Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Membrane Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/memsci

Potential of osmotic power generation by pressure retarded osmosis using

seawater as feed solution: Analysis and experiments
Yu Chang Kim a,b, Menachem Elimelech a,n
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Environmental Engineering Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8286, USA
b
Department of Thermal Systems, Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials, Daejeon 305-343, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The most commonly explored salinity-gradient scheme in the pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) process
Received 11 September 2012 is based on the pairing of seawater and river water as a salinity gradient resource. However, due to the
Received in revised form lack of a high-performance PRO membrane, a sufficient osmotic pressure differential across the
15 November 2012
membrane active layer to produce high power density cannot be attained with this seawater–river
Accepted 18 November 2012
water pair. While high-performance PRO membranes have to be developed, there are other approaches
Available online 29 November 2012
to increase power density that combine several salinity gradient resources more efficiently. This study
Keywords: analyzes scenarios of osmotic power generation by PRO based on a variety of salinity gradient
Pressure retarded osmosis resources. Brine from RO (or future FO) desalination plants and municipal wastewater effluent (or
Salinity gradient
brackish water) may be used as a high-salinity draw solution and low-salinity feed solution,
Renewable energy
respectively. The use of high salinity brines (as draw solution) from future FO desalination plants
Forward osmosis
Internal concentration polarization paired with seawater (as feed solution) may be an especially viable approach for a hybrid process of FO
desalination and PRO power generation. In this approach, seawater is the only input resource, and there
is no need to have separate intake and pre-treatment for the feed and draw solutions as in the
conventional seawater–river water PRO scheme. From the analysis of these scenarios, we performed
experiments with seawater (0.5 M NaCl) as feed solution to investigate the feasibility of the PRO
process with the various proposed schemes. For the 2 M draw/0.5 M feed solution scheme at a solution
temperature of 30 1C, a water flux of 13.9 L m  2 h  1 and corresponding projected power density of
4.7 W/m2 were obtained at a hydraulic pressure difference of 12.5 bar using a commercial cellulose
triacetate FO membrane. This study demonstrates that osmotic power generation by pressure retarded
osmosis using seawater as a feed solution is potentially viable through the introduction of a hybrid
process of FO desalination and PRO osmotic power generation.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recently, osmotic power has attracted a lot of attention as
a potential renewable energy source [1–6]. Osmotic power
is analogous to hydropower in that both use hydroturbines to
generate electricity. But there are two major differences in terms
of the water resource type and energy conversion means [7,8]
each system uses. A hydroelectric power plant exploits river
water and a dam, while the energy produced from mixing river
water and seawater is harnessed in an osmotic power plant, using
semipermeable membranes.
Pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) is a membrane-based process
that generates power from salinity gradients [1,2,9–12]. PRO has
the potential to sustainably produce electric power because sea-
water as a salinity source is vast. Unlike the forward osmosis (FO)
process, PRO requires a back pressure on the high-salinity draw
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 203 432 2789; fax: þ1 203 432 4387.
E-mail address: menachem.elimelech@yale.edu (M. Elimelech).
solution side that retards the permeate water flow and generates
power by depressurizing the solution through a turbine. This
water permeation against the applied hydraulic pressure depends
on the osmotic pressure difference, which thereby converts the
chemical potential energy into mechanical work. If a low-salinity
source like river water is available, seawater can serve as the high
salinity source, and energy can be extracted by the controlled
mixing of the two streams through a semi-permeable membrane.
The osmotic pressure difference between two streams is an
important factor in PRO to induce water permeation under the
applied hydraulic pressure. Permeate water flux increases at
higher osmotic pressure differences and the hydraulic pressure
applied to the draw solution side can also be increased to obtain
higher power density. In osmotic power generation by the PRO
process, there is an optimal hydraulic pressure for a given osmotic
pressure difference to obtain peak power density.
The majority of recent PRO studies have focused on the
seawater/river water resource scheme [2,4,12,13]. However, the
water flux and resulting power density based on this scheme is
not high enough with current commercial membranes because

