (Δp_i) govern flux according to Fickian modified by , with permeance often quantified in units (1 = 10^{-10} cm³(STP)·cm/(cm²·s·cmHg)) to reflect real kinetic limitations beyond thermodynamic ideality. Selectivity, the ability to discriminate between , stems from kinetic and thermodynamic interactions including steric exclusion ( size versus pore ), Donnan partitioning (electrostatic repulsion at charged interfaces), and solution-diffusion pathways where differential and yield separation factors α_{i/j} = (P_i / P_j) = (D_i S_i) / (D_j S_j), with P as permeability, D as , and S as . In liquid separations, rejection R = 1 - (C_p / C_f) quantifies solute retention, where C_p and C_f are permeate and feed concentrations, respectively, often exceeding 99% for RO of salts under ideal conditions but influenced by feed composition altering interfacial equilibria. In practice, lab-optimized selectivity overestimates field performance due to membrane compaction under sustained pressure, which densifies the matrix and reduces effective permeability by up to 50% in commercial RO modules at 70 bar over extended operation, as viscoelastic deformation compresses void volumes without full elastic recovery. Polymer swelling from interactions similarly disrupts selectivity by expanding free volume nonuniformly, correlating with decreased salt rejection in swollen RO membranes as diffusive pathways broaden preferentially for solutes. These deviations highlight causal limits: while models assume rigid structures, empirical long-term tests reveal thermodynamic non-idealities like increased chain entanglement under load, necessitating factors of 20-30% for design projections versus short-term data.

Membrane Classification

By Material Composition

Organic membranes, predominantly polymeric materials such as , polyamides, and , form the basis of most commercial membrane systems due to their cost-effectiveness, , and straightforward into thin, flexible sheets or fibers. These polymers enable widespread adoption in and gas separation, where production costs remain below those of alternatives, though they suffer from susceptibility to chemical degradation, swelling in solvents, and limited operational temperatures typically under 100°C. Inorganic membranes, constructed from ceramics (e.g., alumina, titania, zirconia), zeolites, or metals, offer markedly higher resistance to thermal extremes—often exceeding 300–500°C—and aggressive chemicals, including strong acids, bases, and oxidants, making them suitable for and high-temperature gas processing. Their rigidity and inertness reduce and enable aggressive cleaning protocols, contributing to operational lifespans of 10–20 years in abrasive or corrosive environments, compared to 3–5 years for many organics under similar stresses. However, their higher costs and brittleness limit broader use, with ceramic variants representing a niche segment valued at approximately USD 10.67 billion in 2024 amid a larger overall market. Hybrid or mixed-matrix membranes integrate inorganic fillers, such as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) or nanoparticles, into organic polymer hosts to balance cost with enhanced performance, particularly in selectivity for gas separations like CO₂/CH₄ or /. Since the , amine-functionalized MOF nanoparticles have demonstrated up to 19% improvements in CO₂/H₂ selectivity through better polymer-filler interfacial compatibility, reducing voids and boosting overall permeability without sacrificing mechanical flexibility. These composites address pure organic limitations in resistance and transport efficiency while avoiding the expense of fully inorganic systems.

By Pore Size and Structure

Membranes are categorized by pore size into microporous types used in (MF), with pore diameters ranging from 0.1 to 10 μm, allowing retention of particles such as and suspended solids. Mesoporous membranes, applied in (UF), feature pores from 2 to 100 nm, enabling separation of macromolecules like proteins and viruses based on size exclusion. Non-porous or dense membranes, employed in (RO) and , exhibit effective pore sizes below 1 nm, relying on solution-diffusion mechanisms rather than physical sieving for solute rejection. Structural morphology further distinguishes isotropic membranes, which maintain uniform pore characteristics throughout their thickness, from anisotropic (asymmetric) designs featuring a thin, selective layer atop a thicker porous support for enhanced mechanical stability and flux rates. The asymmetric configuration minimizes resistance in the support while concentrating separation in the dense or finely porous , typically 0.1–1 μm thick, to balance permeability and selectivity. Operational ranges are quantified using metrics like (MWCO), defined as the solute molecular weight at which a membrane retains 90% under specified conditions, derived from retention curves plotting solute rejection against molecular size. Pore size distribution, characterizing heterogeneity in pore diameters, is assessed via mercury porosimetry, where intrusion pressure correlates inversely with pore radius per the Washburn equation, yielding cumulative volume data for microporous and mesoporous structures. These parameters, validated against performance, delineate effective separation thresholds without conflating with material-specific transport.

By Operational Mechanism

Membrane separation processes are categorized by their primary driving force, which determines the mechanism of across the selective barrier and influences energy requirements, scalability, and suitability for specific separations. Pressure-driven processes dominate industrial applications due to their versatility in liquid separations, but they are constrained by the need to overcome osmotic pressures governed by the van't Hoff equation, π=cRT\pi = cRT, where high solute concentrations demand elevated applied pressures, escalating energy costs and risking membrane compaction. In -driven mechanisms, a transmembrane differential forces and small solutes through porous or dense membranes, separating based on exclusion or solution-diffusion. (MF) and (UF) target particles and macromolecules above 0.1 μ\mum and 2–100 nm, respectively, at low pressures (0.1–5 bar), while nanofiltration (NF) and (RO) achieve finer rejections down to ions via denser structures under higher pressures (5–80 bar). , for seawater desalination, typically consumes 2–4 kWh/m³ in modern plants with devices, approaching of ~1 kWh/m³ limited by osmotic work, though actual efficiencies vary with and recovery rates. Concentration-gradient-driven processes rely on differences without mechanical pressure, reducing fouling risks but requiring auxiliary steps for solute recovery. Dialysis exploits passive across semipermeable membranes driven by solute concentration gradients, primarily for biomedical applications like . (FO) draws water from a feed to a hypertonic draw solution via gradients (often 10–50 bar equivalent), offering lower energy use (~0.5–2 kWh/m³ post-reconcentration) and better tolerance to feed impurities compared to RO, though draw solute regeneration adds complexity. Electrically-driven mechanisms, such as , apply an to migrate ions through alternating cation- and anion-exchange membranes, concentrating salts in alternate compartments while depleting others. ED suits monovalent ion separations like brackish water , with energy consumption of 0.7–2.5 kWh/m³ for low-salinity feeds, scaling with and stack resistance, but it underperforms for divalent ions or high concentrations due to polarization effects. Thermal mechanisms utilize temperature-induced or gradients for non-isothermal separations. Membrane distillation (MD) evaporates water through hydrophobic pores under a thermal gradient (typically 40–60°C), condensing permeate on the cold side, with thermal energy demands equivalent to 100–200 kWh/m³ electrical equivalent—10–20 times higher than RO—though viable with low-grade . Pervaporation drives volatile components across dense membranes by vacuum or carrier gas, favoring or organic recovery at 50–150°C, but its energy efficiency lags pressure-driven methods for large-scale aqueous processing due to requirements. Hybrid systems combining mechanisms, like pressure-assisted osmosis, mitigate individual limitations but introduce integration challenges.

