Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156

Osmotic MD and other membrane distillation variants

Marek Gryta∗
Institute of Chemical and Environment Engineering, Technical University of Szczecin, ul. Pulaskiego 10, 70-322 Szczecin, Poland

Received 12 February 2004; received in revised form 20 July 2004; accepted 30 July 2004
Available online 24 November 2004

Abstract

A literature survey concerning the osmotic membrane distillation was presented. This process is discussed and compared with other types
of membrane distillation, particularly with direct-contact membrane distillation. A critical evaluation of the process principles and parameters
was included in this literature review. Process nomenclature, membrane properties, transport phenomena and module design are discussed in
detail. The mass driving force in osmotic membrane distillation is considered. Various options of process application are evaluated.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Membrane distillation; Osmotic membrane distillation; Hydrophobic membrane

1. Introduction
Osmotic membrane distillation (OMD) is one of the mem-
brane distillation (MD) variants, operated at low temperature.
The MD comprises a relatively novel membrane process,
which can be applied for the separation of various aqueous
solutions [1]. The hydrophobic membranes, with the pores
filled by the gas phase, are used in this process [1,2]. The
hydrophobic nature of the membrane prevents penetration of
an aqueous solution into the pores. Therefore, only volatile
components of the feed may be transported through the mem-
brane in the MD process. The different content of the particu-
lar components in the gas phase at both ends of the membrane
pores (concentration gradient) causes their transport across
the membrane [1,3]. The composition of the gas phase above
the liquid surface is often expressed by partial pressure, and
the partial pressure difference was therefore accepted as a
driving force of MD process [1–9]. The value of this driving
force depends on the solution temperature and composition
in the layers adjacent to the membrane surface.
The definitions of MD process do not consider the reasons
for formation of driving force [1,7–10]. These reasons may
only affect the value of driving force and installation design,
∗ Fax: +48 91 449 4686.
E-mail address: margryta@mailbox.tuniv.szczecin.pl.
but they do not alter the MD process principles. The gradient
of partial pressure across the membrane may be formed not
only by temperature difference but also by the concentration
difference and by the properties of solutions separated by the
membrane [1,3,11–13]. The application of vacuum on the
distillate side or the flow of dry gas also allows to obtain the
desired effect [1,14].
The membrane distillation is carried out in various modes
differing in a way of permeate collection, the mass transfer
mechanism through the membrane, and the reason for driv-
ing force formation [1,7–9]. These differences were taken
into consideration in the nomenclature by the addition to the
term “membrane distillation” the words, which emphasised a
feature of a given variant. Various types of MD are known for
several years (Fig. 1): direct-contact MD (DCMD), air gap
MD (AGMD), sweeping gas MD (SGMD) and vacuum MD
(VMD). The OMD process, which has been developed dy-
namically in recent years also, can be included in this group.
The addition of word “osmotic” to “MD” is consistent
with historical development of MD process nomenclature.
This word indicates that OMD is a variant of the membrane
distillation the course of which is significantly influenced by
the solution concentration. Additionally, from the OMD term
ensue (via analogy to the creation of terms VMD and SGMD)
that a reason for the driving force formation is associated with
the osmotic pressure (water activity).

0376-7388/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2004.07.029
146 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156
Fig. 1. Types of MD process: (A) DCMD; (B) DCMD with liquid gap (Gore’s design); (C) AGMD; (D) VMD; (E) SGMD.
Several authors consider the OMD process as distinctive
from membrane distillation. Therefore, in the literature be-
sides the term OMD [1,9,15–20] and isothermal membrane
distillation (IMD) [21–23] are used the following terms: os-
motic distillation (OD) [6,24–36], osmotic evaporation (OE)
[26,37–43], gas membrane extraction [44–48] and membrane
osmotic distillation (MOD) [30,49].
The osmotic membrane distillation is similar to direct con-
tact MD. Therefore, the equations derived for DCMD variant
are successfully applied also for the description of the vapour
transport in OMD process [6,22,25,27,37,40,50]. However,
several differences between DCMD and OMD variants exist.
Indicated difference between these processes resulted from a
fact that the driving force in DCMD process is formed by the
temperature gradient, whereas, in OMD by the concentration
gradient.
Identification of the MD process mainly with the
DCMD variant [22,24,27,28,30,32,37,40,47,51,52] is the ba-
sic source of misunderstanding in the determination of OMD
classification. The authors involved in membrane distillation
investigations often abbreviate DCMD term to MD, which is
consistent with the terminology recommended for this pro-
cess [7,8]. However, this abbreviation of the process name
is probably a reason for misconceptions. In this situation, a
note given by Smolders and Franken [8]: “To avoid complica-
tion, it is better to use the full term direct-contact membrane
distillation” seems to be adequate.
2. Fundamentals of OMD process
The OMD process was patented at the end of the last cen-
tury [26,38,53–57], however, its beginning can be found in
the earlier works [14,27,58–61]. In this variant, the feeding
solution temperature is low and closed to the temperature
of the solution flowing on the other side of the membrane.
The vapour pressure difference across the membrane was
obtained by using a solution with a low water vapour pres-
sure (extraction solution) on the distillate side. In order to
increase the partial pressure difference, some authors pro-
posed to maintain the feed temperature a few degrees higher
than the temperature of extraction solution [16,25,27,30].
The extraction solutions comprise the concen-
trated solutions of salt (NaCl, CaCl2 , MgCl2 , MgSO4 )
[6,23,27,28,37–40,51,62] and some organic liquids (glyc-
erol, polyglycols) [29,41,44–48]. A choice of extraction
solution plays a significant role, but information concerning
this subject is limited. The different permeate fluxes were
obtained for different extracting solutions under similar
operational conditions (equal flow rates, temperature and
concentration) [41,42]. However, if the dependence of flux
on the Re number and on the difference of the water activity
will be investigated, then it appeared that no difference
between the used solutions was found.
The extraction solution should possess the appropriate
properties: high water solubility (low water activity), low
volatility, low viscosity, and high surface tension [47]. Several
salts solutions exhibits these properties, e.g. lithium, sodium,
calcium and magnesium chlorides, and other salts currently
used as desiccant agents. However, the problems associated
with toxicity should be taken into consideration in the case
of their use in food processing. Glycols and glycerol are re-
garded as potential organic extractants since they are consid-
ered as non-toxic compounds. Several glycols were success-
fully tested for ethanol removal from diluted solutions, such
as fermentation broth [16,45,48]. Nevertheless, only propy-
 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156
lene glycol (PG) can be used in contact with food. Unfortu-
nately, the properties of PG are not so favourable as those
offered by other glycols. A significant concentration of PG
in the concentrated juice was found after the OMD process.
This fact can be explained by a relatively high volatility of
PG, which causes that the PG diffuses in some extent through
the gas membrane. In addition, the penetration pressure of PG
solutions into the membrane pores is only one bar (low sur-
face tension). Due to these properties, the use of PG in OMD
was rejected [44,48]. Glycerol is a good extractant since its
volatility is practically zero and the surface tension is con-
siderably large. The regeneration of this extractant is easy,
concentration of glycerol by evaporation is a well known op-
eration without problems associated with corrosion and scal-
ing which makes the operation with brines difficult [44,48].
The OMD process is most often used to remove
water from liquid foods such as fruit and vegetable
juices, milk, instant coffee and tea, and various non-
food aqueous solutions being thermally non-resistant
[9,21,22,24,26–32,39–44,47,48,51,62]. Low operation tem-
peratures eliminate many problems associated with the con-
ventional evaporation processes (reaction of non-enzymatic
browning—Maillard’s reaction), inhibit the degradation of
flavour and colour, and a loss of volatile aromas (volatility of
which rapidly increases with feed temperature).
3. Mass transfer
The classical models of gas diffusion in porous media,
such as molecular or Knudsen diffusion, have been used to
describe the mass transfer across the membrane in MD pro-
cess [6,39–41,52,63]. The obtained permeate flux (N) is de-
pendent on the membrane permeability (Lm ) and a value of
the driving force (
Π) which causes the mass transfer across
the membrane pores. This relationship can be described by
equation [11,64,65]:
N = Lm
Π (1)
The driving force in MD is a partial pressure gradient in
the vapour phase given by [1,6,14,22,27,28,50]:

