Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Separations Report: Reverse Osmosis

Abstract
Reverse osmosis is a crucial process employed during natural disaster crises. Because drinking
water is often compromised during and after the wreckage ensued by storms, earthquakes, and
tornados, preparing an immediate solution to providing potable water is a necessity. In the
experiment that follows, a testing team is challenged to optimize the configuration of a portable
reverse osmosis unit with expectations that it will be used at a site affected by a natural disaster.
The parameters that were varied included feed concentration, feed pressure, and ratio of product
to reject streams. The most optimal configuration was concluded to be a 5 g/L feed tank
concentration and a 300 psi feed pressure. Whilst a 30:70 product to reject ratio produced a
consistent 29% recovery and continually produced the lowest salt concentration of the product,
this must be gravely considered when time becomes a constraint.
Background
Reverse Osmosis: Theory & Application
Reverse osmosis is characterized by a high pressure differential and a semi-permeable
membrane. It utilizes a high pressure pump to overcome osmotic pressure in order to force water
through a semi-permeable membrane, allowing the majority of the salt in the feed to be blocked.
Whereas diffusive osmosis is a mechanism that maintains equal concentrations of water between
areas, reverse osmosis drives water towards the least concentrated area. The differences can be
demonstrated visually in Figure 1. In Figure 1a osmosis is demonstrated, where solvent flows
through a membrane to dilute a high concentration. The heights of the liquid, or the pressures,
are the same. In Figure 1b, the solvent flow is reduced and the rates of solvent across the
membrane are equal on both sides. Equilibrium has been established at osmotic pressure,
indicated by the height differential on the right side of the membrane. In Figure 1c, a pressure is
exerted downward where the osmotic pressure once existed, and the osmotic pressure is
overcome to induce reverse osmosis. Osmotic pressure can be determined from the vant Hoffs
Law in Equation 1, where [Pa] is osmotic pressure, R [J/(mol*K)] is the ideal gas constant, T
[K] is the temperature, CF [(mol/L)/.001)]is the concentration of the feed tank, and n is the
number of ions.1,2,3
=

(Eqn. 1)1

Figure 1. a) Osmosis, b) Osmotic equilibrium, c) Reverse osmosis

Terrizzi 1

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

The membrane is comprised of pores that are a large enough size for solvent molecules to
traverse, but too small for solute ions to pass through. The inlet stream is identified as the feed
stream, and can be adjusted by a bypass valve which recycles the bypass into the water source
tank. The outlet streams are composed of a product, or permeate stream and a reject, or
concentrate stream. Hypothetically, potable water can be obtained from the product stream. In
order to avoid potentially damaging accumulation within the system, a reject stream is used to
remove the salt buildup at the membrane interface with a portion of the feed stream. This often
results in brackish, or highly concentrated water.2
The reverse osmosis system can be characterized by several equations. The water flux
and salt flux provide reliable indications of the amount of potable water being produced and the
rate of the salt being removed. The water flux is represented in Equation 2, where [L/m2*s] is
the flux, [L/m*atm*s] is the solvent membrane permeability coefficient, [m] is the
thickness of the membrane, [atm] is the pressure differential across the system, and [atm] is
osmotic pressure. In this case, the flux of the water is a function of pressure, where the driving
force is the pressure difference between the membrane pressure differential and the osmotic
pressure. The salt flux is represented in Equation 3, where [kg/m2*s] is the flux, [L/s] is the
solute membrane permeability coefficient, [m] is the thickness of the membrane, [kg/L]
is the concentration of the reject stream, and [kg/L] is the concentration of the product
stream. In this case, the flux of the salt is a function of concentration, where the driving force is
the concentration difference between the feed stream and the product stream. When both
permeability coefficients are compared in the form of a ratio, selectivity in Equation 4 can be
determined. The higher the selectivity, the better performance of the membrane.3

= (

) ( )

= ( ) ( )