Fabrication Methods

Synthesis of Organic Membranes

Organic membranes, predominantly composed of polymers such as polysulfone, polyethersulfone, and polyamide, are fabricated through scalable processes that exploit phase separation or polymerization reactions to achieve desired microstructures for applications like ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. Phase inversion remains the dominant method for producing asymmetric porous membranes, involving the dissolution of a polymer in a solvent to form a dope solution, followed by casting into a film or fiber and inducing phase separation via solvent evaporation (dry phase inversion) or immersion in a nonsolvent bath (wet phase inversion). This technique, first developed by Sidney Loeb and Srinivasa Sourirajan in the 1960s for cellulose acetate membranes, generates a thin, dense selective skin layer supported by a porous substructure, enabling high permeate flux while maintaining mechanical integrity. Empirical control of casting parameters—such as polymer concentration (typically 15-25 wt%), solvent-nonsolvent exchange rates, and additives like polyvinylpyrrolidone—dictates pore size distribution and defect minimization, with optimized conditions yielding ultrafiltration membranes exhibiting water fluxes exceeding 100 L/m²·h·bar under standard pressures. Interfacial polymerization constitutes a cornerstone for thin-film composite (TFC) membranes, particularly in , where a crosslinked selective layer, approximately 50-200 nm thick, is formed on a microporous support. The process entails saturating the support with an of (e.g., m-phenylenediamine at 0.1-2 wt%) followed by exposure to an immiscible organic phase containing acid chloride (e.g., trimesoyl chloride at 0.05-0.2 wt%), triggering rapid polycondensation at the liquid-liquid interface to produce an ultrathin, defect-free barrier. Pioneered by John Cadotte in the 1970s as an advancement over early asymmetric designs, this method decouples the selective layer from mechanical support, allowing independent optimization for enhanced performance. Reaction variables, including monomer concentrations, cure temperature (often 60-90°C), and contact time (seconds to minutes), critically influence layer thickness and crosslinking density, with well-controlled syntheses achieving NaCl rejection rates exceeding 98% at fluxes of 20-50 L/m²·h·bar in tests. These empirical outcomes underscore the causal role of kinetic barriers in minimizing voids, as verified through cross-sectional SEM imaging and salt permeation assays in peer-reviewed validations.

Inorganic and Hybrid Membrane Production

Inorganic membranes, primarily ceramics such as alumina (Al₂O₃) and silica (SiO₂), are synthesized via the sol-gel process, which entails of metal alkoxides to form a sol, followed by gelation, coating onto porous supports (e.g., tubular alumina substrates), drying, and at temperatures typically between 400–600°C to yield thin microporous layers with pore sizes in the 1–10 nm range. This method enables high thermal and , with silica-alumina composites achieving H₂ permeance up to 10⁻⁶ mol·m⁻²·s⁻¹·Pa⁻¹ under conditions optimized for defect-free films. Subsequent at 1200–1700°C densifies these structures into tubular forms, enhancing mechanical integrity for high-temperature gas separation applications, where membranes withstand up to 800°C and corrosive environments like those in processing. Zeolite membranes, valued for their crystalline frameworks, are produced through involving precursors, alkali sources, and often organic templating agents (e.g., tetrapropylammonium hydroxide) at 100–200°C for 24–72 hours, followed by to remove templates and activate uniform micropores of approximately 0.3–0.5 nm diameter. Template-free variants, using seed layers on supports like alumina disks, reduce costs and environmental impact while maintaining selectivity, as in membranes with Si/Al ratios >20 yielding CO₂/H₂ separation factors exceeding 10 under conditions. These pores enable precise molecular sieving based on size exclusion, outperforming amorphous ceramics in kinetic diameter-based separations (e.g., CHA-type zeolites at 0.38 nm for CO₂ over larger hydrocarbons). Carbon molecular sieve (CMS) membranes derive from inorganic-like carbon structures formed by pyrolyzing polymeric precursors (e.g., polyimide or cellulose) at 600–900°C under inert atmospheres, creating rigid, slit-shaped micropores (<0.7 nm) via controlled carbonization and cross-linking to achieve high selectivity in gas separations. Yields typically reach 20–30% of precursor mass, with hollow fiber geometries post-pyrolysis exhibiting H₂/CO₂ permeabilities >1000 Barrer and selectivities >50 at elevated temperatures up to 200°C, suitable for harsh feeds like natural gas upgrading. Hybrid inorganic-organic membranes integrate nanoparticles such as TiO₂ (5–20 wt%) into matrices (e.g., PVDF or polyethersulfone) during dope preparation via phase inversion or interfacial , followed by and annealing to embed hydrophilic, photocatalytic domains that mitigate . This embedding reduces adhesion by enhancing surface hydrophilicity and ROS generation under UV, with modified membranes showing flux recovery ratios >90% after protein challenges compared to <70% for pristine polymers, and up to 50–70% lower biofilm growth in long-term MBR tests. Such hybrids retain polymeric processability while inheriting inorganic durability, operating stably in aqueous environments with pH 2–12 and temperatures to 80°C.

Advanced Techniques and Modifications

Surface modifications, such as plasma grafting and zwitterionic coatings, have been developed since the early 2000s to enhance antifouling properties of polymeric membranes, reducing protein adsorption and biofouling by forming hydration layers that repel contaminants. Plasma-mediated grafting of zwitterionic polymers onto nanofibrous membranes improves filtration performance while maintaining mechanical durability, as demonstrated in studies showing sustained antifouling over extended operation. Similarly, tannic acid-based coatings on poly(methylpentene) membranes achieve a 70.58% reduction in protein adsorption, enhancing hydrophilicity and biocompatibility for applications like blood-contacting devices. These modifications often yield 20-50% increases in water flux through reduced fouling resistance, though long-term stability can diminish due to coating degradation under high shear or chemical stress. Biomimetic approaches, inspired by aquaporin water channels, integrate selective proteins into synthetic membranes to achieve ultra-high permeability exceeding traditional reverse osmosis limits by orders of magnitude. Post-2000 innovations, such as embedding aquaporins in block copolymer matrices, enable water fluxes up to 100 times higher than conventional membranes while preserving salt rejection above 99%, as validated in thin-film composite prototypes. However, challenges persist in protein stability and scalability, with empirical data indicating flux declines of 10-30% over months due to denaturation or vesicle rupture under operational pressures. Additive manufacturing via 3D printing allows fabrication of custom membrane geometries with hierarchical porosity, optimizing flow paths and surface area for targeted separations since the 2010s. Techniques like direct ink writing produce multilayered structures mimicking biological tissues, boosting permeability by 30-40% in desalination tests through tailored channel designs that minimize concentration polarization. Trade-offs include reduced mechanical robustness in printed polymers compared to cast membranes, necessitating hybrid reinforcements for industrial viability, as iterative prototypes reveal 15-25% flux gains offset by higher fouling propensity in complex feeds.