Π =
p = pF − pD (2)
where pF and pD are vapour pressures at the feed/membrane
and membrane/distillate interface, respectively. Frequently,
the driving force is expressed only by the parameters which
in a given MD variant have a large effect on the
p value, e.g.
temperature difference in DCMD [27,45,47] or the activity
difference in OMD [42,47]. However, the omission of the
remaining parameters which have a small effect on the
p
value causes that the dependence of the permeate flux on the
used driving force Eq. (1) is non-linear [39,47,51].
Similarly, like in other membrane processes, the mass
transfer through the membrane in the MD process is caused
by the chemical potentials difference (
µ) on both sides of
147
the membrane [11,25,28,37]. A value of the chemical poten-
tial depends on the temperature, pressure, and the solution
composition. Depending on the MD variant, the influence of
these parameters on the
µ value is different and some of
them can be omitted. The difference of the chemical potential
for ith component in two different states of the system (1 and
2) is given by [66,67]:
api
2
ai2

µi =
µ2i −
µ1i = RT ln = RT ln (3)
api
1 ai1
and
api
2
ai2
= (4)
api
1 ai1
where api and ai are the activity of ith component in the
vapour and liquid phases, respectively, R is the gas constant
and T is the temperature. When we assume the state (1) as a
state of pure substance (0), then api
1 = a0 and a1 = a0 = 1,
pi i i
and Eq. (4) can be transformed into:
api
ai = 0 or api = api 0
ai (5)
api
where api0 is the pressure activity (fugacity) of the saturated
vapour of a pure component in case when a liquid is only
at pressure of its saturated vapour (p0i ). Using the pressure
activity coefficient (φ), the Eq. (5) can be rewritten in the
form:
pi φi = p0i φi0 ai (6)
If the pressure of the saturated vapour above both the pure
component and the solution is not too high (does not exceed
0.1 MPa), then a deviation of the gaseous phase from the ideal
state can be neglected, which gives φi = φi0 (Lewis–Randall
rule) [66], thus we obtain a frequently used equation [25]:
pi (x, T ) = p0i (T )ai (x) (7)
Substituting Eq. (7) to Eq. (2), we obtain the equation for
determination of the driving force in MD:

Π =
p = p0F aF − p0D aD = p0F xF γF − p0D xD γD (8)
where xi is the molar fraction of water and γ i is the water
activity coefficient in the solution.
The form of Eq. (8) can be simplified depending on the
type of application and MD variant used. In the case of
DCMD, when the obtained distillate is pure water (aD = 1),
and the feed is a diluted solution (γ F = 1), the partial pressure
can be determined using the Raoult law, and:

Π = p0F xF − p0D (9)
However, one should remember that Eq. (9) can be used in
practice only for diluted solutions.
When the feed temperature in DCMD is similar to that of
the distillate (i.e.p0F ≈ p0D ), then due to a large concentration
of solutes in the feed (aF < aD thus pF < pD ) we have reversed
148 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156
flux, that is, the flow of water vapour from the distillate to
the feed [14,27,58–61]. In order to maintain the flow direc-
tion of vapour from the feed to distillate, the water activity
in the distillate should be reduced (under isothermal condi-
tion). In practice, it can be realised by incorporation of the
concentrated solutions of salt or a liquid strongly absorbing
water (glycerol, glycols) into the distillate side. This variant
is realised as the osmotic membrane distillation. Moreover,
the isothermal conditions characteristic for OMD are not un-
usual particularly for MD, since VMD and SGMD also can
be operated under the temperature gradient approximately
equal to zero [68,69].
The OMD process is frequently considered as distinctive
from MD since the driving force causing the removal of water
from feed is
a, but not
p. However, the driving force
in OMD is also
p, as can be obtained from Eq. (8) for
assumption that p0F = p0D :

Π =
p = p0 (aF − aD ) (10)
Hence, the driving force in OMD depends not only on
a,
but also on the temperature, the function of which is p0 .
An increase of the permeate flux along with the increase of
membrane temperature (Tm ) is frequently discussed in OMD
[16,24,28], but it is seldom incorporated into the expression
of the mass driving force [25,41]. Differences in the form
of Eqs. (9) and (10) result only from the simplification and
mathematical transformations applied in Eq. (8). Moreover,
the situation described by Eq. (10) concerns a particular case.
In real OMD systems, the assumption that p0F = p0D is not
true with regard to occurring temperature difference [6,50],
thereby, the value of the driving force of OMD process should
be calculated from Eq. (8).
The application of the driving force in the form represented
by Eq. (2) is inconvenient because it requires the knowledge
of both temperature and solution composition (activity) in
the membrane/solution interface. The interfacial conditions
are not always accessible, therefore the water transport in the
system is often given by Eq. (11) which refers to the bulk
conditions of the liquid streams [6,25,28,38,41]:

