Osmotic Pressure

Qing Chang, in Colloid and Interface Chemistry for Water Quality Control, 2016
Osmotic pressure is very common in nature; for example, by osmotic pressure, water is driven to
rise from soil to the body of plants and transfer within its leaves and branches. Here we should
recognize that osmotic pressure is not suitable for studying lyophobic colloidal systems. There are
two reasons for this: One is that its particles aggregate and settle easily, and the other is its value
measured is too low to be measured with sufficient accuracy. Although osmotic pressure is not
suitable for studying lyophobic colloid systems, it is very important for studying macromolecule
solutions because the macromolecule solution is thermodynamically stable and provides a
measurable effect. Osmotic pressure is a colligative property, and its effect is much more significant
than other colligative properties, including lowering of vapor pressure, depression of freezing point,
elevation of boiling point, etc.; therefore, the research results obtained by this method are very
accurate.
Read full chapter

Fertilizer drawn forward osmosis for irrigation

Peter Nasr, Hani Sewilam, in Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Desalination Handbook, 2018

13.4.2.1 Osmotic pressure

Osmotic pressure relies on the number of species formed rather than the species’ nature [74]. Fig.
13.8 shows the osmotic pressure of the four fertilizers DS at variable concentrations. Calcium
nitrate produces the largest osmotic pressure of 600 atm at its maximum solubility. This is because
Ca(NO3)2 when dissolved generates the largest number of species in comparison to other fertilizers
(Table 13.3).

Sign in to download full-size image

Fig. 13.8. Osmotic pressure of different nitrogenous fertilizers DS at 25°C analyzed using OLI
Stream Analyzer 9.1 [68].
Fixing the molar concentration of the DS (say at 2.0 M as per Table 13.4), the next highest osmotic
pressure observed is that of ammonium sulfate (92.1 atm). The least osmotic pressure observed is
for urea (46.1 atm at 2.0 M). Yet, as urea is readily soluble in water, it exhibits osmotic pressure in
excess of 200 atm at concentrations more than 10 M (Figs. 13.8–13.11). Fig. 13.12 illustrate the
type and concentration of each species present and the expected osmotic pressure at different
concentrations of the fertilizers. Analysis was carried out using OLI Stream Analyzer 9.1 software.

Sign in to download full-size image

Fig. 13.9. Species generated and osmotic pressure of ammonium sulfate. Analysis carried out using
OLI Stream Analyzer 9.1 at 25°C temperature and 1 atm pressure [73].

Sign in to download full-size image

Fig. 13.10. Species formed and osmotic pressure of urea. Analysis carried out using OLI Stream
Analyzer 9.1 at 25°C temperature and 1 atm pressure [73].
Sign in to download full-size image
Fig. 13.11. Species formed and osmotic pressure of ammonium nitrate. Analysis carried out using
OLI Stream Analyzer 9.1 at 25°C temperature and 1 atm pressure [73].

Sign in to download full-size image

Fig. 13.12. Species formed and osmotic pressure of calcium nitrate. Analysis carried out using OLI
Stream Analyzer 9.1 at 25°C temperature and 1 atm pressure [73].
It is worth noting that SWRO pressure ranges between 60 and 100 atm and that the typical osmotic
pressure of seawater is around 28 atm [75–77]. Comparing these values to the osmotic pressures of
the four fertilizers under study, it can be easily concluded that the four fertilizers generate osmotic
pressure much more than that of seawater and SWRO (Fig. 13.8).
For ammonium sulfate, three dominant aqueous species exist, which are ammonium ion, sulfate ion,
and ammonium sulfate ion. Ammonia and bisulfate ion are not considered as the dominant species
(Fig. 13.9). The osmotic pressure of ammonium sulfate seems to increase as concentration increases
up to 5.5 M concentration due to its maximum solubility [78].
Urea has only one dominant aqueous species (Fig. 13.10). The osmotic pressure lineally increases
as urea concentration increases. Osmotic pressure reaches up to 150 atm at a 7 M concentration.
For ammonium nitrate, two dominant aqueous species exist, which are ammonium nitrate and
ammonium ion. Ammonia and nitrate ion are not considered as the dominant species (Fig. 13.11).
Osmotic pressure of ammonium nitrate increases proportionally as concentration increases reaching
230 atm at 7 M concentration.
Calcium nitrate has three dominant aqueous species, which are nitrate ion, calcium ion, and calcium
mononitrate ion (Fig. 13.12). The osmotic pressure of calcium nitrate increases proportionally as the
concentration increases reaching 475 atm at 7 M concentration.
Any draw solute should generate higher osmotic pressure than that of the FS. For example, sweater
has an osmotic pressure of 28 atm. So, if sweater is the FS, the DS must exhibit an osmotic pressure
a lot more than 28 atm. Thus, since all investigated fertilizers produce osmotic pressure that is way
higher than seawater or brackish water, they are suitable for use as an osmotic DS.
Read full chapter

