Paper detail

Rejection mechanisms for contaminants in polymeric reverse osmosis membranes

Despite the success of reverse osmosis (RO) for water purification, the molecular-level physico-chemical processes of contaminant rejection are not well understood. Here we carry out NEMD simulations on a model polyamide RO membrane to understand the mechanisms of transport and rejection of both ionic and neutral contaminants in water. We observe that the rejection changes non-monotonously with ion sizes. In particular, the rejection of urea, 2.4 A radius, is higher than ethanol, 2.6 A radius, and the rejections for organic solutes, 2.2-2.8 A radius, are lower than Na+, 1.4 A radius, or Cl-, 2.3 A radius. We show that this can be explained in terms of the solute accessible intermolecular volume in the membrane and the solute-water pair interaction energy. If the smallest open spaces in the membrane's molecular structure are all larger than the hydrated solute, then the solute-water pair interaction energy does not matter. However, when the open spaces in the polymeric structure are such that solutes have to shed at least one water molecule to pass through a portion of the membrane molecular structure, the pair interaction energy governs solute rejection. The high pair interaction energy for water molecules in the solvation shell for ions makes the water molecules difficult to shed, thus enhancing the rejection of ions. On the other hand, the organic solute-water interaction energies are governed by the water molecules that are hydrogen bonded to the solute. Urea molecules have more hydrogen-bonding sites than alcohol molecules, leading to a higher rejection of urea than occurs for ethanol, a molecule of similar size but with fewer hydrogen bonding sites. These findings underline the importance of the solute's solvation shell and solute-water-membrane chemistry in the context of reverse osmosis, thus providing new insights into solute transport and rejection in RO membranes.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.