0376-7388/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.11.039
 Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech / Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337 331

of their relatively low water permeability and the suboptimal
structure of their support layer that substantially reduce the
available osmotic pressure difference [3,13–15]. Because brines
from seawater desalination plants (  70,000 ppm) paired with
river water produce higher osmotic pressure differentials, this
combination can be seen as a potential resource scheme for PRO
[3,5,6,8,16]. However, it is difficult to find places where this
scheme can be implemented because desalination plants that
produce high salinity brines are often located in arid or semi-arid
regions where rivers with sufficient fresh water flow are scarce.
In this study, we analyze possible scenarios for PRO osmotic
power generation based on a variety of salinity gradient resources.
We also introduce a hybrid process of FO desalination and PRO
power generation, where brine from an FO desalination plant is
used as a high-salinity draw solution and seawater as feed solution
to generate the salinity gradient for PRO. The potential of such a
PRO osmotic power generation scheme is investigated via
laboratory-scale PRO performance experiments using a commer-
cial FO membrane.
2. PRO configurations and salinity gradient resources
The PRO process for osmotic power generation requires the
availability of two streams with different salinities. Fig. 1 depicts
possible scenarios of PRO osmotic power generation aimed at
increasing power density that combine several salinity gradient
resources more efficiently. Presently, the most commonly
explored salinity-gradient scheme is the pairing of seawater with
river water, which can be implemented at river mouths in coastal
regions [2,4,12,13]. Fig. 1a shows low-salinity feed solution
candidates that could be paired with a seawater draw solution.
In addition to river water (100–600 mg/L, [5,8]), municipal waste-
water effluent and brackish water could be selected as counterparts
for seawater. The total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of
municipal wastewater effluent is typically in the range of 500–
3000 mg/L [5,17]. If pretreatment can successfully prevent mem-
brane fouling, municipal wastewater effluent could be an alternative
to river water. Brackish water, which typically has a TDS between
1000 and 5000 mg/L [18–21], could also be considered as a low
salinity source. Brackish groundwater is typically of high quality
[18,19] and thereby would require minimal pretreatment if used for
PRO power generation. However, the available amount of brackish
water will likely be the limiting factor for use with seawater in
PRO [22].
Locating PRO plants in estuaries has several challenges, includ-
ing potential ecological impacts, the need for intake structures and
pre-treatment facilities to prevent membrane fouling, and insuffi-
cient salinity gradient for high power density. As with seawater
desalination, where the reliability of the process is dependent on
the intake [18,19,22], a site-specific osmotic power plant would be
highly dependent on the intake of two water resources (seawater
and river water). Pretreatment of feed and draw streams would
likely be similar to that required in conventional membrane plants

Fig. 1. Possible scenarios of osmotic power generation by PRO based on a variety of salinity gradient resources. (a) Seawater as draw solution and river water, municipal
wastewater effluent, or brackish water as feed solution. (b) Brine from RO desalination plant as draw solution and municipal wastewater effluent or brackish water as feed
solution. (c) Brine from FO desalination plant as draw solution and municipal wastewater effluent or brackish water as feed solution and (d) Seawater as a feed solution to
a desalination plant, with the generated brine being used as a draw solution; in this case, there is no need to perform separate intake and pre-treatment processes for the
feed and draw solutions.
332 Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech / Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337