Mass transport processes in artificial organs

M. JOHN LEVER, in Biomaterials, Artificial Organs and Tissue Engineering, 2005

Osmosis
Osmosis is simply the movement of a solvent down its own activity gradient. However, this motion
can generate a pressure if the fluid is moving into an enclosed space and the osmotic pressure (Π) is) is
given by
[15.18]
where R is the gas constant and Ci is the molar concentration of each dissolved solute. In body
fluids ΣCi = 290–300 mM (mOsm) and cell lysis can occur when ΣΔCi falls below 250 mM. This is
a major reason for the precise homeostasis of fluid and salt concentrations in the body.
Osmosis will only occur if the movement of the solutes is restricted relative to that of the solvent.
The degree of restriction to movement of a given solute is expressed using the reflection coefficient
(F) such that F = 1 for complete restriction and F = 0 for no restriction.
Then:
[15.19]
Read full chapter

Advanced desalination technologies

Purnima Jalihal, R. Venkatesan, in Sustainable Water and Wastewater Processing, 2019
3.2 Forward osmosis (FO)
Osmosis, or as it is currently referred to as forward osmosis, has new applications in separation
processes for wastewater treatment, food processing, and seawater/brackish water desalination.
Forward osmosis (FO) is an emerging low-energy desalination technology with several merits over
the other conventional pressure-based reverse osmosis (RO) desalination technologies. Unlike the
pressure-driven RO desalination process, the driving force in the FO process is the osmotic
produced naturally by the concentrated draw solution (DS) [20]. Fig. 16 shows a schematic diagram
of the FO unit setup.

Sign in to download full-size image

Fig. 16. Schematic of FO units setup [21].
FO uses natural osmosis to dilute the seawater feed stream by using a draw solution with higher
osmotic pressure than the seawater feed, which pulls water across a semipermeable membrane from
the feed solution. The draw solutes are then separated from the diluted draw solution by using a low
heat source (40°C) and recycling. The solutes used are typically a mixture of ammonia and carbon
dioxide gas. Specific energy consumption of less than 0.25 kWh/m3 has been reported for the
membrane portion of the process. An FO pilot system was tested for 3 months using Osmotek's
CTA membrane and NaCl as the draw solution. Water recoveries of 94%–96% were achieved with
high contaminant rejection [20]. Flux decline was not apparent during the processing of the raw
leachate. However, a flux decline of 30%–50% was observed during processing of the concentrated
leachate. Almost complete flux restoration was achieved after cleaning [20].
Read full chapter

The transport properties of concrete and the equations that

describe them
Peter A. Claisse, in Transport Properties of Concrete, 2014
1.3.4 Osmosis
Osmosis depends on what is called a semi-permeable membrane. This is a barrier through which the
water can pass but material dissolved in it cannot pass as easily. An example is the surface layer of
concrete which will permit water to enter but restrict the movement of the lime dissolved in the pore
water. The osmotic effect causes a flow of water from the weak solution to the strong solution. Thus
water on the outside of concrete (almost pure, i.e. a weak solution) is drawn into the pores where
there is a stronger solution. The process is illustrated in Fig. 1.7. If two solutions were placed either
side of a barrier as shown, the level in one of them would rise, although in practice this would be
very difficult to observe because concrete is permeable and the liquid would start to flow back as
soon as a pressure difference developed.

Sign in to download full-size image

1.7. Schematic diagram of osmosis.
If different solutions are present on each side of the sample, osmosis will still take place even if the
concentrations are the same. The direction of flow will depend on their relative ‘osmotic
coefficients’. Osmosis could be a significant process for drawing chlorides and sulphates into
concrete. Having entered the concrete they may move further in by diffusion.
Read full chapter

Forward osmosis feasibility and potential future application

for desalination
Ali Altaee, ... Alaa H. Hawari, in Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Desalination Handbook,
2018