Module Designs and Operational Configurations

Membrane Geometries and Forms

Membrane geometries encompass the physical arrangements of membranes in modules, tailored to enhance hydrodynamic efficiency, maximize surface area utilization, and minimize operational challenges such as pressure losses and fouling propensity. Primary configurations include flat-sheet, tubular, hollow-fiber, and spiral-wound, each suited to specific feed characteristics and process scales based on empirical hydrodynamic data. Flat-sheet membranes, typically employed in plate-and-frame modules, feature membranes sandwiched between support plates, yielding packing densities of 100–400 m²/m³. These geometries facilitate straightforward membrane replacement and cleaning but exhibit lower hydrodynamic shear rates, rendering them less effective for high-fouling applications. Tubular membranes consist of cylindrical elements with diameters ranging from 5 to 25 mm, achieving packing densities of 30–300 m²/m³. Their design promotes elevated wall shear rates, particularly beneficial for processing viscous or particulate-laden feeds, where higher shear reduces fouling accumulation compared to flat-sheet configurations; studies indicate tubular modules sustain flux longer in such conditions due to diminished concentration polarization. Hollow-fiber membranes, formed by bundles of capillary tubes with inner diameters of 0.1–1 mm, deliver exceptionally high packing densities exceeding 1,000 m²/m³, optimizing compactness for space-constrained systems. Originating in the 1960s for reverse osmosis, hollow-fiber modules gained dominance post-1970s, exemplified by 's 1971 polyamide-based innovations, enabling efficient seawater desalination through enhanced surface-to-volume ratios that lower overall pressure drops in large arrays. Spiral-wound modules, constructed by rolling flat-sheet membranes with spacers around a central permeate collection tube, offer packing densities of 300–1,000 m²/m³, balancing scalability and cost for industrial deployments. Feed spacers induce secondary flows that elevate local shear, mitigating fouling, though they contribute to elevated trans-membrane pressure drops—typically 0.1–0.5 bar higher than tubular equivalents under comparable fluxes—necessitating optimized spacer designs for viscous industrial streams. The selection of geometry profoundly affects module hydrodynamics, with higher shear in tubular and hollow-fiber formats correlating to reduced fouling rates in empirical tests; for instance, tubular configurations demonstrate 20–50% lower flux decline in viscous dairy processing versus flat-sheet due to augmented turbulent mixing at the surface.
GeometryPacking Density (m²/m³)Key Hydrodynamic AdvantageTypical Pressure Drop Range (bar)
Flat-sheet100–400Low resistance, easy access0.1–0.3
Tubular30–300High shear for fouling control0.2–1.0
Hollow-fiber>1,000Maximal compactness, low hold-up volume0.1–0.5
Spiral-wound300–1,000Spacer-induced mixing0.3–1.5

Flow Dynamics and Process Modes

In dead-end filtration, the feed stream flows perpendicular to the surface, with permeate passing through while all retained solutes and particles accumulate directly on the , forming a cake layer that progressively increases hydraulic resistance and necessitates periodic cleaning or replacement. This configuration suits low-solids feeds where short filtration cycles are acceptable, but it promotes rapid in particulate-laden suspensions due to unmitigated buildup. Cross-flow filtration, conversely, directs the feed tangentially across the , inducing shear stresses that disrupt boundary layer formation and sweep away deposited materials, thereby sustaining higher permeate fluxes over extended periods. The (Re = ρvd/μ, where ρ is fluid density, is , d is , and μ is ) governs the transition from laminar to turbulent regimes; at Re > 2100, enhanced turbulence thins the layer—the solute-enriched film adjacent to the that reduces effective driving force—thus improving selectivity and flux stability. Empirical studies in and of suspensions demonstrate that cross-flow configurations reduce rates by factors of 2 to 5 compared to dead-end modes, as evidenced by prolonged operational run lengths in pilot-scale trials with or slurries. Process modes in membrane operations range from single-pass continuous setups, which yield modest recoveries limited by escalating retentate concentration, to staged cascades that recycle retentate across multiple units for enhanced overall yield. In for brine management, single-pass systems typically achieve 40-50% recovery before osmotic pressures curtail , whereas multi-stage cascades—employing intermediate pressurization and partial permeate withdrawal—enable recoveries exceeding 75% by distributing concentration gradients and minimizing energy penalties from high disposal. Batch modes predominate in dead-end for intermittent processing, while continuous cross-flow supports steady-state industrial applications, often augmented by the (Sc = μ/ρD, ratio of momentum to ) in modeling diffusive within boundary layers to predict polarization extent. These dynamics underscore causal trade-offs: tangential shear causally suppresses deposition via mechanical forces, yet demands higher pumping power, balancing longevity against operational costs.

Equipment and System Integration

Membrane systems require robust ancillary equipment, including high-pressure pumps capable of delivering feed pressures up to 80 bar for processes and corrosion-resistant housings such as fiberglass-reinforced pressure vessels to encase membrane elements securely. These components ensure stable operation by maintaining uniform flow distribution and preventing mechanical failure under operational stresses. Pretreatment units, integrated upstream, typically incorporate filters, chemical dosing for antiscalants to inhibit precipitation, and coagulants to aggregate particulates, thereby extending lifespan by mitigating precursors. Monitoring instrumentation, such as differential pressure sensors for transmembrane pressure (TMP) assessment and flux meters for permeate flow tracking, enables real-time detection of performance degradation, with TMP rises signaling onset. System integration often employs modular skids—pre-assembled frames housing pumps, membranes, and controls—for plug-and-play deployment, facilitating from pilot to full-scale operations, as seen in multi-skid units processing up to several million gallons per day in facilities. A key integration challenge in high-pressure systems like (SWRO) is energy consumption, addressed by isobaric energy recovery devices such as PX pressure exchangers, which transfer hydraulic energy from to feed, achieving efficiencies of 93-98% and reducing overall power use by 25-40%. These devices, when paired with variable-frequency-drive pumps, optimize energy recovery while minimizing mixing losses.

Performance Evaluation

Governing Equations and Metrics

![{\displaystyle L_{p}={\frac {J}{\Delta p}}}][float-right] Permeate flux JJ, defined as the of permeate per unit area (J=Qp/AJ = Q_p / A), quantifies the of processes and is typically expressed in liters per square meter per hour (LMH). This metric is central to design calculations, where higher flux reduces required area but often correlates with increased risk under constant pressure operation. Solute rejection RR, calculated as R=1−(Cp/Cf)R = 1 - (C_p / C_f), measures the membrane's ability to retain solutes, with CpC_p and CfC_f denoting permeate and feed concentrations, respectively; values approach 100% for effective separation in processes like (RO). Permeability, such as hydraulic permeability Lp=J/ΔpL_p = J / \Delta p, describes intrinsic transport under a transmembrane difference Δp\Delta p, enabling comparison across membrane types while assuming and negligible osmotic effects in . Stage-cut θ\theta, the ratio of permeate flow to feed flow (θ=Qp/Qf\theta = Q_p / Q_f), indicates recovery efficiency, typically limited to 10-50% in single-stage RO to minimize ; higher values necessitate multi-stage configurations for economic viability. For permeate quality in desalination, salt passage SP=Cp/CfSP = C_p / C_f inversely reflects rejection, with commercial RO membranes exhibiting 0.1-1% passage under standard conditions, influenced by feed and recovery. Scaling prediction metrics, such as the Stiff-Davis Index for silica (SDI=pH−pHsSDI = \mathrm{pH} - \mathrm{pH_s}), assess risk where positive values signal potential on membranes, guiding antiscalant dosing in high-silica feeds like . These indices rely on models validated against pilot data, yet overpredict scaling in dynamic flows due to kinetic barriers. Governing equations often presume steady-state conditions without , deriving from or solution-diffusion models, but operational data reveal transient declines from cake layer formation, invalidating assumptions in prolonged runs and necessitating dynamic modeling for accurate predictions. Field validations, such as in plants, show initial overestimations by 20-50% when ignoring early fouling transients.