to prevent fouling of the membranes [18–20]. The osmotic pres-
sure difference is about 25 bar and the concentration of seawater
near the river mouth would likely be lower because of dilution of
seawater at the estuary.
Because of the limitations of the seawater/river water salinity
gradient scheme discussed above, it is necessary to explore other
salinity-gradient resources. For example, concentrated brines
from seawater RO desalination plants (70,000 ppm for 50%
recovery) can be highly valuable resources for PRO power gen-
eration [3,5,6,8,16,23–25]. Fig. 1b shows low-salinity feed solu-
tion candidates—municipal wastewater effluent and brackish
water—that can be paired with RO brine. Here, given that
abundant fresh water sources, like river water, are often not
available where desalination plants are located, PRO schemes that
employ brines from desalination plants and require river water
are not practical and hence excluded.
Recently, new desalination processes that can achieve high
water recovery, like FO [26,27], membrane distillation (MD) [28],
and RO/MD hybrid [29,30] have been proposed. The concentra-
tion of brine generated from these processes that are currently
under development can be as high as 140,000 ppm (i.e., for 75%
recovery). Instead of RO brines (Fig. 1b), these highly concen-
trated brines could be used as a draw solution for PRO as shown
in Fig. 1c to produce higher power densities.
Instead of the low-salinity feed solutions mentioned above,
seawater could be used as the low-salinity stream resource and
paired against an RO or FO brine as the high-salinity resource. In
such a case, there is no need to have separate intake and pretreat-
ment for the feed and draw solutions as shown in Fig. 1d. The
osmotic pressure difference between seawater and a brine from an
RO desalination plant is high enough, but internal concentration
polarization (ICP) would substantially reduce the osmotic pressure
difference because the seawater feed would face the porous support
layer [31]. This high concentration brine/seawater resource scheme
may be an attractive approach if the ICP effect could be controlled
through the development of high-performance PRO membranes.
Fig. 2 shows specifically a hybrid process of FO desalination
and PRO power generation [32]. The PRO system on the left
represents the osmotic power generation process using seawater
as feed solution and concentrated brine from an FO desalination
plant as draw solution. A turbine, high-pressure pump, and
energy recovery device (ERD) are required for PRO power gen-
eration. The FO system on the right represents the osmotically
driven desalination process. Two main configurations are possible
with different input streams. Fig. 2a presents a hybrid configura-
tion in which pretreated seawater is used as the feed solution for
both the FO desalination and PRO power generation systems. In
the second hybrid configuration (Fig. 2b), pretreated seawater is
used as the feed solution for PRO, the brine from PRO is used as
the feed solution for FO, and the brine from FO is used as the draw
solution for PRO.
3. Experimental
3.1. Membrane
The membrane employed in our PRO experiments was a flat-
sheet, cellulose-based FO membrane obtained from Hydration
Technology Innovations (HTI), because there are no commercial