−1
1 1 1 flows in the same direction, i.e. from the feed to distillate side,
N= K(pbF − pbD ) = + +
pb (11)
KF Lm KD
where the global coefficient K is given by the series of wa-
ter transport resistances from the feed to the distillate side,
namely from the bulk of the dilute solution towards the evap-
oration surface (1/KF ), water vapour transport through the
membrane (1/Lm ) and from the condensation surface to the
bulk of the brine (1/KD ). The coefficient K depends on the
membrane morphology, solution concentration, module de-
sign, hydrodynamic conditions and temperature. Therefore,
the obtained values of K are different and depend on the sys-
tem in which they were determined [6,25,27,28,41,42].
The permeate flux is often given by Eq. (12) in which the

a (estimated for the bulk conditions of the liquid) is used
instead of
p [25,41,42]:
N = K(aFb − aD
b
) (12)
This relationships is linear in the case when pure water is
used as a feed and the resistance of the mass transfer on the
brine side is negligible, and only the membrane resistance
contributes to mass transport [41]. In reality, even for the
water-brine system the value of K changes along with the
brine concentration. When
a was decreased by 34% then N
decreased by 46% [51]. A decrease of water activity in solu-
tion is associated with the increase of solute concentration.
As a solute concentration increases the density and viscosity
of the brine also increases, and as a consequence the diffu-
sion coefficient decreases. In this situation, the mass transfer
resistance in liquid phase was increased, and K coefficient
was decreased. When water on the feed side was replaced
by solution, an instability of K coefficient was increased. A
decrease of the activity of sugar solution by 13.2% caused
a decrease of the efficiency from 10.3 to 1.1 kg/m2 h. This
is caused by an exponential increase of viscosity with in-
creasing content of sugar in solution, whereas the diffusion
coefficient strongly decreases under these conditions [51].
4. Polarization phenomena
4.1. Temperature polarization
The temperature polarization causes that the temperatures
in the layers adjacent to the membrane (T1 and T2 ) differ from
those measured in the bulk of the feed (TF ) and distillate/brine
(TD ) [4–6]. However, the temperature profiles formed in the
DCMD and OMD are different—Fig. 2. In DCMD, we have
T1 > T2 , whereas in OMD is inversely, T1 < T2 . The temper-
ature gradient is obtained due to the evaporation at the feed
side and the condensation at the distillate side, even if the
bulk temperatures of two liquids are equal, like in OMD
[29,37,50]. Conduction of heat from the brine to feed in-
duces a decrease of the polarization effect in OMD. In the
case of DCMD, the situation is reversed, heat associated with
the mass transfer as well as conducted through the membrane
therefore, the temperature polarization effect is increases.
Fig. 2. Temperature profiles during DCMD (A) and OMD (B) processes.
 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156
In the case where the bulk temperature is controlled and
maintained at the same level in both liquids (“well stirred”
cell), the transmembrane temperature difference is given by
[6,29,50]:
N
H

T = (13)
hm + (1/ hF + 1/ hD )−1
The temperature difference (
T = T2 − T1 ) in OMD pro-
cess should be minimized because the vapour pressure gra-
dient induced by this temperature difference is opposite to
the pressure gradient created by the concentration gradient
[6,27,28,37,44,47,50]. Therefore, the occurring
T causes
that the driving force for vapour transport decreases. This
dependence in DCMD is reverse, because the permeate flux
increases for higher
T. Mengual et al. [28] estimated the
temperature difference in OMD system on the basis of the
equation:
N
H = hA
T (14)
where A is membrane area. They obtained the value of
T
within the range from 0.5 to 0.8 K (on each membrane side)
for h = 1900 W/m2 K (hD = hF ) and N = 5–8 × 10−8 kg/m2 s.
Therefore, they concluded that such values would lead to
negligible decrease of the vapour flux. On the contrary, Vah-
dati and Priestman [52] have found that a small temperature
difference can significantly affects the driving force induced
by even very high concentration gradients. The thermal effect
due to evaporation and condensation at both liquid-membrane
interface increases with increasing permeate flux. A high
vapour flux of 12 kg/m2 h causes the transmembrane tem-
perature difference of approximately 2◦ C, which induces a
30% reduction of the driving force [6].
The temperature effect on the driving force can be also
estimated by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation [50]:
p0 (Tm )ML

p =
pb − am
T (15)
RTm2
where Tm is the membrane temperature, L is the heat of water
vaporisation and
pb is the water vapour pressure difference
calculated under the bulk conditions, i.e. at the temperature
TF = TD , and am is the average water activity: (aF + aD )/2.
The dependence of the vapour pressure on temperature
can be given in the form [25,28,70]:


L tivity difference corresponding to an arbitrarily chosen con-
p (T ) ∝ exp −
0
(16)
RT
For the symmetric system, the authors [25,70] assumed
that:

T
T1 = T2 = Tm − (17)
2 The interesting results was fact, that a bulk tempera-

T L
T
1 and 1 (18)
2Tm 2RTm2
149
Fig. 3. Temperature profiles during OMD process carried out in a large-area
module: (A) initial temperature profile; (B) final temperature profile.
and the driving force was obtained in the form similar to Eq.
(15):
L

p = p0 (Tm )
a + p0 (Tm )am
T (19)
RTm2
Gostoli proposed to use the coefficient Θ which represents
the fraction of the driving force which is effective for the mass
transport through the membrane [6,29,50]:
N = Lm
p = ΘLm
pb (20)
 
MW L2 p0 (Tm )am Lm
Θ= 1+ (21)
RTm 2
hm + (1/ hF + 1/ hD )−1
The value Θ = 0.85 was obtained for TF200 membrane
used to evaporate pure water at 25 ◦ C with NaCl solution in
a stirred cell module. In the case of co-current flow system,
with the same liquids, a 31% decrease of flux was obtained
as a result of the temperature difference formed across the
membrane [29].
The temperature profiles presented in Fig. 2B may be ob-
tained only in a stirred cell of small laboratory apparatus.
However, in the OMD pilot plant modules the existing tem-
perature gradients causes the heat transfer between the mem-
brane surfaces and the bulk of solutions. As a consequence,
the feed temperature decreases and the brine temperature in-
creases, what is presented in Fig. 3A. The formation of the
temperature difference (
Tb = TD – TF ) causes a further de-
crease of the driving force formed by the concentration dif-
ference. In the extreme case, the mass transfer can be even
stopped. For this case, considering that
T is proportional
to
Tb , it is possible to find the relationship between the ac-
centration difference and its “equivalent” bulk temperature
difference, given by the following expression [25]:
RTm
a

Tb ∝ (22)
L am
ture difference (
Tb ) equals to 5 K equivalent the driv-
ing force of OMD created by a concentration differ-
ence about 3 M NaCl/dm3 [37]. For the system: distilled
150 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156

water–membrane–5 M NaCl/dm3 (stirred cells) at 40 ◦ C the

OMD flux was stopped when water was cooled to 34 ◦ C [25].
The temperature profile also changes along the OMD mod-
ule [47,50]. Near the entry section, the profile is similar to that
represented in Fig. 2B, obtained for symmetric case (equal
inlet temperatures and heat capacities). As a result, the heat
transfer between the membrane surfaces and the bulk of so-
lutions the temperature gradient presented in Fig. 3A is cre-
ated. Moreover, in this system the temperature difference
T
across the membrane increases. An asymptotic value
T∞
is finally reached for which the convective heat flux (QV )
through the membrane (mass transfer) is exactly balanced by
the conductive heat back-flux (QC ) [29,47,50]:
N
H