Characterization Techniques

Characterization techniques for membranes focus on measuring intrinsic properties such as morphology, pore structure, and surface charge to assess material performance independent of operational conditions. These methods emphasize non-destructive and reproducible approaches to ensure comparability across studies and standards compliance. Key techniques include for visual structure, porosimetry for pore dimensions, and electrokinetic measurements for charge properties. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and (TEM) provide detailed insights into membrane morphology, including surface , cross-sectional , and pore distribution. SEM offers high-resolution imaging of surface features and is commonly used for polymeric membranes, requiring such as to enhance conductivity. TEM enables visualization of internal structures at nanoscale resolution, particularly useful for thin or dense layers, though it often involves destructive sectioning. These techniques reveal asymmetries like finger-like voids in phase-inversion membranes, influencing selectivity. For porous membranes, the bubble point method determines maximum pore size by applying increasing gas pressure to a wetted membrane until the first bubble emerges, corresponding to the largest pore via the . Standardized in ASTM F316, this test applies to filters with pores from 0.1 to 15.0 μm and provides a non-destructive check. Mean flow pore tests complement it by assessing average pore size through flow rates at specific pressures. Limitations include sensitivity to wetting fluid and inability to resolve full pore distributions without extensions like capillary flow porometry. Molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) characterizes and nanofiltration membranes by measuring solute rejection, defined as the molecular weight at which 90% retention occurs, often using (PEG) standards or proteins like . Challenge tests involve pressure-driven filtration of graded solutes, with retention calculated from concentration ratios in permeate and feed. This indirect method correlates nominal pore size to separation capability but varies with solute shape and membrane-solute interactions. Dense membranes, such as those for gas separation, undergo pure gas testing to quantify permeability coefficients via pressure-driven flow through the membrane, following solution-diffusion models. is measured for gases like H2, O2, and CH4 under controlled conditions, enabling selectivity calculations as ratios of single-gas permeabilities. Multi-lab validations confirm reproducibility, though mixed-gas tests reveal deviations due to competitive . ASTM and similar protocols normalize data to standard temperatures and pressures. Streaming potential measurements evaluate membrane surface charge via , derived from pressure-induced flow generating electric potentials across the membrane. The Helmholtz-Smoluchowski relates streaming current to , influenced by and . This technique aids in understanding electrostatic interactions in charged membranes, with applications in prediction, though it requires careful cell design to minimize errors from non-uniform flow. Standardization, such as ASTM F316 for pore metrics and normalized tests using pure under defined conditions (e.g., 25°C, 1 bar), ensures inter-laboratory comparability and focuses on intrinsic properties like hydraulic permeability Lp = J/ΔP. These protocols mitigate variability from fabrication differences, prioritizing empirical validation over theoretical assumptions.

Fouling Mechanisms and Control Strategies

Membrane fouling refers to the accumulation of substances on or within the membrane structure, resulting in increased hydraulic resistance and reduced permeate flux. This process encompasses biological fouling from microbial adhesion and extracellular polymeric substances (EPS), organic fouling from natural (NOM) such as humic acids and proteins, and inorganic fouling from mineral scaling like precipitation. Colloidal and particulate matter contribute via cake layer formation, exacerbating all types through pore blocking and surface deposition. The primary mechanisms driving foulant attachment involve intermolecular forces described by , which balances attractive van der Waals forces against repulsive electrostatic double-layer interactions to determine deposition kinetics on the membrane surface. In favorable conditions—such as high compressing the electrical double layer or low reducing repulsion—foulants overcome the energy barrier, leading to irreversible adhesion rather than reversible transport. For biofouling, initial bacterial attachment follows DLVO predictions, followed by maturation via EPS matrix growth, which embeds further deposits and resists shear. Organic foulants like proteins adsorb through hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonding, while inorganic scales form via and when local exceeds limits, often catalyzed by prior organic layers. These kinetics highlight that is not merely but a thermodynamically driven deposition process, with extended DLVO (XDLVO) incorporating acid-base interactions improving predictions for complex feeds. Control strategies primarily address reversible fouling through physical methods like backwashing, which reverses permeate flow to dislodge cake layers, and enhanced hydrodynamics such as cross-flow or air scouring to minimize stagnation. Chemical cleaning employs acids (e.g., citric or hydrochloric) to dissolve inorganic scales by chelating divalent cations, and alkaline-oxidant solutions (e.g., NaOH with ) to hydrolyze organic and biofoulants, typically restoring 70-90% of initial in short-term cycles. However, empirical long-term operations reveal persistent declines of 20-50% due to irreversible pore constriction and surface modification, as fails to fully reverse deep-layer adhesions or remnants. In plants, fouling-related costs—encompassing , chemical usage, and —account for approximately 24% of operational expenditures (OPEX), underscoring how incomplete mitigation sustains elevated trans-membrane pressures and curtails efficiency. This persistent impact challenges claims of membrane scalability without rigorous accounting for energy penalties from compensatory pumping.

Major Applications

Water Purification and Desalination

Membrane processes dominate modern desalination, with reverse osmosis (RO) comprising approximately 69% of global installed capacity as of recent assessments, primarily for treating seawater and brackish water to produce potable supplies. Nanofiltration (NF) complements RO in brackish water applications by selectively removing divalent ions like calcium and sulfate while permitting monovalent salts to pass more readily, enabling softening without full demineralization. These pressure-driven processes achieve high solute rejection—typically over 99% for salts in seawater RO—yielding permeate purities suitable for drinking water standards, though actual performance depends on feed salinity, recovery rates (often 40-50% for seawater), and membrane integrity. Pretreatment via (MF) and (UF) is essential to protect RO/NF membranes from by particulates, organics, and biota in raw , reducing silt density index (SDI) to below 3 and extending membrane life. MF pores (0.1-10 μm) target larger and , while UF (0.001-0.1 μm) addresses finer colloids and macromolecules, often replacing conventional coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation with lower chemical use and generation. In large-scale plants, UF/MF pretreatment can cut RO rates by 50-90%, enabling higher and recovery while minimizing cleaning frequency. The Perth Desalination Plant in , commissioned in with a capacity of 144,000 m³/day, exemplifies efficient RO implementation, utilizing dual-pass RO with devices to achieve consumption below 4.2 kWh/m³ for the full process, including pretreatment and post-treatment. Its first-pass RO stage records 2.4 kWh/m³, among the lowest for large-scale seawater at the time, reflecting optimized management and minimal losses. Contemporary seawater RO systems maintain 2.5-3.5 kWh/m³ total use, far below alternatives (10-15 kWh/m³ equivalent), though still 3-4 times the thermodynamic minimum of ~1 kWh/m³ due to irreversibilities in pumping and mixing. Despite high product purity, RO desalination generates hypersaline —1.5-2 times feed —disposed via ocean outfalls, which elevates local , , and chemical loads (e.g., antiscalants, biocides), potentially harming benthic ecosystems through and . Life cycle assessments quantify these impacts, attributing 20-50% of total environmental footprint to discharge and energy-related emissions, with marine eutrophication and acidification risks amplified in discharge zones lacking dilution. Mitigation via diffuser design or zero-liquid discharge (e.g., evaporation ponds) adds costs but reduces ecological disruption, as evidenced by site-specific monitoring showing recovery radii of 1-5 km for plumes. Operational yields remain constrained by limits, with recovery capped below 60% for to avoid excessive scaling, underscoring trade-offs between output volume and concentrate management.