Abstract
Forward Osmosis has been intensively investigated for seawater desalination in the past decade.
However, the application of technology is still limited apart from a number of pilot and small
commercial plants. Initially, forward osmosis was proposed as a breakthrough in the desalination
technologies due to its potential for reducing the power consumption to the thermodynamic
seawater limits. Lately, experimental studies have demonstrated that first insights underestimated
the technology's energy efficiency and feasibility for desalination. Membrane fouling, back salt
diffusion, membrane mechanical strength, draw solution, and many other factors were behind the
loss of interest in forward osmosis technology.
Conversely, field experiments have shown that forward osmosis membrane fouling was not a major
problem, and water flux met the expectation when a full-scale hollow fiber membrane was
provided. However, there were insufficient data regarding the cost and energy efficiency of the
membrane regeneration stage. For thermal regeneration using a thermolytic draw solution, the
major concerns were the ease of application and residual draw solution in the feed solution. The
current study addresses the pros and cons of forward osmosis and the primary reason behind the
technology being less successful, despite the large amount of money and efforts invested over the
past decade.
Read full chapter

General Problems in Seawater Desalination

Hongfei Zheng, in Solar Energy Desalination Technology, 2017

1.3.11 Forward Osmosis

Forward osmosis (FO) has a similar working process with reverse osmosis, but the moving
direction of the water molecules is just the opposite. In forward osmosis, the water molecules from
saline water move through the semipermeable membrane toward the draw solution, which is
maintained at a higher concentration than the feed solution. FO mainly uses osmotic pressure
gradient and not the hydraulic pressure gradient.
The operation principle of FO and RO is shown in Fig. 1.17. Water and the saline water with low
chemical potential are separated by a semipermeable membrane. Water molecules spontaneously
move from water to saline water through the semipermeable membrane, as shown in Fig. 1.17A,
which is the forward osmosis process. The liquid level of the saline water will be elevated until the
liquid level pressure difference between the two sides is the same as the osmotic pressure difference
(Δp = ΔK). If the water is replaced by the draw solution with lower chemical potential, water
molecules spontaneously will move from saline water to draw solution through the semipermeable
membrane. It is still the forward osmosis process. Oppositely, the RO process will happen when
outer pressure (Δp > ΔK) is brought to saline water, such as Fig. 1.17B, in which the water
molecules move from saline water to the water side through the semipermeable membrane. The
feature of forward osmosis is the process driving force just coming from chemical potential
difference but no outer force.

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 1.17. Operation principle of (A) forward osmosis and (B) reverse osmosis.
Forward osmosis is being widely studied for desalination. However, it was concluded that the
conventional RO membrane was not suitable for FO because of higher internal concentration
polarization caused by a higher concentration of draw solution. The performance of the FO unit can
be further improved by improving the membrane to withstand higher internal concentration
polarization. The schematic representation of the FO system is shown in Fig. 1.18.

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 1.18. Forward osmosis unit using NH3-CO2 as draw solution [28].

Also, solar energy can be used in the FO system. The commercial solar FO system has been
developed by Trevi systems and uses a novel draw solution (RTS-2300). The osmotic driving force
of draw solution was over 5000 psi, and as a result, the membrane of less surface area is sufficient
for treating feed waters. The schematic representation of their system is shown in Fig. 1.19. The
energy consumption of the forward osmosis system is lower than the reverse osmosis system of the
same capacity.
Sign in to download full-size image
Figure 1.19. Forward osmosis unit driven by solar energy [29].
Forward osmosis has more advantages compared to RO:
1.

The operation is under low or no hydraulic pressure so that the energy consumption is
relatively low.

2.

High salt rejection: the water recovery rate reaches 75% but only 35–50% in traditional
reverse osmosis processes.

3.

Less membrane fouling because the forward osmosis membrane is hydrophilic, so it can
effectively reduce membrane pollution.

4.

Equipment is simple.

5.

Low operating temperature, which is suitable to use the solar energy or waste heat.

Read full chapter

Forward Osmosis for Sustainable Water Treatment
Li-Cheng Shen, Nicholas P. Hankins, in Emerging Membrane Technology for Sustainable Water
Treatment, 2016

Abstract
Forward osmosis (FO) as an emerging technology has been researched extensively over the past
few decades for water treatment and other applications. In FO, the water in the feed solution (at low
osmotic pressure) spontaneously flows through a semipermeable membrane to the draw solution (at
high osmotic pressure) under the osmotic pressure difference and without applied hydraulic
pressure, conferring the advantages of low energy consumption in the separation process and
reduced membrane fouling. For this reason, it is a promising potential candidate for sustainable
water processing.
Although FO is unlikely to replace reverse osmosis in many applications, it has successfully been
employed as a pretreatment process in desalination, wastewater treatment, power generation and life
science applications. Some niche applications of stand-alone FO have been identified in food and
fertiliser industries, but the majority of practical applications involve FO as a pretreatment process
to reduce the energy cost and membrane fouling during subsequent stages of water processing.
This chapter will introduce the three key parts in the FO process: the draw solutions, the membranes
and the modules, and then discuss the practical applications. The associated challenges in FO are
also highlighted within each part, including draw solution development, reverse solute diffusion,
concentration polarisation, membrane fouling and FO membrane development. To overcome these
challenges, the related developments and modifications are critically discussed with consideration
of the overall performance of the FO process.
Read full chapter