T∞ = (23)
hm
The temperature profile presented in Fig. 3B will be ob-
tained if the OMD system works without the heat losses.
4.2. Concentration polarization
In OMD process (similar as in other MD variants), only
water passes through the membrane, therefore the solute con-
centration near the membrane on the feed side is larger than
that in the bulk, whereas the solute concentration on the ex-
tract side is lower than that in the bulk. This phenomenon is
termed as the concentration polarization and is resulting in a
driving force reduction across the membrane [1,6,52].
The concentration polarization in DCMD process is usu-
ally considered in the context of a solute build-up on the
feed side, with the distillate being pure liquid, as in typi-
cal desalination applications [27]. This effect has a smaller
influence on the performance of DCMD. Therefore, several
authors assume that the temperature polarization is essential
in the case of DCMD, whereas the concentration polarization
in the case of OMD [6]. However, the polarization effect in
DCMD variant becomes important in the case of concentra-
tion of solutions with solute content close to the saturated
state [71].
The concentration polarization in the OMD process is im-
portant, particularly on the side of extracting solution. The
presence of the layers of concentrated feed and diluted brine
along the surface of the membrane can significantly decrease
the difference of water activity (Fig. 4). In this situation, the
driving force of the process decreases in accordance with Eq.
(8):
Fig. 4. Concentration polarization profile in OMD process.
Some authors [52] have assumed that the brine concentra-
tion in the layer adjacent to the membrane (c2 ) can be reduced
to zero when temperature differences are applied across the
membrane (TF > TD —such as in DCMD) in order to increase
the OMD flux [30]. Along with the increase of permeate flux,
the diffusion resistance in the salt solution was much higher
than the heat resistance. Therefore, a high flux established due
to the temperature difference results in the complete concen-
tration polarization, i.e. the vapour pressure difference due
to the concentration gradient was equal to zero, with almost
pure water on both membrane surfaces. This result was con-
firmed by repeating the experiment with pure water on both
sides, i.e. the same flux was achieved as with the salt system
[52].
In accordance with the film theory, the salt concentrations
in the bulk phase (cD ), and at the solution–membrane inter-
face (c2 ) are related to the volume flux by equation [6,28]:


JV
cD = c2 exp (25)
kM
However, when the flux in OMD process is much lower
than the mass transfer coefficient (kM ) we can assume that
cD and c2 have similar values. In this case, the flux is given
by [28,37]:
Lm kM
N=
pb (26)
kM + [d
p/dc]b Lm cD
where kM is the mass transfer coefficient for solute in the
layer adjacent to the membrane.
Gostoli described the relationship between the flux and
solute concentration on the feed and brine side by equation
[50]:

Π = p1 − p2 = p0F a1 − p0D a2 x1 aF − a 1
(24) N = kM
F
ρF ln ≈ kM
F
ρF (27)
xF γF xF,ln
A significant concentration polarization effect was ob- xD a2 − a D
served during OMD with glycol [47]. As a result, the per- N = kM
D
ρD ln ≈ kM
D
ρD (28)
x2 γD xD,ln
meate flux varies in the non-linear way with the driving force
evaluated under the conditions prevailing in the bulk phase. The value of kM coefficient depends on the physical prop-
The influence of concentration polarization increases with erties of the solution, as well as on the hydrodynamic prop-
the increase of the permeate flux. erties of the system. This coefficient can be obtained either
 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156 151

Table 1
Characteristics of membranes used in OMD process
Materials Name Manufacturer Configuration/Din s (␮m) ε (%) dp (␮m) dmax (␮m) Literature
(␮m)
PTFE FHLP Millipore Flat 175 70–80 0.25 25, 28
PP Accurel PP Q3/2 Enka A.G. Capillary/1000 200 70 0.2 – 47, 50
Accurel PP S6/2 Enka A.G. Capillary/2600 400 70 0.2 0.6 43, 47, 50
Celgard 2500 Hoechst Celanese Co. Flat 28 45 0.05 0.07 23, 42
Metricel Gelman USA Flat 90 55 0.1 42
PVDF Durapore HVHP Millipore Co. Flat 125 75 0.45 41
Durapore GVSP Millipore Co. Flat 108 80 0.22 23
Durapore GVHP Millipore Co. Flat 125 70 0.20 28, 41
125 75 0.22
PTFE supported by Gore-Tex 10387 Gore & Associates Flat 8.5 78 0.2 – 31, 39
PP net TF450 Pall-Gelman Flat 30–70 80 0.45 – 28, 33, 41, 51
178* 60*
TF200 30–70 80 0.2
165–178* 60*
TF200 Gelman Instruments Co. Flat 60* , 165* 60 0.2 – 38, 45, 47
TF1000 Gelman Sciences Flat 178* 80 1 – 28
* Polypropylene net with di > 10 ␮m [6]. Din : inner diameter.

experimentally or estimated with the use of empirical corre-

lations [6].