Fig. 2. Hybrid process of FO desalination and PRO power generation. The PRO part is the osmotic power generation process using seawater as feed solution and
concentrated brine from an FO desalination plant as draw solution. Two main configurations are possible with different input streams. (a) Pretreated seawater is used as
the feed solution for both FO desalination and PRO power generation and (b) Pretreated seawater is used as the feed solution for PRO, the brine from PRO is used as the feed
solution for FO, and the brine from FO is used as the draw solution for PRO.
 Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech / Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337
membranes designed specifically for PRO. The FO membrane is
reinforced by an embedded polyester mesh and is relatively thin
(93 mm). The flat-sheet FO membrane coupon was loaded into a
PRO crossflow test cell having two flow channels with the active
layer facing the high salinity draw solution. The effective mem-
brane surface area was 20.02 cm2.
3.2. Feed-channel spacers
A feed channel spacer is required in PRO experiments to
maintain the channel geometry when hydraulic pressure is
applied to the draw solution side. Without the feed channel
spacer, the membrane would deform under the high hydraulic
draw pressure and block the channel. Accordingly, we used
commercial mesh-type spacers on both the feed and draw
channels as described in our earlier publication [6]. The spacers
are composed of two levels of polyethylene filaments forming a
diamond-type spacer geometry.
3.3. Bench-scale experimental PRO setup and experimental
conditions
A schematic diagram of our bench-scale experimental PRO unit is
presented in Fig. 3. The crossflow test cell had two inlets and two
outlets for the feed and draw solution streams. The feed and draw
solution channels were 26 mm wide, 3 mm deep, and 77 mm long.
A variable speed gear pump (Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL) and a
high-pressure pump (Hydra-cell pump, Wanner Engineering, Inc.,
Minneapolis, MN) were used to circulate the feed and draw solutions
in a closed loop, respectively. A bypass valve (Swagelok, Solon, OH)
connected to the high pressure pump and a backpressure valve
(Swagelok, Solon, OH) installed at the outlet on the draw side were
manipulated to control the flow rate and inlet draw pressure. A water
bath (Neslab, Newington, NH) was used for temperature control of
both the feed and draw solutions. The weight of the feed solution was
measured by a digital balance to obtain water permeate flux.
For PRO experiments, 1, 1.5, and 2 M NaCl solutions were used
as high salinity draw solutions and a 0.5 M NaCl solution was used
as a low salinity feed solution. The flow rates and temperatures of
the two solutions were maintained at 0.5 L/min and 20 1C,
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the bench-scale pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) experimental unit. To determine the water flux in PRO, the weight change of the feed
solution was measured using a balance connected to a computer. The draw flow rate and inlet pressure were adjusted by using a bypass valve connected to the high
pressure (HP) pump and a back-pressure valve on the draw outlet.
333
respectively. The applied hydraulic pressure differences (DP) were
0.48, 2.88, 6.01, 9.25, and 12.61 bar. The weight of the feed solution
was recorded in a data-logging program every 0.5 min and the
average water flux was calculated over 120 data points (i.e.,
60 min). Osmotic pressures of the NaCl solution were calculated
using a commercial software program (Stream Analyzer, OLI
Systems, Inc., Morris Plains, NJ).
3.4. Membrane transport properties in a spacer-filled PRO channel
According to our recent study [6], as the hydraulic pressure
difference is increased in a PRO experiment, the membrane surface
is compressed against the feed channel spacer mesh, resulting in
membrane deformation and affecting membrane performance.
Hence, to accurately predict PRO performance (water flux and
corresponding power density), we used the water and salt perme-
ability coefficients (A and B, respectively) and salt rejection (R) of
the membrane obtained from a spacer-filled PRO test cell, as
opposed to an RO test cell as is commonly used [3,6,33,34].
Specifically, we used A, B, and R of 1.23 L m  2 h  1 bar  1, 2.62
L m  2 h  1, and 76%, respectively, which account for membrane
deformation, as reported in our previous study [6]. We note that
the membrane A, B, and R, excluding membrane deformation, were
reported to be 0.36 L m  2 h  1 bar  1, 0.32 L m  2 h  1, and 94%,
respectively [34]. As for the mass transfer coefficient (k), we used a
value of 8.62  10  5 m/s as determined from our study discussed
above [6].
To determine the membrane structural parameter (S), we first
determine the solute resistance to diffusion within the membrane
support layer (K) and use S ¼KD, where D is the salt diffusion
coefficient. We applied the parameter values of A, B, and k
indicated above and the water flux values (JW) obtained from
PRO experiments at DP¼ 0.48 bar to the PRO water flux equation
and solved numerically for K [4]:
"      #
pD,b exp  JW =k pF,b exp JW K
JW ¼ A        DP ð1Þ
1þ B=J W ½exp J W K exp  J W =k 
where pD,b and pF,b are the osmotic pressures of the bulk draw
and feed solutions, respectively, and k is the channel mass
transfer coefficient. The resulting K values were calculated to be
334 Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech / Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337

2.70  105, 3.33  105, and 3.34  105 s/m for the 1, 1.5, and 2 M Interestingly, even though the osmotic pressure difference
NaCl draw solutions, respectively. The structural parameter between the 1 M draw and 0.5 M feed solutions (Dp ¼ 24.0 bar,
(S¼KD) was then calculated to be 409, 504, and 505 mm for the Fig. 4b) was slightly larger than that between the 0.5 M draw and
1, 1.5, and 2 M NaCl draw solutions, respectively.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Modeled water flux and power density for various salinity
gradient resources