(Eqn. 2)1
(Eqn. 3)1
(Eqn. 4)1

Additional equations can be used to characterize the system. Salt passage indicates the
salt that leaves the membrane with the product. It is indicated by Equation 4, where SP [%] is
salt passage, [kg/L] is the salt concentration of product, and [kg/L] is the salt concentration
of the feed stream. Salt rejection is the percent of the feed, or influent species that the membrane
will retain. This is flushed out by the reject stream. This can be defined as a percentage in
Equation 5, where SR [%] is the salt rejection, and SP [%] is the salt product. Equation 7
represents the recovery rate, a quantitation used to describe the volume percentage of feed water
that is recovered as product. While reverse osmotic systems are typically designed for 75%
recovery, the actual recoveries range from 50 to 85%.3,4
(%) = ( / ) 100

(Eqn. 5)1

(%) = 100

(Eqn. 6)1

(%) = ( / ) 100

(Eqn. 7)1

Terrizzi 2

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Reverse osmosis has the potential to remove 95-99% of contaminants within a feed
stream. Depending on the pore size and chemical properties of the membrane, a reverse osmosis
system can filter out ions, bacteria, colloids, and organics depending on their size, Stokes radius,
and charge. Because gases have a low molecular weight and are uncharged, they are able to pass
through with the membrane. With gases such as CO2, high levels can induce the production of
carbonic acid, thus lowering the pH of the water.3
Reverse osmosis operates at ambient temperatures without incorporating latent heat. This
gives it an advantage over other separations techniques such as distillation and freezing
processes that incorporate phase change. Therefore, reverse osmosis is appealing for working
with thermally and chemically volatile species. Because of these conditions and the filtering
capabilities listed above, reverse osmosis is employed along a variety of circumstances, both
residentially and commercially. They can be used in homes as well as in food, pharmaceutical,
metal finishing, and semiconductor industries to treat brackish surface or ground water. More
specific applications range from concentrating fruit juices and milk to recovering protein and
sugar from cheese whey.3,4
Reverse osmosis can play a critical role in providing aid for natural disasters. With
climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of dangerous storms such as hurricanes
and monsoons, the necessity of a reliable drinking water system becomes vital both during the
storm and over the course of its reconstructive period in order to combat mortality rates. During
natural disasters, runoff can wash chemicals like pesticides, organic solvents, and untreated
sewage from broken septic tanks into groundwater, thus disrupting drinking wells and other
water supplies. Where bacteria, viruses, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and
radioactive contaminants pollute the water supply, approaches more sophisticated than heeding
boiling advisories become necessary, thus requiring reverse osmosis. However, a typical reverse
osmosis system is expensive in itself without considering high installation costs. It also requires
a power source, often electricity, as well as an additional means of producing high pressure.
Because the reject stream is necessarily to flush out the salt on the interface of the membrane,
huge amounts of water are often purged to purify a comparatively small volume of water.
Therefore, it is crucial to operate available reverse osmosis systems at their optimal conditions to
minimize waste and final salt concentration while maximizing product flowrate.5
Challenge
Our team was provided with a portable reverse osmosis unit to be taken to the locations
of natural disasters, where potable water will be filtered from brackish, or polluted water. With
the parameters and specifications of the system as well as a standard operating procedure, we
were expected to run tests and subsequently develop a comprehensive understanding of the unit.
In the process, we determined the most effective way to purify brackish water in order to
effectively adapt the system to natural disaster sites.
Objectives
The experiment that was conducted took three variables into consideration: feed
concentration, inlet or feed pressure, and outlet ratios between product and reject streams. The
salt used was magnesium sulfate. The feed concentrations measured were 0 g/L, 5 g/L, 10 g/L,
and 15 g/L. The feed pressures were 100 psi, 200 psi, and 300 psi. Due to safety reasons, the feed
pressure was closely monitored to ensure it did not reach nor exceed 400 psi upon adjustment.
The ratios of the product and reject streams tested were 50/50, 30/70, and 70/30. When the ratios
Terrizzi 3

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

were not varied, they were maintained at 50/50 during the adjustment of pressures. A matrix to
visualize these parameter adjustments can be seen below in Table 1.
Table 1. Matrix, where the each x indicates a test subjected to 0, 5, 10, and 15 g/L
concentrations.