Gas Separation and Purification

Polymeric membranes dominate industrial gas separation due to their ability to exploit differences in gas permeability via solution-diffusion mechanisms, enabling applications such as oxygen/ separation from air and / separation in . Common materials include glassy polymers like , , and , often configured as hollow modules for high surface area. For air separation, systems like ' , commercialized in the early 1980s, use -based membranes to produce -enriched streams up to 99% purity in single-stage operation, with oxygen permeance typically in the range of 10-50 GPU depending on module design. Compared to cryogenic , which achieves high-purity oxygen (>99.5%) and at large scales (>100 /day) but incurs costs of approximately 200-300 kWh/ O2 from compression and , membrane processes offer lower (around 100-200 kWh/ equivalent) and simpler operation for mid-scale (20-100 /day) or decentralized applications. However, membranes yield lower single-stage purity (e.g., 95-99% N2) and recovery (<50% for O2), often requiring multi-stage cascades or hybrid integration for demanding specifications, limiting their economic edge to low-volume scenarios despite higher initial capital costs. For CO2/CH4 separation, polymeric membranes achieve selectivities of 20-40 under mixed-gas conditions, facilitating acid gas removal to meet pipeline specifications (<2-4% CO2), though performance degrades with increasing pressure due to competitive sorption. In the 2020s, hybrid approaches combining polymeric membranes with inorganic fillers (mixed matrix membranes) or absorption processes have advanced post-combustion CO2 capture, targeting flue gas streams with permeance exceeding 100 GPU for CO2 and selectivities >30 for CO2/N2. These innovations aim to surpass pure polymeric limits, yet membrane-based capture constitutes less than 10% of deployed post-combustion capacity, overshadowed by scrubbing due to persistent plasticization—where high CO2 induces chain swelling, reducing selectivity by up to 50%—and the need for high-pressure feeds to achieve viable flux. Empirical gas pair selectivities in commercial polymeric membranes remain below theoretical maxima derived from solution-diffusion parameters, constrained by the permeability-selectivity encapsulated in Robeson's upper bound, which reflects intrinsic free volume limitations and non-ideal mixed-gas effects like competitive . For O2/N2, practical selectivities hover at 3-7 versus potential values >10 in defect-free models, while CO2/CH4 pairs achieve 20-50 against bounds approaching 100, underscoring the gap between lab ideals and industrial realities influenced by fabrication defects and aging.

Bioprocessing and Medical Uses

In , synthetic membranes such as are widely employed in configurations to remove uremic like from blood, achieving removal efficiencies exceeding 90% under optimized conditions. These membranes offer high permeability for small solutes while maintaining , reducing complement activation compared to cellulosic alternatives. However, certain membrane materials can induce production, such as interleukin-1 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha, potentially exacerbating inflammation in patients, as evidenced by studies linking bioincompatible surfaces to activation during dialysis. Regulatory evaluations, including those aligned with FDA standards for , emphasize minimizing such responses through material modifications like to enhance adsorption without excessive protein loss. Ultrafiltration plays a critical role in bioprocessing for pharmaceutical applications, enabling protein concentration and buffer exchange via tangential flow filtration, where molecules are separated based on with molecular weight cut-offs typically 1–1000 . In production, / steps concentrate solutions from initial low densities, such as 5 mg/mL to over 40 mg/mL, facilitating high-titer substance while controlling aggregation risks under pressure-limited operations. For processes, membranes harvest cells post-cultivation, replacing in continuous systems to recycle and boost productivity, as demonstrated in propionic acid production from with yields up to 1 g/L/h. Biomass-derived materials like and offer niche antifouling enhancements in bioprocessing membranes, improving hydrophilicity and recovery to near 100% in modified setups, though synthetic polymers predominate due to superior sterility and scalability in sterile environments. Challenges persist in for medical membranes, where induction from less optimized polymers underscores the need for rigorous testing, with synthetic options like showing reduced inflammatory markers relative to older cellulosic types. These applications highlight membrane technology's precision in separating biologics while navigating and limitations.

Industrial Separations

In industrial separations, membrane technologies facilitate the processing of high-volume commodity streams, emphasizing through reduced energy use and minimal chemical inputs, alongside membrane robustness to handle complex, often fouling-prone feeds like those laden with salts, organics, or emulsions. Applications span sectors requiring separation of solvents, salts, and biomolecules from bulk liquids, where pressure-driven or osmotically driven processes outperform traditional methods like or in targeted scenarios. In the oil and gas industry, forward osmosis (FO) and membrane distillation (MD) address produced water treatment, a byproduct generated at ratios of 7–10 barrels per barrel of oil extracted. Pilot-scale FO-reverse osmosis (RO) hybrids applied to raw produced water have demonstrated over 99% rejection of ions and non-volatiles, enabling volume reduction despite high salinity exceeding 100,000 mg/L TDS. MD variants similarly achieve near-complete solute rejection in hypersaline feeds, with field pilots confirming operational stability against oil and grease contaminants as of 2023. These systems support reinjection or reuse, though pretreatment is essential to mitigate scaling from divalent ions like calcium and barium. Ultrafiltration (UF) dominates dairy processing for whey valorization, separating proteins from lactose-rich permeate in cheese production byproducts. Commercial UF systems concentrate whey proteins to 80% purity, enabling recovery of 20–30% of milk's total protein content that would otherwise be discarded, with continuous operations in multi-loop plants handling thousands of cubic meters daily to meet global demand exceeding 200 million tons of annually. This scalability underscores volume-driven economics, as UF reduces discharge while producing high-value concentrates for and nutraceuticals. Pervaporation excels in dehydrating azeotropic mixtures like ethanol-water, bypassing distillation's energy-intensive reflux requirements. Hybrid pervaporation-distillation pilots for bioethanol production have reported up to 50% energy reductions relative to standalone distillation, leveraging selective hydrophilic membranes to permeate at fluxes of 1–5 kg/m²·h while retaining purity above 99.5%. Semi-pilot tests with ceramic membranes confirm lower operational costs, particularly when integrated downstream of distillation columns to break the azeotrope. Fouling by organics, prevalent in feeds like or with hydrocarbons and proteins, limits by 20–50% over extended runs, driven by adsorption and layer formation that elevates trans-membrane . Mitigation via cross-flow configurations and periodic chemical sustains productivity, though organics-heavy streams demand feed conditioning to preserve integrity and achieve commercial viability.