For osmotic power generation, several types of salinity gradi-

ent resources may exist (Fig. 1). Based on the salinity of draw and
feed solutions, possible salinity gradient resources are categorized
in Table 1. Seawater, brine from seawater RO desalination at 50%
recovery, and brine from seawater FO (or MD) desalination at 75%
recovery are investigated in this study as high-salinity draw
solutions and are simulated by concentrated solutions of 0.5, 1,
and 2 M NaCl, respectively. River water, municipal wastewater
effluent, brackish water, and seawater are considered as low-
salinity feed solutions (simulated as 0.01, 0.05, 0.08, and 0.5 M
NaCl solutions, respectively), to generate salinity gradients in
combination with the above high salinity draw solutions.
The PRO water flux model (Eq. (1)) was solved numerically to
determine the theoretical water flux (JW) and the corresponding
power densities (W¼JWDP) were calculated over a range of
hydraulic pressure differences (DP). Fig. 4 presents the model
results based on the parameter values of A, B, k, and S determined
in the previous section for a spacer-filled channel loaded with the
commercial FO membrane. Ideally, the power density reaches a
maximum when the hydraulic pressure difference (DP) is half of
the osmotic pressure difference, and the water flux vanishes
when the hydraulic pressure difference is close to the osmotic
pressure difference [3,35]. However, maximum power density in
Fig. 4 occurs at DP o Dp/2 and the theoretical flux reversal
pressure was significantly lower than the ideal flux reversal
pressure (DP¼ Dp). This observation is attributed to the detri-
mental effects of ECP, ICP, and reverse salt diffusion (RSD)
[13,16,33]. Sensitivity analysis (data not shown) revealed that
ICP followed by reverse salt diffusion were the major contributors
for the deviation between the model results and the ideal case
based on bulk osmotic pressure difference.
For the 0.5 M NaCl draw solution (representative of seawater),
the maximum power densities for each feed solution (0.01, 0.05,
and 0.08 M NaCl solution) were calculated to be 1.51, 1.11, and Fig. 4. Modeled water flux (JW) and respective projected power density (W) as a
0.89 W/m2, respectively (Fig. 4a). These power densities are function of applied hydraulic pressure difference (DP) for the possible salinity
gradient resources of osmotic power generation described in Fig. 1 and Table 1.
significantly lower than what is generally considered as an River water, municipal wastewater effluent, brackish water, seawater, brine from
economically viable power density (  5 W/m2) for PRO [8,12]. a RO desalination plant, and brine from a FO desalination plant were simulated as
However, when the concentration of draw solution was increased 0.01, 0.05, 0.08, 0.5, 1, and 2 M NaCl solutions, respectively. Results are shown for
up to 1 or 2 M NaCl (Fig. 4b and c), the power density significantly three draw solutions: (a) seawater (0.5 M NaCl solution), (b) brine from a RO
desalination plant (1 M NaCl solution), and (c) brine from a FO desalination plant
increased. As higher concentration draw solutions are used, the
(2 M NaCl solution). The bulk osmotic pressure differences (Dp), calculated from
permeate flow rate increases as well as the hydraulic pressure the OLI Stream Analyzer software, are indicated by open circles on the horizontal
difference necessary to generate maximum power density [36]. axes of each graph.

Table 1
Possible resource schemes for PRO power generation based on the various salinity gradient resources described in Fig. 1. The various draw and feed streams were
simulated as NaCl solutions and their corresponding osmotic pressures were determined from the OLI Stream Analyzer software (Morris Plains, NJ). The modeled results for
water flux and projected power density for these resource schemes are shown in Fig. 4.

Draw Feed

River water (0.01 M) Municipal wastewater (0.05 M) Brackish water (0.08 M) Seawater (0.5 M)