General Methodology
The stream conductivity and pressure differential were measured as a function of feed
concentration, feed pressure, and flow ratios. The system was initially run without any salt at a 0
g/L concentration to ensure all salt was removed from the previous use of the unit. The feed tank
was filled with city water to approximately 40 L as indicated on the Nalgene drum. The feed
pump was turned on before the high pressure pump in order to prevent cavitation. The bypass
valve was adjusted to alter the feed pressure, as indicated by PI48, whenever the conditions
called for it. In order to vary the ratio of the product and the reject streams, the reject valve V192
was adjusted. After the feed pressures and ratios were both varied, 200 g of magnesium sulfate
was added to the system and mixed for a couple of minutes while the system was running. This
was done until a total of 600 g of magnesium sulfate were added to the tank, yielding a final
concentration of 15 g/L. The pressures of the feed, product, and reject streams were observed.
The conductivity of the feed, product, and reject streams were measured. The average
temperature of the water was 293 K. The actual percentages of the rotameters were recorded.
One trial was performed for each condition. The system was run for at least one minute upon
adjusting valves before measurements were taken. All samples were recycled back into the feed
tank, thus replicating a closed loop system.
Results & Discussion
Salt Passage & Salt Rejection
Salt passage represents the percent ratio of the product stream concentration to the feed stream
concentration. Because there is a desire for the RO unit to produce the lowest product
concentration of salt as possible, the lowest salt passage value is preferred. As the system
becomes less effective, a higher salt passage value is produced.
Salt rejection represents the percent ratio of the reject stream concentration to the feed stream
concentration. It is a remainder of the salt passage value. Because the two values must add up to
100%, they function inversely. As the salt passage value increases, the salt rejection decreases.
As the salt passage value decreases, the salt rejection increases. A higher salt rejection value is
preferred, as this represents a large purge of salt in the reject stream, thus a smaller salt passage
percent.

Terrizzi 4

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

The salt passage and rejection values for the three product ratios are depicted in the bar graphs in
Figures 2 and 3. From left to right, the ratio of product to reject streams are listed, where the
product is the left written number and the reject is the right written number. Across the bars,
there is a slight decrease of salt passage as the product to reject ratio goes from 70:30, 50:50, and
30:70. Because the pressure is maintained at 300 psi, the total outlet flowrate is constant
throughout these ratios. However, the greater the product flowrate is compared to the reject
flowrate, the greater the salt passage. This agrees with having a lower retention time for the
product to travel through the system, thus decreasing the separation time for the product stream.
It can be concluded that the smaller product flowrate compared to the reject flowrate, or in this
case, a 30:70 ratio yields the best salt passage. For the 5 g/L, 10 g/L, and 15 g/L bar graphs, these
salt passage values are 1.75, 6.68, and 8.58%.
The feed tank concentration also plays a part in producing the lowest salt passage. In Figure 2,
the concentration of salt in the feed tank directly affects the salt passage. As the concentration
increases from 5 g/L to 15 g/L, the salt passage ratio for each product to reject ratio also
increases, producing a range of 6.38% between the highest and lowest values at the 30:70 ratio.
While 1.75% is the lowest value produced at 5 g/L, the next lowest salt passage value, 3.20%,
actually occurs at a 50:50 product to reject stream ratio at the same concentration as opposed to
the following concentration at 30:70. This indicates that the concentration of the feed tank and
the ratios both have an influence on the salt passage, but the concentration may have a slightly
greater impact in influencing those values for better results than the ratios. The most optimal salt
passage values occur with the smallest of both, with lower concentration and lower product flow.

Figure 2. Salt passage values at varying product to reject ratios, separated by increasing feed tank
concentrations.