5. Membranes for OMD

A fundamental condition required to carry out the OMD

process is the maintenance of the gas phase in the mem-
brane pores. The application in this process of the mem-
branes manufactured from polymers such as polypropylene
(PP), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and poly(vinylidene
fluoride) (PVDF), with a pore diameter ranging from 0.1 to
1 ␮m in this process fulfils the conditions of being non-wetted
by various aqueous solutions in the OMD process. The prop-
erties of membranes used in OMD studies are summarised in
Table 1.
The MD process is carried out with the membranes having
a thickness in the range from 8 ␮m to about 500 ␮m. Since the
permeate flux in OMD process is proportional to the recip-
rocal of the pore length, the membranes should be as thin as
possible. Moreover, the heat resistance of the membrane de-
creases with decreasing thickness. This is advantage of OMD
because the membranes used in this process must exhibit the
heat conductive as high as possible [27], which results from
Eq. (23). The membranes with porosity of 60–80% are used
in this process. Taking into consideration a high temperature
resistance of gas (mixture of air and water vapour) as well as
used polymers, a decrease of membrane thermal resistance
can be only achieved by a reduction of the membrane thick-
ness. A decrease of membrane thermal resistance facilitates
the heat transfer from the brine to feed, which causes a reduc-
tion of
T and the increase of
Π (for the case TF ≈ TD ).
This dependence is opposite to that in DCMD where a high
membrane heat resistance helps to maintain the temperature
gradient. The thickness is usually limited by the mechanical
Fig. 5. The influence of the thickness of used membrane on the permeate
flux during OMD and DCMD processes.
strength of the membrane. Therefore, the thin membranes are
supported by net, e.g. Gelman PTFE membranes (Table 1).
Moreover, one should not consider that thick membranes
are recommended for DCMD. In fact, the heat resistance
increases along with the increase of membrane thickness,
which causes an increase of both the temperature and vapour
pressure differences. However, similarly to OMD the perme-
ate flux in the DCMD increases with decreasing membrane
thickness [72]. It was found that along with an increase of
the membrane thickness the Lm coefficient decreased faster
than the
Π increases and consequently the permeate flux
decreases. The effect of the membrane thickness on the per-
meate flux in the both processes is shown in Fig. 5.
One of the limitations of OMD process is the possibility of
wetting of the hydrophobic membrane resulting in a decline
of both the permeate flux and separation performance. Dur-
ing the MD operation, the membrane pores become gradually
filled with liquid (water logging [73]). The application of thin
152 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156
membranes will facilitate their wetting, which would require
the application of the regeneration procedure (cleaning and
drying) more frequently. However, the membrane regenera-
tion in the OMD process [31] and DCMD process [71] is dif-
ficult, and the obtained results are not promising. Generally, it
is recommended to avoid the fouling and membrane wetting.
In the case of hydrophobic membranes, this can be achieved
by the modification of the membrane surfaces through their
coating by a thin layer of a hydrophilic polymer [23,73].
The membrane coating is necessary for concentration of oily
feeds, because the uncoated membranes were promptly wet-
ted even for low concentrations of oil (limonene) dispersed
in water [23]. The coated membranes were found to maintain
their properties during the concentration of oil emulsions for
periods up to 24 h. These observations confirm the efficiency
of coated membranes for OMD of oily feeds.
Flat membranes, such as Gelman series TFxxx (Table 1),
are often used in OMD process. The permeate flux obtained
for TF450 is slightly lower than that for TF200 [28], although
it should be reversed by taking into consideration the pore di-
ameter. However, these membranes were developed for mi-
crofiltration (MF) applications and the manufactured data (re-
jection and hydraulic permeability) are characteristic for MF.
Measurements of the hydraulic permeability are not relevant
for membranes used in MD, because they involve other mass
transfer mechanisms such as a viscous flow instead of the dif-
fusion transport of gas. For the TF200 membrane, a greater
value of Lm was obtained than that for TF450 membrane as
reveals the analysis of the mass transfer in DCMD on the ba-
sis of the pore diameters determined by the liquid expulsion
permoporometry method [74].
The role of TF200 and TF450 in OMD process was dis-
cussed in several work [6,63,75]. The TFxxx membranes
have a heterogeneous structure: the thin PTFE layer is sup-
ported by PP net. The pore diameters determined in these
works for a PTFE layer of both TF200 and TF450 were
similar. An observation performed after OMD experiments
demonstrated that PP layer was wetted by the aqueous solu-
tions. Thus, only the Teflon layer constitutes the resistance
for water vapour transport through the membrane, while the
PP net contributes to the mass transfer resistance in the liquid
phase. The mass transfer resistance in the vapour phase com-
prises 40–70% of the total resistance. Under favourable hy-
drodynamic conditions in the circulating brine, the resistance
of liquid film entrapped in PP support net represents up to
30% of the total resistance. On the contrary, the contribution
of the support layer becomes negligible under unfavourable
hydrodynamic conditions and 56% of the total mass transfer
resistance comes from the diluted brine boundary layer at the
condensation interface of the membrane [6].
6. OMD modules and process applications
The magnitude of the permeate flux obtained in the OMD
process is significantly affected by the module design and
its operating conditions. This effect is probably a reason for
large discrepancies in the results published in the literature
[6,37,38]. The major application of OMD process includes
the concentration of fruit juices and other temperature non-
resistance liquids. Process allows the production of concen-
trated fruit juices with quality and composition very close to
fresh one, without added flavours and with a high vitamin
content at a cost comparable with the conventional product
obtained by evaporation [44]. The limiting concentration of
juices in OMD process is associated with very high viscos-
ity of juices (>0.2 N/m) at concentrations of sucrose exceed-
ing 68◦ Brix [21,23,26,42]. For the feed concentration below
40 wt% of sugar, the permeate flux varies in accordance with
the membrane permeability, which indicates that the process
is controlled by the membrane resistance. At higher concen-
tration (50–68 wt%), the mass transfer resistance on the feed
side is dominant, and there is no advantage in using a more
permeable membrane [23].
Different configurations of modules were tested
for OMD applications. The membranes may be flat
[6,23,24,27–29,38–42,44–48] or in a form of hollow fibers
[21,22,26,27,30,43,44,47,50,62]. Considering a high vis-
cosity of the liquids flowing through a OMD module the
application of plate-and-frame [24,29,38,44] or spiral-wound
[27,37] configurations is recommended. Moreover, the plate
and frame module (also spiral-wound) have membrane
with lower thickness, thus the obtained flux is larger in
comparison to capillary modules [39,44,47,48].
The performance of OMD process was also evaluated on
a commercial scale with modules having the area above 1 m2
[22,29,31,36,37,43,48,75]. In the pilot plant or industrial in-
stallation, the two solutions are pumped along the opposite
sides of the membrane, e.g. in a counter-current flow. How-
ever, the hydrodynamic conditions are slightly different from
those created by simple agitation often used at laboratory
scale [25,28,37,39,41,45]. Under unfavourably conditions of
fluid mixing, the OMD process can be strongly limited by the
concentration polarisation [6,40,48,51,62]. A relatively high
flux (8–12 dm3 /m2 h) was obtained with the new plate-and-
frame lab-scale OMD module [6,38,51]. In this design, the
fluids were circulated into square channels evenly distributed
so that the velocity of the fluids is identical throughout entire
membrane surface. The most advantageous hydrodynamic
conditions were obtained for Re > 1000.
Several kinds of fruit juice (orange, apple, and grape)
were subjected to the concentration using a batch mode
operation with Syrinx plate-and-frame configuration SR-72
[24]. A plate-and-frame module with working area of 1.5 m2
equipped with ten PTFE flat sheet membranes was used for
concentration of orange juice above 60◦ Brix [76]. In other
work, the grape juice was concentrated to above 68 Brix [62].
In this case, the OMD experiments were carried out with the
use of a Hoechst-Celanese Liqui-Cell hollow fibre contac-
tor containing macroporous, hydrophobic Celgard membrane
(membrane area 1 m2 ). The same membrane area but in the
plate-and-frame configuration was used for concentration of
 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156
orange, apple and grape juices [75]. The fluxes vary from
0.02 to 2.8 dm3 /m2 h depending on the nature and obtained
concentration of the fruit juices. Johnson et al., reports that
the flux rates ranging from 5 to 10 dm3 /m2 h for the instal-
lation with spiral wound membranes and juice concentration
with the solid content exceeding up to 75%. In their instal-
lation, the diluted salt solution was separately regenerated
by concentration in pervaporation installation equipped with
hollow fiber membranes [37].
The concentration of whole juices creates several prob-
lems. For this type of juices, a pilot plant with plate-and-
frame modules having membrane area of 25 m2 was devel-
oped [44,48]. The modules were especially designed to han-
dle the whole juices with a high content of pulp. A net shaped
spacer was used on the extract side, while the juice side path
was smooth. Although this configuration is not optimal con-
sidering the mass transfer efficiency, it allows processing of
non clarified juice.
Helically-wound hollow fibre modules offer a significant
improvement in the hydrodynamic conditions on the shell-
side in comparison with the axial flow modules. In the case
of processing of viscous feeds in OMD process with the use
of helical module, the higher concentrations of solutes and
two times larger flux were obtained than those obtained for
module design with axial flow [21,22].
The ultrafiltration (UF) is proposed as a pretreatment pro-
cess for juice concentration by DCMD and OMD processes
[25,62,77]. In the case of OMD, the performance of this pro-
cess was affected by pore diameters of the membranes used
in the UF process [62]. The UF process of single strength
Gordo grape juice uses membrane with a nominal pore di-
ameter of 0.5 ␮m did not result in the increase of the OMD
flux. An increase of the flux during subsequent concentra-
tion of permeate by OMD was observed for UF membranes
with nominal pore diameters of 0.1 ␮m or less. It has been
also demonstrated that UF results in a small increase in juice
surface tension, which in turn reduces the tendency for mem-
brane wetting.
During the concentration of tomato puree, the adhesion of
fatty substances including tomato pigments to the membrane
surface was indicated, and as a consequence the decline of
permeate flux was observed [31]. The fouling comprises a
major limitation in the industrial implementation of process,
thus the determination of OMD performance during long-
term run is necessary. However, this subject has received little
attention in papers published so far.
A combination of DCMD with OMD for concentration
of fluosilicic acid was studied [17]. In this case, saturated
NaCl brine was used as a cold solution. The presence of brine
not only increases the vapour pressure difference, but also
creates the possibilities of sodium fluosilicate production. A
part of the volatile fluoride compounds transported through
the membrane would react with NaCl and the precipitation of
Na2 SiF6 occurred. However, the precipitation of this salt also
proceeded on the membrane surface, therefore, the permeate
flux decreased as a result of scaling.
153
7. Summary
Several significant operational differences exist among
particular variants of membrane distillation, however the ba-
sic principle of MD (evaporation of feed through the pores
of non-wetted membrane) remains the same, also in OMD.
Therefore, certain differences between DCMD and OMD
cannot be a reason of a statement that the OMD process is
not a type of membrane distillation.
In OMD process, the membrane separates the solutions
with the same temperatures, hence, the vapour pressure gra-
dient results from a high solute concentration in the extracting
solution flowing on the distillate side. However, the heat is
transferred from feed to the membrane and from membrane
to brine, and as a results the feed cools down and the brine
warms up. Therefore, the temperature difference across the
membrane existed, and the mass transfer in OMD is also as-
sociated with the heat transfer.
Taking into consideration a small value of the driving
force, the OMD process is strongly affected by the concen-
tration polarization, occurring particularly on the brine side.
Therefore, the module design, which provides appropriate
hydrodynamic conditions, is very important.
The results obtained from the OMD process evaluation
demonstrate several advantages, which promote its industrial
application. However, the implementation of OMD process
would require the performance of the long-term tests. Based
on these tests, it should be possible to determine whether
the most important disadvantages of DCMD (e.g. fouling
and wetting of membranes) also concern the OMD variant.
This knowledge should be acquired within the next years,
taking into consideration a fact that the OMD experiment are
currently carried out in the several pilot plants.
Nomenclature
Symbols
A membrane area
ai activity of i component in the liquid phase
api activity of i component in the vapour phase
(fugacity)
c solute concentration (kg/m3 )
dp pore diameter (m)
H vapour enthalpy (J/kg)
h convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
hm thermal conductivity coefficient of the mem-
brane (W/m2 K)
JV volume permeate flux (m3 /m2 s)
K overall (apparent) mass transport coefficient
kM mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
L latent heat (J/kg)
Lm membrane permeability coefficient (kg/m2 s)
M molecular weight (kg/kmol)
154 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156