Introduction to Membrane Technology

Rajindar Singh, in Membrane Technology and Engineering for Water Purification (Second Edition),
2015

Forward osmosis
Forward osmosis (FO) is a membrane-separation process that uses osmotic pressure difference
between a concentrated draw solution and a feed stream to drive water across a semipermeable
membrane [63]. The basis of FO is osmosis, a natural and spontaneously occurring process. It is
strictly direct osmosis across an RO membrane. A draw solute of high osmotic pressure, e.g.,
ammonium carbonate passes across one side of the FO membrane, and a high salinity solution, e.g.,
seawater flows across the other side of the membrane, as shown in Figure 1.17. Water transfers
from the seawater to the draw solute side due to osmotic flow. It is then necessary to regenerate the
draw solute and recover the water transferred by the FO process, e.g., in a distillation unit. The
primary challenge is the selection of a draw solute so that its presence in the product water meets
the drinking water standard, and the draw solute can be removed easily and economically.
Sign in to download full-size image
Figure 1.17. Schematic flow diagram of a forward osmosis system with ammonia carbon dioxide
draw solution (https://www.google.com/search?q=cellulose+acetate+membrane).
Source: [63].
The main attraction of FO is that it is not limited by osmotic pressure like RO and, hence, can treat
high salinity waters. It is also believed to be less prone to feed-side fouling. However, the dual-
separation process is intertwined and complex as shown in Figure 1.17, and needs to overcome
several limitations [48, 62]:
•

Conventional RO membranes are not suitable because FO differs from RO in having salty
solutions on both sides of the membrane. The porous support exposed to the draw solution is
subject to fouling and internal polarisation from the draw solution. This means that the
concentration of salt ions inside the membrane is very different from the bulk solution,
resulting in a loss of osmotic pressure driving force such that conventional RO membranes
only achieve < 50% of their capability in FO.

Heat energy is required for the separation of the ammonia and CO2 from the diluted draw
solution and for the evaporation of large amounts of water. A suitable draw solution is
required for treating feeds with high osmotic pressure.

The process is more energy intensive than RO.

•
 Product water contains about 9 ppm ammonia. Hence, an additional water purification step
such as ion exchange is required to ensure that the final product contains < 1 ppm ammonia to
meet the drinking water standards.

Even with draw solution optimisation and the benefit of reduced fouling in the regeneration
step, the FO process is unlikely to approach the energy efficiency of SWRO.

One potential application is pre-treatment of seawater for RO desalination. Process modeling results
showed that a FO–RO integrated system could be effective in meeting boron and chloride water
quality requirements for agricultural irrigation without a two-pass RO system [64]. Since it is
apparently less prone to feed side fouling, FO pretreatment would be an additional useful asset.
Another useful application of FO is the so-called “osmotic backwash” for cleaning RO membranes
[62]. TFC membranes cannot be backwashed because the top thin layer can get detached. However,
since forward osmosis transfers pure or fresh water through an RO/NF membrane under osmotic
pressure, it can be used to backwash and clean the membrane with the permeate without the risk of
damaging the membrane. One process operation is described below:
•

Shut down the feed water occasionally for a short time to allow immediate osmotic backwash
of the membrane. Water will penetrate the membrane at flux, which is a function of the local
salt concentration along the membrane. More water will penetrate the high concentration
locations, which are more prone to scale deposition and small precipitates may get dissolved.

Read full chapter

Direct and Indirect Seawater Desalination by Forward

Osmosis
Zhenyu Li, ... Gary Amy, in Membrane-Based Salinity Gradient Processes for Water Treatment and
Power Generation, 2018