Terrizzi 5

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Figure 3. Salt rejection values at varying product to reject ratios, separated by increasing feed
tank concentrations.
Another variable that should be considered when considering salt passage and salt reject is the
feed pressure. Figure 4 and figure 5 show the salt passage and subsequent salt reject values for
100, 200, and 300 psi, with the different colored bars representing varying concentrations. The
ratio of product and reject streams were kept at 50:50. As expected, the lowest concentration,
indicated by the yellow bars, produce the smallest salt passage values in Figure 4, and thus the
highest salt rejection values in Figure 5. The higher the feed pressure, the lower the salt passage
value, thus yielding a higher salt rejection value. Focusing on 5 g/L feed tank concentration, the
range of the salt at 300 psi and 100 psi is 9.54%. The most preferred salt passage value from
Figure 4 is 3.20% for 300 psi feed pressure and 5 g/L feed tank concentration. However, this
does not exceed the lowest salt passage value, 1.75%, produced at a 30:70 ratio. Thus, the most
optimal salt passage and salt rejection occurs at the highest possible feed pressure, lowest feed
tank concentration, and lowest product to reject stream ratio.

Figure 4. Salt passage values at varying feed pressures and feed concentrations.

Terrizzi 6

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Figure 5. Salt rejection values at varying feed pressures and feed concentrations.
Water Flux & Salt Flux
Osmotic pressure is the necessary pressure necessary to prevent osmosis from naturally
occurring. This is a function of feed tank concentration, as the ideal gas constant, ion dissociation
(where magnesium sulfate dissociates into two ions), and temperature remain constant
throughout the experiment. Figure 9 shows the increasing osmotic pressure as the feed tank
concentration heightens from 5 g/L to 15 g/L. The relationship is direct and linear, producing a
trend line of y = 33.864x + 77.267 with an R2 value of 0.9995, indicating a well-represented
trend line. The osmotic pressure plays an important part in the overall driving force for water
flux.

Terrizzi 7

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Figure 6. Osmotic pressures at varying feed tank concentrations: 5, 10, and 15 g/L.
In order to verify the reliability of the results, the water flux was plotted as a function of the
overall driving force, which is the difference between the pressure differential across the
membrane and the osmotic pressure. In Figure 10, each trend line accounts for a different feed
tank concentration 5, 10, and 15 g/L as indicated by the legend. The slopes produced represent
the membrane permeability coefficient for water flux, and they are 0.0419, 0.0583, and 0.041
L*atm/m2*s for increasing concentrations. The slopes are all within the same order of
magnitude, where the range is 0.0173 L*atm/m2*s. The average of these values produces a
permeability coefficient of 0.047 L*atm/m2*s. Because the variability is minimal between the
trend lines, the measurements taken for the water flux are reliable.

Figure 7. Water flux plotted as a function of the pressure driving force. The three trend lines are
distinguished by feed tank concentration.
Salt flux and water fluxes directly represent the movement of magnesium sulfate ions and the
solvent over the area of the osmotic membrane. Salt fluxes and water fluxes are plotted in Figure
8 over increasing pressures for varying concentrations. Because the RO unit is expected to allow
the least salt to pass through the membrane into the product stream as possible, the optimal salt
flux is the least possible value. On the other hand, the highest water flux is desired, as this
enables more drinking water to be produced for a shorter time. Therefore, the ideal area of fluxes
in Figure 8 occurs in the lower half of the y-axis, and the highest half of the x-axis.
Corresponding appropriately to the previous salt passage and salt rejection analysis, the best pair
of fluxes occur for a feed tank concentration of 5 g/L at the highest feed pressure of 300 psi. The
salt flux is 1.632*10^-7 kg/m^2*s with a water flux of 0.844 mL/m^2*s.

Terrizzi 8

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Figure 8. The salt flux and the water flux plotted over increasing feed pressures.
The product to reject stream ratios must also be considered. In Figure 9, the water fluxes are
compared to feed tank concentration and ratios. However, no real trend or pattern can be
determined by this data; the increase and decrease of each bar is too random to infer the
influence of any one or two variables. The flux at 15 g/L for the 30:70 ratio drops drastically to
0.3 mL/m^2*s, likely existing as an outlier in the data. In conclusion, the product to reject ratios
do not have a tangible influence on the water flux values. This makes sense, as the water fluxes
are represented by product stream flowrates. These flowrates can be adjusted in any which way
under appropriate system pressure constraints, as long as the reject flowrate aligns with the
accompanying ratio value.