Challenges and Criticisms

Technical Limitations and Failure Modes

Membrane compaction, a primary failure mode in pressure-driven systems like (RO) and nanofiltration (NF), arises from viscoelastic deformation under transmembrane pressure, compressing the porous support layers and active skin, which reduces effective and elevates hydraulic resistance. In RO membranes, this manifests as an initial decline of approximately 20-40% within hours to days of operation at pressures around 300 psi, with total thickness reductions up to 21%, primarily in the and backing layers. Compaction accelerates with higher pressure, temperature, and cyclic loading, leading to irreversible morphological changes that diminish without recovery upon pressure relief, distinct from reversible elastic deformation. Chemical degradation compromises membrane integrity through oxidative or hydrolytic attacks on chains, particularly in aromatic used for RO. Chlorine exposure above 0.1 ppm free chlorine rapidly oxidizes the active layer, causing chain scission and cross-linking within 200-1,000 hours at 1 ppm, which elevates salt passage by degrading selectivity while sometimes increasing initial before overall decline. This vulnerability stems from the electron-rich bonds reacting with , catalyzed by transition metals like iron, resulting in performance loss concentrated in upstream elements; combined exacerbate the issue by gradual free chlorine release. In gas separation membranes, such as those employing glassy , similar degradation occurs via plasticization or sorbate-induced swelling, though less quantified in operational statistics. Pinhole defects, often originating from manufacturing inconsistencies like uneven coating or handling-induced scratches, create localized breaches in the selective layer, bypassing rejection mechanisms and allowing solute leakage. In RO systems, undetected pinholes can result in permeate losses of less than 1% flux through compromised areas, but aggregated across elements, they contribute to 1-5% overall purity degradation, detectable via elevated conductivity or tracer tests. These flaws, verified through leak or bubble-point integrity tests, stem from incomplete polymerization or mechanical stress, leading to cascading failure if pressure differentials widen the defects. Empirical membrane lifespans in operational settings average 2-5 years for RO elements, falling short of laboratory projections of 5-10 years due to unmodeled variables like feed fluctuations, intermittent operation, and synergistic stressors. In full-scale plants, accelerates after 3-5 years, evidenced by 10-15% normalized loss and 5-10% salt passage rise, attributable to cumulative compaction, partial degradation, and defect propagation rather than isolated events. For modules, real-world durability similarly trails idealized models, with integrity breaches rising in variable feeds versus controlled lab simulants.

Economic and Scalability Barriers

Membrane systems incur substantial capital expenditures (CAPEX), with large-scale seawater (RO) plants costing $30–$50 million for a capacity of 10 million gallons per day (MGD), or roughly $4,000 per m³/day of installed capacity, driven by membrane modules, pressure vessels, and supporting infrastructure. Operational expenses (OPEX) are dominated by , where RO without energy recovery devices demands 5–6 kWh/m³ or higher for typical recovery rates around 25–50%, debunking notions of membrane processes as inherently low- absent such add-ons, which recover only a of the hydraulic input. Pretreatment, critical to prevent and extend membrane life, accounts for 30–40% of total CAPEX in RO systems, encompassing structures, , and chemical dosing to handle feedwater variability. While facilitates scaling from small pilots to industrial plants, deployment hurdles persist, particularly in developing countries where high upfront costs combine with shortages in skilled O&M personnel, leading to underutilization and reliance on imported expertise despite potential for decentralized applications. Compared to thermal alternatives like multi-stage , membranes offer long-term cost advantages through lower energy intensity—RO uses 3–5 times less per m³—yielding water costs as low as $0.41/m³ in optimized cases versus higher figures. However, for membranes often includes a premium of 20–40% over non-membrane treatments like conventional or in non-desalination contexts, attributable to periodic membrane replacements (every 5–7 years) and elevated energy demands relative to lower-pressure alternatives.

Environmental and Sustainability Concerns

Discarded membrane modules, primarily composed of non-biodegradable polymers like and , generate substantial waste, with approximately 840,000 modules—exceeding 14,000 tonnes of material—discarded annually worldwide as of 2023, a figure projected to rise significantly by 2025 due to expanding capacity. These materials resist degradation and fragment into upon environmental exposure or landfilling, contributing to long-term in and aquatic systems, as plastics persist and break down into persistent microparticles rather than fully decomposing. Recycling rates remain below 10%, hampered by technical challenges in separating composite layers and economic disincentives, leading to predominant landfilling or that releases toxins and gases. Brine discharge from membrane-based desalination processes exacerbates hypersalinity in receiving waters, particularly in enclosed basins like the Arabian Gulf, where cumulative inputs have elevated average by up to 0.5 practical salinity units since the 1970s, stressing marine ecosystems through osmotic shock to organisms and altered benthic communities. In the Gulf region, hypersaline effluents—often 1.5 to 2 times concentration—have been linked to reduced , heavy metal bioaccumulation in sediments, and seagrass die-offs, with diffuse discharge strategies failing to mitigate basin-wide accumulation due to limited flushing. These impacts persist despite regulatory efforts, as volumes match or exceed desalinated output, concentrating trace contaminants and nutrients that promote localized . The energy intensity of pressure-driven membrane processes, such as requiring 2–6 kWh per cubic meter for treatment, translates to a substantial when powered by fossil fuels, equivalent to emissions of 1.4–4.32 kg CO₂ equivalent per cubic meter and mirroring the fuel consumption of major industrial sectors in non-renewable grids. For instance, in energy-dependent regions like the consumes over 770,000 MWh annually, akin to burning 180,000 tons of fossil fuels yearly, underscoring reliance on non-renewable sources absent widespread renewables integration. While membrane-enabled water reuse reduces freshwater extraction and offsets some upstream environmental costs, these benefits do not fully negate disposal and discharge burdens, as net savings diminish with scaling and without closed-loop . Bio-based membranes derived from offer theoretical advantages through renewability and lower toxicity, yet their production yields lower compared to synthetics, resulting in higher overall environmental impacts from extended processing and limited for industrial volumes. Synthetic polymers maintain superior and durability at large scales, where biomass alternatives face fouling vulnerabilities and supply chain constraints, rendering hype around "green" variants unsubstantiated for replacing established technologies without trade-offs. Lifecycle assessments confirm that while bio-membranes reduce certain virgin material dependencies, their deployment remains niche, unable to match synthetics' performance in high-throughput applications essential for claims.

Future Prospects

Emerging Innovations (2020–2025)

Electrically conductive membranes for electro-enhanced represent a key advancement, transitioning from lab development to field pilots. In June 2025, Active Membranes, licensing technology from UC Riverside and UCLA, conducted a pilot in Ventura County using RO membranes coated with a conductive layer. Applying low voltage creates an that repels salt ions via charge-based mechanisms, reducing scaling and while boosting operational efficiency. The pilot achieved 20-30% higher production rates compared to standard RO membranes, enhancing treatment of brackish and for agricultural and industrial applications. Hybrid forward osmosis-membrane distillation (FO-MD) configurations have advanced toward zero-liquid discharge in processing, with bench-scale validations demonstrating high recovery. A 2021 study applied FO-MD to , attaining 89% water recovery using a 3.4 M NaCl draw solution, alongside >99.8% rejection of key ions (Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Cl⁻, SO₄²⁻) and permeate conductivity below 105 μS/cm. Water fluxes reached 37 L/m²h in FO and 25 L/m²h in at 65.5°C, supported by low-grade for energy efficiency. Subsequent 2020s reviews affirm FO-MD hybrids routinely enable 85-90% recovery in saline effluents by combining with vapor separation, facilitating solid concentration for disposal or recovery. Machine learning integration in membrane fabrication has accelerated optimization, focusing on property prediction and structural refinement from 2023-2025. , employing featurization techniques like group contributions and , screen vast libraries to forecast permeability, selectivity, and flux, reducing reliance on trial-and-error synthesis. This has yielded designs such as 2D materials with ~4x higher water flux than benchmarks and optimizations improving rejection by 8%. By minimizing fabrication variability and structural defects through data-driven parameter tuning, these methods support faster lab-to-pilot scaling, as evidenced in and nanofiltration applications.