[10] W.J. Koros, Y.H. Ma, T. Shimidzu, Terminology for membranes and
p partial pressure of saturated vapour over the membrane processes (IUPAC Recommendation 1996), J. Membr.
solution (N/m2 ) Sci. 120 (1996) 149–159.
p0 partial pressure of saturated vapour over the [11] J.G.A. Bitter, Transport Mechanisms in Membrane Separation Pro-
pure solvent (N/m2 ) cesses, Plenum Press, New York, 1991.
[12] G. Vasaru, G. Müller, G. Reinhold, T. Fodor, The Thermal Diffusion
Q heat (W)
Column, The Deutscher Verlag Der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1969.
R gas constant (J/kmol K) [13] G.L. Hassler, Means and method for mass and heat transfer, United
Re Reynolds number States Patent Office, No. 3129145 (1964).
s membrane thickness (m) [14] M.T. Bryk, R.R. Nigmatullin, Membrane distillation, Russ. Chem.
T temperature (K) Rev. 63 (1994) 1047–1062.
[15] M.P. Godino, L. Peña, C. Rincón, J.I. Mengual, Water produc-
x mole fraction in liquid phase
tion from brines by membrane distillation, Desalination 108 (1996)
91–97.
Greek letters [16] M.P. Godino, L. Peña, J.I. Mengual, Evaluation of the membrane

Π driving force distillation coefficient, in: Proceedings of Euromembrane’97, June,
.Θ
˜ temperature polarization coefficient in OMD University of Twente, 1997, p. 346.
[17] M. Tomaszewska, Concentration and purification of fluosilicic
ε membrane porosity
acid by membrane distillation, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39 (2000)
φ pressure activity coefficient 3038–3041.
γ activity coefficient [18] J.I. Mengual, L. Peña, Membrane distillation, Colloid Interface Sci.