Terrizzi 9

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Figure 9. The water flux for the product to reject stream ratios, separated by feed tank
concentrations.
Unlike Figure 9, conclusions can be drawn about the trends in Figure 10 when regarding the salt
flux. Generally, with the exception of the 70:30 and 50:50 ratios in the 10 g/L section, the salt
flux decreases with a decreasing product stream ratio, where the lowest salt flux occurs at 30:70,
yielding a value of 8.94*10^-8 kg/m^2*s. This lines up well with the salt passage analysis, which
quantifies the lowest salt concentration in the product stream at a 30:70 ratio. In addition, the salt
flux increases with increasing concentration. The most preferable salt flux occurs in a 5 g/L feed
tank, which again, lines up very well with the salt passage and salt rejection analysis. It must be
noted that like the salt passage, the next best salt flux value, 8.94*10^-8 kg/m^2*s, occurs in the
same feed tank concentration, 5 g/L, at a 50:50 ratio. Beyond this, the salt fluxes enter one to two
higher orders of magnitude. Even the 70:30 ratio produces a relatively small flux at 3.56*10^-7
kg/m^2*s compared to the 30:70 values in the 10 and 15 g/L feed tanks. This indicates that the
concentration has a higher impact on the flux than the product to reject stream ratios.

Figure 10. The salt flux for the product to reject stream ratios, separated by feed tank
concentrations.
The recovery is a percent ratio between the product and the feed streams. The higher the
recovery, the less flow lost to the reject stream. The lower the recovery, the more flow lost to the
reject stream. Ideally, a higher recovery is preferred, as this results in a greater yield of potable
water. Because the recoveries were constant at 48.5% during increasing feed pressures across all
concentrations, they are not depicted. The recovery of the product stream is shown in Figure 11
as a function of product to reject ratios as well as concentration. For the most part, as the ratios
decrease along the product stream, the recovery also decreases. This makes sense, as the flowrate
for the product is also decreasing while the reject flowrate increases. In addition, the overall
recoveries increase with decreasing feed tank concentrations, again producing an optimal value

Terrizzi 10

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

at 5 g/L. However, it must be noted that the recovery values are constant for the 30:70 ratios, at
approximately 29%.

Figure 11. The recovery for each product to reject stream ratios, separated by feed tank
concentrations.
Conclusions
Based on the analysis in Results & Discussions, the most optimal configurations for the RO
unit consist of a 300 psi feed pressure, a 30:70 product to reject stream ratio, and a 5 g/L feed
tank supply. The membrane pressure should be as high as possible, ensuring an increasingly
selective separation of the salt ions from the feed stream. Because the upper limit of the feed
pressure is 400 psi, it is appropriate to select 300 to 325 psi to remain safely below constraints. In
addition, a 30:70 product ratio produces a greater purge by the reject stream, allowing a longer
retention rate of the product stream in the osmotic system. While this ratio produces the least
flow of the product, the high feed pressure helps counteract that effect by increasing the overall
feed flowrate. In addition, the system is most efficient at a 5 g/L starting concentration for the
feed tank. However, because concentrations may be out of the control of the team, priorities must
be evaluated. If time and energy are affordable, the RO unit can be subjected to one or two
passes at lower feed pressures and a 70:30 ratio to reduce the initial feed concentration if it is
well over 5 g/L. Then, the RO unit can perform one final pass to purify the water to its most
potable result. Time and energy are often of the essence during natural disasters, however, so one
pass may only be affordable. If the concentration is 15 g/L or higher, the team should consider
running the system at the highest feed pressure possible without compromising the 400 psi limit,
whilst increasing the product to stream ratio above 70:30. This way, the flowrate is only
somewhat compromised, but the purity of the water is at least more emphasized.