9.2 Forward Osmosis Hybrid System: An Opportunity

Forward osmosis (FO) is an emerging membrane technology with various possible water treatment
applications. Potential FO applications are a function of the respective feed and draw solutions
(DSs) selected, and the water quality objectives. Almost no external hydraulic pressure is required
to drive the process. In FO, water is extracted from a lower osmotic pressure feed solution (FS) into
a higher osmotic pressure DS; the process is driven by the osmotic pressure difference between the
two aqueous solutions on the opposite sides of the semipermeable membrane and results in
concentration of the FS and dilution of the DS. Osmotic pressure of an aqueous solution can be
calculated by using the van’t Hoff relation as Eq. (9.1) [10]:
(9.1)
where i is the dimensionless van’t Hoff factor for the specific ion, M is the molarity of the specific
ion, R is the gas constant (0.08206 L atm/mol/K), and T is the temperature in Kelvin.
The water flux through a semipermeable membrane by the osmotic pressure difference is given as
Eq. (9.2) [11]:
(9.2)
where Jw is the water flux through the semi-permeable membrane, A is the pure water permeability
coefficient of the semipermeable membrane, is the reflection coefficient, and KD,b and KF,b are the
bulk osmotic pressures of the draw and FSs, respectively.
Eq. (9.2) is limited to the condition that membranes can fully reject solutes of the DS [12,13]. In
addition, Eq. (9.2) is strictly true for completely rejecting dense symmetric membranes where the
driving force for water molecules is the difference in osmotic pressures between the bulk feed and
DSs (Fig. 9.1).

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 9.1. Ideal driving force of FO in the case of symmetric membrane [14].
It is important to note that majority of the FO membranes are asymmetric [15] and synthesized with
an active dense layer (for salt rejection) supported on a porous support layer (SL). This results in
two distinct membrane orientations during the FO process. In the first membrane orientation, the
active layer of the membrane is toward the FS while the porous SL is toward the draw solution (AL-
FS). In the second orientation, the active membrane layer faces the draw solution (AL-DS).
Generally, the osmotic pressure difference across the AL of the FO membrane is significantly less
compared to the bulk osmotic pressure difference and, therefore, the actual water flux is
significantly lower than the theoretical flux given by Eq. (9.2) [16–18]. This lower water flux in FO
desalination is attributed to the inevitable and complicated membrane-related transport phenomenon
known as concentration polarization (CP) [15–20]. The effects of CP are in fact one of the most
challenging problems in the practical FO desalination process [20–23]. The overall effect of CP is to
increase the FS concentration and its osmotic pressure and at the same time decrease the
concentration and the osmotic pressure of the DS at the AL of the membrane (Fig. 9.2). Thus, in the
presence of CP effects, Eq. (9.2) has to be modified as follows [16]:

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 9.2. Effective driving force of FO in the presence of CP with asymmetric membrane (A, AL-
FS; B, AL-DS) [16,24–27].
(9.3)
where and are the osmotic pressures of the feed and the DS, respectively, at the AL of the
membrane.
In other words, the effective osmotic pressure difference will be significantly lower than the bulk
osmotic pressure difference due to CP effects. Two types of CP effects tend to reduce the effective
osmotic pressure difference in FO desalination process, namely external concentration polarization
(ECP), which presents in the FS, and DS near the membrane surface and internal concentration
polarization (ICP) inside the membrane porous structure.
Fouling is a major factor causing flux decline in the membrane processes. For FO membranes,
water flux decline due to fouling is lower than that in RO systems, especially when wastewater with
high fouling propensity is used as the FS, because the FO process itself does not induce suspended
solids and other organic contaminants into the membrane [28], reducing as well the need for an
extensive pretreatment. Experiments by comparing fouling behavior under identical hydrodynamic
operating conditions (i.e., initial permeate flux and cross-flow velocity) and feed water chemistries
(i.e., pH, ionic strength, and calcium concentration) of FO and RO systems showed that the
thickness and compactness of the fouling layers of FO and RO are significantly different [29].
Permeate flux in FO with organic fouling was almost completely recovered after hydraulic cleaning,
while no noticeable change was observed for the RO system. In another study, data showed that FO
fouling is governed by the coupled influence of chemical and hydrodynamic interactions. Calcium
binding, permeation drag, and hydrodynamic shear force are the major factors governing the
development of a fouling layer on the FO membrane surface [30].
Consequently, research has identified the potential for FO and its hybrid systems for several
applications, including seawater desalination [31], to reduce the cost and fouling propensity of
producing fresh water from impaired-quality water sources [32–35]. Recently, studies have shown
the potential of FO-LPRO (low pressure RO) systems to produce low cost high quality fresh water
using low pressure desalination, while simultaneously recovering impaired water from a recycled
feed water [36,37]. In a recent review, Hoover et al. [34] described three ways in which FO can be
applied in current reverse osmosis desalination plants to increase sustainability: (1) upstream
dilution of seawater feed stream to reduce energy consumption, (2) downstream dilution of
concentrated brine before discharge to the marine environment, and (3) osmotic backwashing of
reverse osmosis membranes to restore membrane performance.