µ chemical potential difference 1 (1997) 17–29.
ρ density (kg/m3 ) [19] M.P. Godino, L. Peña, J.I. Mengual, Membrane distillation: theory
and experiments, J. Membr. Sci. 121 (1996) 83–93.
[20] L. Peña, M.P. Godino, C. Rincón, J.I. Mengual, A method to evaluate
Subscripts the net membrane distillation coefficient, J. Membr. Sci. 143 (1998)
A air 219–233.
b bulk [21] A.J. Costello, P.A. Hogan, A.G. Fane, Performance of helically-
C conducted wound hollow fibre modules and their application to isothermal
membrane distillation, in: Euromembrane’97, 23–27 June, Univer-
D distillate/brine (extraction solution)
sity of Twente, The Netherlands, 1997, pp. 403–405 (book of
F feed abstracts).
m membrane [22] A.G. Fane, M. Costello, P.A. Hogan, R.W. Schofield, Mem-
V vapour brane distillation and osmotic (isothermal membrane) distillation:
0 pure component factor for enhanced performance, in: Proceedings of the Work-
shop on “Membrane Distillation, Osmotic Distillation and Mem-
1 boundary layer on the feed side
brane Contactors”, CNR-IRMERC, 2–4 July, Cetraro, Italy, 1998,
2 boundary layer on the distillate side pp. 1–6.
[23] J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane, Membrane development for processing of
oily feeds in IMD, osmotic distillation: developments in technol-
ogy and modelling, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on “Membrane
Distillation, Osmotic Distillation and Membrane Contactors”, CNR-
References IRMERC, 2–4 July, Cetraro, Italy, 1998, pp. 43–46.
[24] J. Sheng, R.A. Johhnssson, M.S. Lefebvre, Mass and heat trans-
[1] K.W. Lawson, D.R. Lloyd, Membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. fer mechanisms in the osmotic distillation process, Desalination 80
124 (1997) 1–25. (1991) 113–121.
[2] A.C.M. Franken, J.A.M. Nolten, M.H.V. Mulder, D. Bargeman, C.A. [25] M.P. Godino, L. Peña, J.M. Ortiz de Zárate, J.I. Mengual, Coupled
Smolders, Wetting criteria for the applicability of membrane distil- phenomena membrane distillation and osmotic distillation through
lation, J. Membr. Sci. 33 (1987) 285–298. a porous hydrophobic membrane, Sep. Sci. Technol. 30 (1995)
[3] R. Taylor, R. Krishna, Multicomponent Mass Transfer, John Wiley, 993–1011.
New York, 1993. [26] M. Courel, M. Dornier, G.M. Rios, M. Reynes, P. Deblay, Osmotic
[4] R.W. Schofield, A.G. Fane, C.J.D. Fell, R. Macoun, Factor af- evaporation: a new technique for fruit juice concentration, in: Eu-
fecting flux in membrane distillation, Desalination 77 (1990) 279– romembrane’97, 23–27 June, University of Twente, The Netherlands,
294. 1997, p. 432 (book of abstracts).
[5] M. Gryta, M. Tomaszewska, Heat transport in the membrane distil- [27] M.M. Vahdati, G.H. Priestman, Developments in membrane and
lation process, J. Membr. Sci. 144 (1998) 211–222. osmotic distillation, Meeting “New Direction in Distillation and
[6] M. Courel, M. Dornier, G.M. Rios, M. Reynes, Modelling of wa- Absorption”, The Institution of Chemical Engineers—Fluid Sep-
ter transport in osmotic distillation using asymmetric membrane, J. aration Process Group, 3 November, Sheffield University, UK,
Membr. Sci. 173 (2000) 107–122. 1993.
[7] A.C.M. Franken, S. Ripperger, Terminology for Membrane Distilla- [28] J.I. Mengual, J.M. Ortiz de Zárate, L. Peña, A. Velázquez, Osmotic
tion, European Society of Membrane Science and Technology, 1988. distillation through porous hydrophobic membranes, J. Membr. Sci.
[8] K. Smolders, A.C.M. Franken, Terminology for membrane distilla- 82 (1993) 129–140.
tion, Desalination 72 (1989) 249–262. [29] A. Cervellati, G. Zardi, C. Gostoli, Osmotic distillation: develop-
[9] G. Jonsson, A.I. Gill, Mass transfer limitations in membrane con- ments in technology and modelling, in: Proceedings of the Work-
tactors and various forms of membrane distillation, in: Proceed- shop on “Membrane Distillation, Osmotic Distillation and Mem-
ings of “Engineering with Membranes”, 3–6 June, Granada, Spain, brane Contactors”, CNR-IRMERC, 2–4 July, Cetraro, Italy, 1998,
2001. pp. 39–42.
 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156
[30] Z. Wang, F. Zheng, S. Wang, Experimental study of membrane dis-
tillation with brine circulated in the cold side, J. Membr. Sci. 183
(2001) 171–179.
[31] R.J. Durham, M.H. Nguyen, Hydrophobic membrane evaluation and
cleaning for osmotic distillation of tomato puree, J. Membr. Sci. 87
(1994) 181–189.
[32] B.L. Jiao, R. Molinari, V. Calabrò, E. Drioli, Application of mem-
brane operations in concentrated citrus juice processing, Agro-Ind.
Hi-Tech. (1991) 19–27.
[33] M. Courel, E. Tronel-Peyroz, G.M. Rios, M. Dornier, M. Reynes,
The problem of membrane characterization for the process of os-
motic distillation, Desalination 140 (2001) 15–25.
[34] A.M. Barbe, J.P. Bartley, A.L. Jacobs, R.A. Johnson, Retention of
volatile organic flavour/fragrance components in the concentration
of liquid foods by osmotic distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 145 (1998)
67–75.
[35] J. Mansouri, A.G. Fane, Osmotic distillation of oily feeds, J. Membr.
Sci. 153 (1999) 103–120.
[36] F. Ali, M. Dornier, A. Duquenoy, M. Reynes, Evaluating transfer of
aroma compounds during the concentration of sucrose solutions by
osmotic distillation in batch-type pilot plant, J. Food. Eng. 60 (2003)
1–8.
[37] W. Kunz, A. Benhabiles, R. Ben-Aim, Osmotic evaporation through
macroporous hydrophobic membranes: a survey of current research
and applications, J. Membr. Sci. 121 (1996) 25–36.
[38] M. Courel, G.M. Rios, M. Reynes, Influence of hydrodynamics
on osmotic evaporation performance, in: Proceedings of the Work-
shop on “Membrane Distillation, Osmotic Distillation and Mem-
brane Contactors”, CNR-IRMERC, 2–4 July, Cetraro, Italy, 1998,
pp. 35–38.
[39] A. Benhabiles, R. Ben Aim, Osmotic evaporation: a new membrane
process for concentration of thermosensitive aqueous solutions, in:
Proceedings of the Workshop on “Membrane Distillation, Osmotic
Distillation and Membrane Contactors”, CNR-IRMERC, 2–4 July,
Cetraro, Italy, 1998, pp. 81–84.
[40] J. Romero, G.M. Rios, J. Sanchez, A. Saavedra, Modelling and
simulation of osmotic evaporation process, in: Proceedings of “En-
gineering with Membranes”, 3–6 June, Granada, Spain, 2001,
pp. 297–301.