Terrizzi 11

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

References
1. "Terms and Equations of Reverse Osmosis - Hydranautics." Hydranautics, 23 Jan. 2001.
Web. 16 Nov. 2016.
2. "Ultrapure Deionized Water Services and Reverse Osmosis Systems | Puretec Industrial
Water :: Ultrapure Water Solutions." Puretec Industrial Water. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov.
2016.
3. "Osmosis and Osmotic Pressure." Osmosis and Osmotic Pressure. N.p., 2010. Web. 16
Nov. 2016.
4. "Reverse Osmosis Theory." Reverse Osmosis Theory. Vertex Hydopore, 2010. Web. 16
Nov. 2016.
5. Jacobs, Robin. "Eartheasy." Eartheasy Blog Water Filtration for Emergency Preparedness
Comments. N.p., 31 Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.

Terrizzi 12

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Appendices
Appendix A: Lab Procedure
Calibration of Reject and Product Flowmeters
1.
Follow Startup Procedure. Refer to Appendix A. Do not follow the parts that involve
aluminum sulfate, as this was not added for stream calibrations.
a.
Keep bypass, reject, and product lines inserted in the feed tank, FI 15, for now.
2.
Calibrate Product Stream
a.
Adjust valves V190 and V192 so that product rotameter reads 10%.
b.
Prepare stopwatch.
c.
Prepare 3L beaker and move large scale near Reverse Osmosis system. Tare
beaker.
d.
Remove outlet product line from FI 15 and insert it into a 3L beaker. Upon
insertion, start stopwatch.
e.
After 2 minutes, quickly return product line to FI 15. Measure accumulation via
large scale. Record value.
f.
Pour water back into FI 15, and re-tare beaker for next measurement.
g.
Repeat steps a-f. for 20%, 30%, and 40% readings on product rotameter.
3.
Calibrate Reject Stream
a.
Adjust valves V190 and V192 so that reject rotameter reads 30%.
b.
Prepare stopwatch.
c.
Prepare 3L beaker and move large scale near Reverse Osmosis system. Tare
beaker.
d.
Remove outlet reject line from FI 15 and insert it into a 3L beaker. Upon insertion,
start stopwatch.
e.
After 2 minutes, quickly return reject line to FI 15. Measure accumulation via large
scale. Record value.
f.
Pour water back into FI 15, and re-tare beaker for next measurement.
g.
Repeat steps a-f. for 30% - 90% readings in intervals of 10% on reject rotameter.
4.
Follow Shutdown Procedure. Refer to Appendix A. Do not follow the parts that involve
Aluminum Sulfate, as this was not added for stream calibrations.
5.
Create calibration curves for this data, correlating flow rate to flowmeter percentages.
Calibration of Conductivity Meter
1.
Prepare a beaker of 300 mL of water on a magnetic stirrer.
2.
Turn on the conductivity meter.
3.
Measure the conductivity of the water before adding any aluminum sulfate.
4. Add aluminum sulfate until the conductivity reads around 20 ms. Do not change the beaker
of water. Allow the salt to dissolve before taking measurements. Salt is generally added in
increments of 1 g, though as the device beings to extend past the dynamic range of the
calibration, add aluminum sulfate in increments of 2-5g.
5.
Dispose of salt water in sink by running tap water for several seconds. Clean beaker.
6.
Create calibration curves for this data, correlating solution concentrations to conductivity
readings.
Experimental Procedure