Research Directions and Potential Breakthroughs

Research in membrane technology increasingly targets overcoming fundamental permeability-selectivity trade-offs through atomically thin materials, such as and other two-dimensional (2D) structures, which theoretically enable flux rates up to ten times higher than conventional polymeric membranes due to reduced transport resistance across nanopores. However, large-scale fabrication remains unproven, with challenges in defect-free assembly and mechanical stability limiting practical deployment beyond lab prototypes, as evidenced by ongoing efforts to optimize lamellar stacking for applications. These materials' potential hinges on resolving causal barriers like precise pore size control to achieve ultimate selectivity limits, without which empirical gains in separation efficiency cannot be realized at industrial scales. Anti-fouling strategies represent another focal direction, emphasizing nanotechnology-enabled self-cleaning surfaces—such as stimuli-responsive coatings or bioinspired structures—that aim to restrict flux decline to under 10% annually by dynamically repelling or degrading foulants. Recent advancements, including chelation-directed interfaces on membranes, demonstrate in-place regeneration under operational conditions, yet real-world tests reveal persistent vulnerabilities to complex effluents, underscoring the need for causal validation of mechanisms over simulated models. Prioritizing empirical metrics like sustained permeate quality in hybrid feeds is essential to transcend hype-driven claims from grant-funded studies. Hybrid membrane architectures integrating adsorption or photocatalysis offer promising trajectories for multifunctional separations, where in-situ contaminant capture or degradation addresses intrinsic flux limitations of standalone membranes. For instance, photocatalytic membrane reactors combine separation with reactive species generation for pollutant mineralization, potentially enhancing overall efficiency in wastewater streams, but require rigorous techno-economic modeling to quantify capital and energy costs against unintegrated alternatives. Future breakthroughs demand first-principles scrutiny of synergistic effects, favoring data-driven simulations over optimistic projections to ensure scalability without subsidizing inefficiencies.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4304622/
  2. https://complete-water.com/resources/the-history-of-reverse-osmosis
  3. https://www.apecwater.com/blogs/water-health/history-of-reverse-osmosis-filtration
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916409007930
  5. https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/9780470743720.excerpt.pdf
  6. https://rupress.org/jgp/article/18/2/143/53301/THE-PREPARATION-OF-THE-GRADED-COLLODION-MEMBRANES
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229754866_A_new_series_of_graded_collodion_membranes_suitable_for_general_bacteriological_use_especially_in_filterable_virus_studies
  8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14600857/
  9. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/380.html
  10. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/nor-any-drop-to-drink/
  11. https://www.desware.net/sample-chapters/d05/d09-004.pdf
  12. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/book/10.1021/bk-1981-0153
  13. https://findingaids.hagley.org/repositories/3/resources/1698
  14. https://www.lenntech.com/Data-sheets/Engineering-Aspects-of-Reverse-Osmosis-Module-Design-L.pdf
  15. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-94-011-3682-2_12
  16. https://www.kovalus.com/about/history-brands/
  17. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie800735q
  18. https://www.chemmethod.com/chemmethod.com/article_207213.html
  19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9783527824984.ch1
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9029804/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916411003274
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032386113005399
  23. https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/awwa.1791
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620343997
  25. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1977062
  26. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2025/06/30/new-membrane-technology-could-expand-access-to-water-for-agricultural-and-industrial-use/
  27. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/membranes-market-102982
  28. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/membranes-market-1176.html
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/037673889500102I
  30. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c07128
  31. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm7192
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10104469/
  33. https://www.tappi.org/content/events/07place/papers/fischer.pdf
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009250902000684
  35. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008WR007236
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=56a659cf6225ff07d38b45c1&assetKey=AS%253A321833709047808%25401453742543069
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738808003347
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7228755/
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037673889500102I
  40. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/cs/d3cs00395g
  41. https://wetlab.net.technion.ac.il/files/2025/01/FregerRamon-Memlett_2024.pdf
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383586624049281
  43. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mavt/process-engineering/separation-processes-laboratory-dam/documents/education/RCS/Membrane_course.pdf
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/spiegler-kedem-model
  45. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02476888
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/membranes-separation
  47. https://openmembranedatabase.org/membrane-science/
  48. https://iastate.pressbooks.pub/chemicalengineeringseparations/chapter/membranes/
  49. https://www.pcimembranes.com/articles/principles-of-membrane-technology-pressure-driven-processes/
  50. https://www.thermopedia.com/cn/content/948/
  51. https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/term/membrane-selectivity/
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2821117/
  53. https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199651450.001.0001/acref-9780199651450-e-2457
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/membrane-rejection
  55. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10167258
  56. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c05865
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258443705_Permeability_and_selectivity_of_reverse_osmosis_membranes_Correlation_to_swelling_revisited
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11097391/
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211339820300241
  60. https://synderfiltration.com/learning-center/articles/introduction-to-membranes/membrane-materials-organic-inorganic/
  61. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/va/d4va00378k
  62. https://www.jiuwumembrane.com/comparison-of-organic-membranes-and-inorganic-membranes.html
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5793572/
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Advantages-and-disadvantages-of-inorganic-membranes-with-respect-to-polymeric-membranes_tbl1_309382837
  65. https://www.ipnr-endura.com/blog/why-ceramic-membranes-excel-in-harsh-chemical-filtration
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Life_and_operation_of_ceramic_membrane
  67. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ceramic-membrane-market-report
  68. https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201786
  69. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe0192
  70. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.202300296
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376738816324140
  72. http://hawachmembrane.com/the-classification-of-membrane-filter/
  73. https://www.membrane-solutions.com/blog-What-are-the-4-Types-of-Membrane-Filtration
  74. https://liqtech.com/knowledge-center/nanofiltration/
  75. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mavt/process-engineering/separation-processes-laboratory-dam/documents/education/RCS_2020/Membranes/Classes/2020_C1_Membranes_Basics.pdf
  76. https://www.lenntech.com/services/mwco.htm
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021979785799444
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1650824/
  79. https://www.thermopedia.com/content/948/
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/membrane-technology
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Driving-forces-in-membrane-processes-2_tbl1_328726011
  82. https://synderfiltration.com/learning-center/articles/membranes/membrane-processes/
  83. https://www.danfoss.com/en/about-danfoss/articles/hpp/a-new-world-record-in-swro-energy-efficiency-underscores-the-enormous-potential-of-updating-existing-desalination-plants-with-best-in-class-technology/
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001191642401138X
  85. https://aquaporin.com/difference-between-fo-and-ro/
  86. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b07482
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916417325602
  88. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ee/c8ee00291f
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653522021221
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6680680/
  91. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/app.42130
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/phase-inversion
  93. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cs/d0cs00502a
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916414005761
  95. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353260976_Fabrication_of_desalination_membranes_by_interfacial_polymerization_history_current_efforts_and_future_directions
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738821003434
  97. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/ra/d4ra01796j
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738800833591
  99. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/54f2/7f25c04d41417bf9071fb056027c40ccf7e1.pdf
  100. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/15/19/3344
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666086520300527
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12199310/
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738825005447
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7435847/
  105. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20628-9
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376738820311066
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9025110/
  108. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/11/3/555
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215017X19302462
  110. https://peerj.com/articles/achem-26/
  111. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0017099
  112. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsapm.1c00779