[41] V.D. Alves, I.M. Coeihoso, Mass transfer in osmotic evaporation:
effect of process parameters, J. Membr. Sci. 208 (2002) 171–179.
[42] V. Alves, I. Coelhoso, Osmotic evaporation: an alternative process to
concentrate fruit juice, in: A. Noworyta, A. Trusek-Hołownia (Eds.),
Using Membranes to Assist of Cleaner Processes, ARGI, Wrocław,
2001, pp. 243–248 (Poland).
[43] F. Vaillant, E. Jeanton, M. Dornier, G.M. O’Brien, M. Rey nes,
M. Decloux, Concentration of passion fruit juice on an industrial
pilot scale using osmotic evaporation, J. Food Eng. 47 (2001) 195–
202.
[44] A. Cervellati, G. Zardi, C. Gostoli, Gas membrane extraction: a new
technique for the production of high quality juices, Fruit Process. 10
(1998) 417–421.
[45] C. Gostoli, S. Bandini, Gas membrane extraction of ethanol by
glycols: experimental and modelling, J. Membr. Sci. 98 (1995)
1–12.
[46] S. Bandini, C. Gostoli, Ethanol removal from fermentation broth by
gas membrane extraction, J. Membr. Sci. 70 (1992) 119–127.
[47] S. Bandini, C. Gostoli, Concentrating aqueous solutions by gas
membrane extraction, in: Proceedings of “EUROMEMBRANE’95”,
18–20 September, University of Bath, UK, 1995, pp. II 19–II 24.
[48] M. Bregoli, A. Cervelati, R. Ferrarini, C. Leoni, A. Zani, G. Zardi,
C. Gostoli, Development and modeling of a plate & frame mem-
brane contactor for juice and wine processing, in: Proceedings of
“Engineering with Membranes”, 3–6 June, Granada, Spain, 2001,
pp. 259–263.
[49] Z. Wang, F. Zheng, Y. Wu, S. Wang, Membrane osmotic distillation
and its mathematical simulation, Desalination 139 (2001) 423–428.
155
[50] C. Gostoli, Thermal effects in osmotic distillation, J. Membr. Sci.
163 (1999) 75–91.
[51] M. Courel, M. Dornier, J.M. Herry, G.M. Rios, M. Reynes, Effect of
operating conditions on water transport during the concentration of
sucrose solutions by osmotic distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 170 (2000)
281–289.
[52] M.M. Vahdati, G.H. Priestman, Reducing boundary layer effects in
membrane osmotic distillation, ICHEME Research Event, London,
1994, pp. 177–179.
[53] M.S.M. Lefebvre, Method of performing osmotic distillation, Patent
No. U.S. 4781837 (1988).
[54] P. Deblay, Process for at least partial dehydration of an aqueous
composition and devices for implementing the process, FR Patent
No 91/13013 (1991).
[55] COGIA Société Anonyme, Procédé de déshydratation au moins par-
tielle d’une composition aqueuse et dispositifs pour mettre en oeuvre
le procédé, Eur. Patent No. 0539280 A1930428 (1993).
[56] E.G. Beaudry, J.R. Herron, C.E. Jochums, L.E. Medina (OSMO-
Osmotec Inc.), Apparatus for direct osmosis concentration of fruit
juices, U.S. Patent No. 5281430 (1994).
[57] C. Gostoli, A. Cervellati, Procedimento di concentrazione di succhi
di frutta ed altre miscele acquose mediante estrazione a membrana
gassosa e relativo dispositivo (Process for concentrating fruit juices
and other aqueous mixtures by gas membrane extraction and related
device), Ital. Patent No. RM97A000678 (1997).
[58] P.K. Weyl, Recovery of demineralized water from saline waters,
United States Patent Office, No. 3340186 (1967).
[59] Z. Honda, H. Komada, K. Okamoto, M. Kai, Nonisothermal mass
transport of organic aqueous solution in hydrophobic porous mem-
brane, Proc. Eur.–Jpn. Congr. Membr. Membr. Process. (1984)
587–594.
[60] G.C. Sarti, C. Gostoli, Use of hydrophobic membranes in thermal
separation of liquid mixtures: theory and experiments, in: E. Drioli,
M. Nakagaki (Eds.), Membranes and Membrane Processes, Plenum
Publ. Corp., New York, 1986, pp. 349–360.
[61] E. Drioli, V. Calabrò, Y. Wu, Microporous membranes in membrane
distillation, Pure Appl. Chem. 58 (1986) 1657–1662.
[62] A.F.G. Bailey, A.M. Barbe, P.A. Hogan, R.A. Johnson, J. Sheng,
The effect of ultrafiltration on the subsequent concentration of
grape juice by osmotic distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 164 (2000) 195–
204.
[63] C. Gostoli, S. Bandini, S. Di Francesca, G. Zardi, Analysis of a
reverse osmosis process for concentrating solutions of high osmotic
pressure, Trans. IChemE 74 (C) (1996) 101–109.
[64] M.C. Porter (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial Membrane Technology,
Noyes Publication, New Jersey, U.S., 1990.
[65] M. Cheryan, Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Handbook, Tech-
nomic Publishing Company, Lancaster, U.S., 1998.
[66] J. Szarawara, Termodynamika Chemiczna Stosowana, WNT,
Warszawa, 1997.
[67] P. Atkins, Physical Chemistry, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1998.
[68] H. Mahmud, A. Kumar, R.M. Narbaitz, T. Matsuura, A study of
mass transfer in the membrane air-stripping process using microp-
orous polypropylene hollow fibers, J. Membr. Sci. 179 (2000) 29–
41.
[69] G. Rajalo, O. Tereping, T. Petrovskaya, Thermal forced membrane
desorption–absorption of ammonia, J. Membr. Sci. 89 (1994) 93–99.
[70] P. Godino, L. Peña, J.I. Mengual, Membrane distillation: theory and
experiments, J. Membr. Sci. 121 (1996) 83–93.
[71] M. Gryta, Concentration of NaCl solution by membrane distilla-
tion integrated with crystallization, Sep. Sci. Technol. 37 (2002)
3535–3558.
[72] K. Schneider, W. Hölz, R. Wollbeck, Membranes and modules for
transmembrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 39 (1988) 25–42.
[73] D.Y. Cheng, S.J. Wiersma, Composite membrane for membrane dis-
tillation system, USA Patent 4419242 (1983).
156 M. Gryta / Journal of Membrane Science 246 (2005) 145–156

[74] L. Martinez, F.J. Florido-Diaz, P. Pradanos, A. Hernandez,
in: Proceedings of the 41st Microsymposium “Polymer Mem-
branes”, 16–19 July, Prague, Characterization of hydrophobic
microporous membranes used in membrane distillation (2001)
41.
[75] J. Sheng, Osmotic distillation technology and its applications, Aus-
tral. Chem. Eng. Conf. 3 (1993) 429–432.
[76] M.M. Vahdati, G.H. Priestman, Enhancement of the performance
characteristic of membrane in osmotic distillation., in: Proceedings
of the 2nd Conference on Advances in Biochemical Engineering,
ICHEME, 1994, pp. 94–96.
[77] V. Calabro, B.L. Jiao, E. Drioli, Theoretical and experimental study
on membrane distillation in the concentration of orange juice, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 33 (1994) 1803–1808.