Terrizzi 13

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

This experimental procedure uses the steps and values in Source 1 as a means of finding an
optimal setup for the highest flow rate with the purest product stream. While the percentages
listed here for the reject and product flow meters will be tested, additional percentage
combinations may be tested as well depending on the real-time analysis of results in the UO
lab.5
According to WHO, the potable range of concentration of salt in water is more crucial for the
aluminum concentration compared to the sulfate concentration. A 0.4 mg/L of Al3+ is the upper
limit of concentration for water potability. Therefore, a 0.4 mg of Al2(SO4)3/L is the upper limit
of aluminum sulfate concentration for water potability. The most efficient settings of the reverse
osmosis system will be determined by generating the highest flowrate of water by the product
stream, while keeping at or under 0.4 mg of Al2(SO4)3/L.2,3
1.
Follow Startup Procedure. Refer to Appendix A.
a.
Based off of starting volume of feed tank, add Aluminum Sulfate salt until a
solution concentration of 4 g/L is reached.
b.
Keep bypass, reject, and product lines inserted in the feed tank, FI 15.
2.
Vary Reject flow rate while holding the product flow rate constant.
a.
Adjust both V190 and V192. V190 is varied in order to maintain a constant flow
rate for
each trial. V192 is varied to the desired flow percentage.
b.
Adjust until the flowmeters read 30% for the Reject flow rate and 20% for the
product
flow.
c.
Wait until conductivity in the product return reaches a constant value. Record this
value.
Make sure the product stream is not submerged in the fluid in the feed tank during
measurement. Make sure the conductivity meter is not submerged in the fluid in
the feed tank during measurement.
d.
Record the Flow Percentages for the Reject line and the Product line, the
pressures from
through Pump 7 (PI143 and PI42), the pressures through Pump 6 (PI44 and PI47),
the pressures through the membrane (PI48 and PI45), The temperatures through
heat exchanger 6 (TI8 and TI7) and the temperature at TI9.
e.
Repeat step for Reject flow percentages of 50 and 70.
f.
Repeat step 2 twice more for trials 2 and 3.
2.
Vary Reject flow rate while holding the product flow rate constant.
a.
Adjust both V190 and V192. V190 is varied in order to maintain a constant flow
rate for
each trial. V192 is varied to the desired flow percentage.
b.
Adjust until the flowmeters read 50% for the Reject flow rate and 15% for the
product
flow.
c.
Wait until conductivity in the product return reaches a constant value. Record this
value.
Make sure the product stream is not submerged in the fluid in the feed tank during
measurement. Make sure the conductivity meter is not submerged in the fluid in
the feed tank during measurement.
Terrizzi 14

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

4.

CHME 3313

d.
Record the Flow Percentages for the Reject line and the Product line, the
pressures from
through Pump 7 (PI143 and PI42), the pressures through Pump 6 (PI44 and PI47),
the pressures through the membrane (PI48 and PI45), The temperatures through
heat exchanger 6 (TI8 and TI7) and the temperature at TI9.
e.
Repeat step for Reject flow percentages of 20 and 25.
f.
Repeat step 3 twice more for trials 2 and 3.1
Follow Shutdown Procedure. Refer to Appendix A.

Startup Procedure1
1. Safety Inspection
2. Fill TK 1 with 45 L of water
3. Add salt solution to Tank 1 (TK1)
1. Measure correct amount of salt that correlates to the concentration desired as
determined by the concentration to conductivity relationship. Recommended
starting concentration is 1500-7500 ppm, or 1.5 g/L - 7.5g/L.
2. Pour salt into TK1
3. Allow for the concentration of the product line to reach a constant value, i.e.
allow for the system to reach a steady state.
4. Turn on Pump 7 (P7)
1. Ensure that flow is directed at Valve 188 (V188)
2. Crack V188 and turn on the pump
3. Open V188 Completely
5. Turn on Pump 6 (P6)
1. Crack valve and turn on power to pump
2. Open valve completely
6. Open valve 190 (V190).
7. Open valves 191 (V191) and 192 (V192).
1. Check to make sure that PI48 does not exceed 400PSI
2. Adjust V190 and V192 if close to this limit
Shutdown Procedure1
1. Flush out the salt in the system
a.
Remove reject and bypass lines from TK1 and connect to a bucket outside the system.
b.
Add Tap water to TK1 as water is removed from system.
c.
Pour removed salt water down the drain.
d.
Continue until the conductivity of the water in the product line reaches the point indicated
as neutral.
Appendix B: Flowsheet