  113. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-024-00462-y
  114. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ra/d5ra00643k
  115. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aab0530
  116. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-024-00301-0
  117. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916418311664
  118. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c05753
  119. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.4c18528
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376738816304215
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8914971/
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/membrane-configuration
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8064107/
  124. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350361881_Comparative_Assessment_of_Tubular_Ceramic_Spiral_Wound_and_Hollow_Fiber_Membrane_Microfiltration_Module_Systems_for_Milk_Protein_Fractionation
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9144028/
  126. https://www.unisol-global.com/newsinfo/15
  127. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0375/15/8/246
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916413002385
  129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231390888_On_the_Fluid_Mechanics_of_Spiral-Wound_Membrane_Modules
  130. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101112
  131. https://www.mssincorporated.com/dead-end-filtration-vs-cross-flow-filtration/
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0263876220301647
  133. https://synderfiltration.com/learning-center/articles/module-configurations-process/cross-flow-membrane-operations/
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916406010617
  135. https://doras.dcu.ie/543/1/Jenny_Ni_Mhurchu_Thesis.pdf
  136. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-between-dead-end-DEF-cross-flow-CF-and-dynamic-DF-filtration_fig1_223392957
  137. https://www.usbr.gov/research/dwpr/reportpdfs/report208.pdf
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916425007696
  139. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/schmidt-number
  140. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ie900512g
  141. https://www.axeonwater.com/blog/how-reverse-osmosis-membranes-work/
  142. https://www.winenv.com/membrane-filtration.html
  143. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42337-1
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916416308451
  145. https://ide-tech.com/en/blog/cut-costs-cut-timelines-rethink-your-next-water-project/
  146. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-cities/articles/10.3389/frsc.2020.00009/full
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8158366/
  148. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383586623005907
  149. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c05649
  150. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mavt/process-engineering/separation-processes-laboratory-dam/documents/education/RCS_2020/Membranes/Classes/2020_C2_model_equations.pdf
  151. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772823424000149
  152. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135424009060
  153. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestengg.3c00172
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8304183/
  155. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/9/1327
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7074137/
  157. https://journal.uctm.edu/node/j2015-1/1_Iren_Membrans_p_3-12.pdf
  158. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0375/10/2/33
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772421224000072
  160. https://www.astm.org/f0316-03r19.html
  161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/bubblepoint
  162. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7600232/
  163. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317026927_Molecular_weight_cut-off_determination_of_pressure_filtration_membranes_via_colorimetric_detection_method
  164. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738822004914
  165. https://theaic.org/pub_thechemist_journals/Vol-94-No-2-articles/Vol_94_No_2_Article-6.pdf
  166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927775798008280
  167. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21443169/
  168. https://uvadoc.uva.es/bitstream/handle/10324/48930/Porosimetric-membrane-characterization.pdf?sequence=1
  169. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0255270121002154
  170. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/fouling-layer
  171. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916413005158
  172. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/10/1306
  173. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10173465/
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7283953/
  175. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261564122_Interaction_mechanisms_and_predictions_on_membrane_fouling_in_an_ultrafiltration_system_using_the_XDLVO_approach
  176. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385894722006660
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8002060/
  178. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738819327425
  179. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6486241/flux.pdf
  180. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916420315435
  181. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135425017282
  182. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1944398625002528
  183. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228491362_Low_energy_consumption_in_the_Perth_seawater_desalination_plant
  184. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916407007552
  185. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1944398624184202
  186. https://purafy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Ultrafiltration-as-a-pretreatment-for-seawater-desalination.pdf
  187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015188209700552
  188. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/how-much-energy-does-desalinisation
  189. https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.joule.2024.08.005/attachment/5a2483e4-f28c-4bcf-8aa7-83414225afc1/mmc2.pdf
  190. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.845113/full
  191. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X20308912
  192. https://orbit.dtu.dk/files/318535565/Fayyaz_et_al_SWRO_J_Clean_PRod_2022_postprint.pdf
  193. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=103262
  194. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230073490_Membrane_Gas-Separation_Applications
  195. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Module-permeance-of-carbon-dioxide-nitrogen-and-oxygen-in-Air-Products-PRISM-PA1020_tbl2_346455415
  196. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383586621004159
  197. https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/Smith%25202001%2520Review%2520of%2520Air%2520Separation%2520Technologies.pdf
  198. https://iosrjen.org/Papers/vol2_issue3/V023484495.pdf
  199. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10744594/
  200. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8778184/
  201. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738809004438
  202. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738824000747
  203. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9025662/
  204. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0085253815474071
  205. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8954096/
  206. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/CA/en/technical-documents/technical-article/protein-biology/protein-concentration-and-buffer-exchange/protein-sample-ultrafiltration
  207. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022354915306742
  208. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9985857/
  209. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ees.2022.0254
  210. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71755-8
  211. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1944398625003376
  212. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916422001448
  213. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0011916423004034
  214. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8620702/
  215. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376738806008490
  216. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12388116/
  217. https://www.msrjournal.com/article_241870_1f97f00163a7322d8c398749490c56a8.pdf
  218. https://www.kuritaamerica.com/the-splash/membrane-fouling-common-causes-types-and-remediation
  219. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0011916422003307
  220. https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/water/amer/us/en/water/public/documents/en/RO-NF-FilmTec-Manual-45-D01504-en.pdf
  221. https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2003.tb10515.x
  222. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916424002157
  223. https://www.softprowatersystems.com/blogs/filtration/reverse-osmosis-membrane-lifespan-how-long-do-they-last
  224. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135419309868
  225. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9030420/
  226. https://genesiswatertech.com/blog-post/seawater-ro-operating-costs-analysis/
  227. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8779680/
  228. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367450886_Review_Water_Desalination_Cost
  229. https://watereuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/WateReuse_Desal_Cost_White_Paper.pdf
  230. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85815.pdf
  231. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/658279/IPOL_STU%282020%29658279_EN.pdf
  232. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772421223000272
  233. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25167-5
  234. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371724000210
  235. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%2528ASCE%2529EE.1943-7870.0001604
  236. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article/146/8/080801/1199112/Carbon-Footprint-of-Seawater-Desalination
  237. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0375/11/6/377
  238. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772823423000209
  239. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestengg.5c00282
  240. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10383737/
  241. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957582024009431
  242. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c05137
  243. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41699-024-00462-z
  244. https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.202511844
  245. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213343725045403
  246. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319390121
  247. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479723003651
  248. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.202500035
  249. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40243-025-00319-5
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.