Table 3.
Recent studies on the performance of membrane distillation systems using carbon-based nanomaterials
| Reference | Material used |
Operating conditions | Results | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wimalasiri and Zou (2013) |
SW-CNT/graphene nanosheets for CDI electrodes |
25 ml/min feed flow, 780 mg/L NaCl aqueous solution, 25 °C, 2 V voltage | 98% salt removal efficiency | - |
| Baek et al. (2014) | VA CNT + Epoxy |
2–10 bar, 10–30 °C, with 600 rpm stirring speed, and 200 mg/L polyethylene oxide (PEO) |
1100 ± 130 L/h.m2.bar. water flux and the PEO rejection of the VACNT membrane as examined was 78% |
Membrane size Avg pore diameter (nm) 4.8 ± 0.9 Pore density(#/cm2) 6.8*1010 |
| Dumée et al. (2010) |
MD with 50 mg/m2 MW-CNT Matrix |
Deionized water on cold side of MD, 35 g/L NaCl solution on hot side | 99% salt rejection and 12 kg/.h water flux rate | Water flux rate about 40 kg/m2.h at 28 kPa (Hot: 70 °C; Cold: 5 °C) |
| Li et al. (2014) | CNT/PES | 60 Psi | VA-CNTs water transportation was 3 times the CNT/PES membrane and 10 times higher than the pure PES membrane under the same pressure | - |
| Shawky et al. (2011) | Nanocomposite of MW-CNT/polyamide (15 mg MW-CNT/g PA) | NaCl Aqueous solution (4000 ppm) at room temperature, 3.9 MPa |
76 ± 1.1% salt rejection, 28 ± 0.8 L/h.m2.bar. Flux |
- |
| Lee et al. (2015) | CNT | pressure at 1 bar | The water permeability through CNT millimeter thick UF membrane was 30,000 L/m2.h.bar | - |
| Bhadra et al. (2013) | Carboxylated CNTs (MWCNT-COOH/PVDF) | 24 mL/min feed flow rate, 3.4 wt.% NaCl solutions, 1 L/min dry air, 60–90 °C |
19.2 kg/h.m2 Productivity 99% salt rejection |
The flow remained constant as the salt concentration increased, reaching 19.2 kg/h m2 |
| Yan et al. (2012) | (0.4 SW-CNT/PANI) | NaCl solutions with an initial conductivity of 100 μS/cm, 20 ml/min feed flow, 1.2 V |
The salt removal efficiency is 78.4% Regeneration rate of 100% for 0.4 SWCNT/PANI |
|
| Wang et al. (2014) |
CNT/Polypryrrole Electrodes |
100 μS/mm NaCl aqueous solution | Saturated adsorption capacity was 96% and 43.99 mg/g for reactivation rate | - |
| Amini et al. (2013) | 0.1% MW – polyamide/CNT | 10 mM feed NaCl aqueous solution, 2 M NaCl draw solution, 23 °C, 240 kPa | 96.7 L/h m2 water flux nearly 160% higher than TFC membrane | - |
| Park et al. (2014) | VA-CNT | The pure water permeabilities for the VA-CNT membrane 1000 ± 100 L/m2.h.bar | - | |
| Zhao et al. (2014) | 0.1% MW-polyamide/CNT | NaCl Aqueous solution (2000 ppm, 7 pH, 25 °C), 16 bars | 28.05 L/h.m2 water flux and 90% salt rejection | With increase in the amount of MWNTs in the membrane, the water flux increased from 14.86 to 28.05 L/m2.h while the salt rejection decreased slightly |
| Jia et al. (2010) | CNT Forward osmosis | 0.58 M NaCl aqueous solution (feed), 1 atm, and 300 K | 100%-salt rejection for different sized CNTs | Water flux possessed by the CNT membranes tends to increase at first and then decrease with the increase of the CNT diameter in the investigating range |