Terrizzi 15

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

KEY:
ES 6C High-Pressure Pump Switch
ES 6A Circuit Breaker
ES 6B Feed Pump Switch
ES 6D Override, Emergency Shutdown
P6 High-Pressure Pump
P7 Feed Pump
FI 15 Feed Tank
HE 6 Heat Exchanger
F5 Water Filter
TI 7 Temperature Reader, HE 6 Outlet
TI 8 Temperature Reader, HE 6 Inlet
V185 Valve for stream from P6
V 187 Valve for stream from P7 to HE 6
V 188 Valve for inlet stream from FI 15 to P7
V 189 Valve for drainage stream from FI 15
V 190 Bypass Valve
V 191 - Valve for feed stream from High Pressure Channel to Reverse Osmosis System
V 192 Reject Valve
PI 42 Pressure Gauge, F5 Outlet
PI 43 Pressure Gauge, F5 Inlet
PI 44 Pressure Gauge, P6 Outlet
PI 45 Pressure Gauge, Product Stream
PI 47 Pressure Gauge, Reject Stream
PI 48 Pressure Gauge, Feed Stream
Note: There are no labels for the product flowmeter and reject flowmeter.
Appendix C: Sample Calculations
Terrizzi 16

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Sample Calculations
Osmotic Pressure can be calculated with vant Hoffs Law:
Posm = RT Ci

Eqn. 1

Where R is the gas constant, T is the temperature of the solution, and Ci is the molar
concentration of solute. The osmotic pressure is the minimum pressure required for transport
through the reverse osmosis to occur. It can be related to flow rate with:
Q = ( P - Posm) Kw A/d

Eqn. 2

Where Q is the product stream volumetric flow rate, P is the pressure change across the unit,
Posm is the pressure change across the membrane, Kw is the permeability of the membrane, A is
the membrane area, and d is the membrane thickness. These equations can be used for the
purposes of the current investigation to calculate a minimum operational pressure and expected
flow rates.
At 4 g/L Aluminum Sulfate: Ci = 0.0117 g/L
R = 0.08314 Lbar K1mol1
T = 298 K
Thus, the osmotic pressure is 0.29 bar, or 4.2 psi. Kw, A, and d can be combined into a single
constant associated with the reverse osmosis unit, K, which can be estimated with experimental
data. At 300 psi, for instance, Q = 0.131 L/s and ( P - Posm) = 27 bar. Thus, K = 0.00485 L
bar1 s1.
Appendix D: Raw Data Appendices
Table 2. Raw data for concentration 10 g/L.

Table 3. Raw data for concentration 15 g/L.

Table 4. Raw data for concentration 5 g/L.

Terrizzi 17

Chemical Engineering Transport 2 Laboratory

CHME 3313

Appendix E: Safety Analysis

Safety Analysis
While handling aluminum sulfate, avoid contact with skin, eyes, and clothing. It should not be
ingested, inhaled, or physically touched. This implies the use of proper PPE. This includes safety
glasses to prevent eye splashes from saltwater, gloves to prevent skin contact from both the salt
and salt solution, and clothes that cover skin to avoid exposure to the salt and the salt solution. In
addition, operators should be wary of the other separations equipment being used around the lab
to prevent the interferences of other hazards.6
The power outlets should be elevated and out of reach from the outlet streams, including the
product, reject, and bypass streams. This separation prevents electrocution accidents from the
contact of electricity and water. The area should be cleared of other electrical devices, and water
spills should be mitigated as much as possible. If water spills, it should be cleaned as quickly as
possible. Investigators should also be careful to avoid slipping on any wet floors, and should at
no times step or jump over the reverse osmosis system due to the risk of tripping.
The reverse osmosis system should be monitored of heavy leaking. In the event that there are
heavy leaks emitting from piping barb locations or valves, the TA and lab instructor should be
notified and the shutdown procedure must be immediately followed.
The pressure gauge, PI 48, should never exceed 400 psi. In the event that it is approaching, at, or
exceeding 400 psi, the bypass valve, V190 and the reject valve, V192, should be adjusted as
quickly as possible to decrease this pressure.
Valves V185 and V189 should be closed during experimentation to prevent flooding.

Terrizzi 18