Seawater (0.5 M) Dp ¼22.28 bar Fig. 4(a) Dp ¼ 20.45 bar Fig. 4(a) Dp ¼ 19.10 bar Fig. 4(a)
Brine (from RO) (1 M) Dp ¼ 44.45 bar Fig. 4(b) Dp ¼ 43.09 bar Fig. 4(b) Dp ¼24.00 bar Fig. 4(b)
Brine (from FO) (2 M) Dp ¼ 98.14 bar Fig. 4(c) Dp ¼ 96.79 bar Fig. 4(c) Dp ¼77.69 bar Fig. 4(c)
 Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech / Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337
0.01 M feed solutions (Dp ¼22.3 bar, Fig. 4a), the projected power
density obtained with the 1 M draw and 0.5 M feed solutions
(1.03 W/m2) was much lower than that calculated for the 0.5 M
draw and 0.01 M feed solutions (1.51 W/m2). This observation is
attributed to the severe ICP that occurs within the membrane
porous support layer when high salinity feed solutions are used
[15,31,37]. Accordingly, higher salinity draw solutions should be
exploited to obtain the target power density when seawater feed
solution is considered. When a 2 M NaCl draw solution was used,
the projected power density increased to 6.76 W/m2 at a hydrau-
lic pressure difference of 32.5 bar, in spite of the use of 0.5 M NaCl
feed solution. If municipal wastewater effluent or brackish water
(simulated as 0.05 and 0.08 M NaCl, respectively), instead
of seawater (0.5 M NaCl), are paired with RO brine or FO brine
(1 and 2 M NaCl, respectively), higher power density will be
obtained as shown in Fig. 4b and c.
Fig. 5 shows a contour plot of projected power density as a
function of salinity difference between the feed and draw solu-
tions. The concentration of the high-salinity draw solution ranges
from 1 to 2 M NaCl, while that of the low-salinity feed solution
varies from 0 to 0.5 M NaCl. The right lower corner of the graph
indicates the highest salinity gradient area and the left higher
corner of the graph indicates the lowest salinity gradient area. At
a hydraulic pressure difference of 10 bar (Fig. 5a), the contour line
Fig. 5. Projected power density (W) as a function of draw and feed solution
concentrations at a hydraulic pressure difference (DP) of (a) 10 bar and
(b) 32.5 bar. The red triangle in (b) indicates the calculated results based on the
water fluxes at hydraulic pressure differences above the flux reversal point
(DPZ Dp). The open red circle on each graph represents the peak power density
of the salinity gradient. Each hydraulic pressure difference is the optimal pressure
difference of the salinity gradient. The black line on the scale bar in (b) represents
a power density of 0 W/m2. The osmotic pressures (p) of the draw and feed
solutions were determined by OLI Stream Analyzer software. (For interpretation of
references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
335
of projected power density increased from 0.84 to 8.6 W/m2. In
this case, the maximum power density cannot be obtained over
the entire range of salinity gradient because the optimal hydraulic
pressure difference for peak power density varies depending on
the salinity gradient. Only the left top point indicating 1 M draw
and 0.5 M feed represents the peak power density at DP¼10 bar.
On the other hand, at a hydraulic pressure difference of 32.5 bar
(Fig. 5b), the contour line of the projected power density rises
from 0 to 19.2 W/m2. The peak power density at 32.5 bar exists at
the right top point (2 M draw and 0.5 M feed). The red triangle in
Fig. 5b indicates an unrealistic and meaningless region because
the calculated power density is based on negative water fluxes as
the hydraulic pressure differences exceed the flux reversal pres-
sure (i.e., DP Z Dp).
4.2. Experimental water flux and projected power density
for seawater (0.5 M NaCl) feed solution.
To investigate the feasibility of PRO power generation by
seawater feed solution with several possible resources, we used
a 0.5 M NaCl solution as the feed solution and concentrated
solutions of 1, 1.5, and 2 M NaCl as draw solutions. Experimen-
tally measured water flux (JW) data obtained in the PRO test cell
and the corresponding projected power density (W) based on
water flux as a function of the hydraulic pressure difference for
the three draw solution concentrations are presented in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6a compares modeling results for the indicated draw
solutions (1, 1.5, and 2 M NaCl) paired with a 0.5 M NaCl feed
solution. The water flux decreases linearly and power density
shows a quadratic function curve with a peak point as a function
of the hydraulic pressure difference [3,35]. The power density
depends on both the water flux and the hydraulic pressure
difference between both sides of the membrane (W¼JWDP). The
theoretical model results, however, were significantly lower than
the ideal case based on the bulk osmotic pressure difference. As
discussed earlier, this deviation is mostly attributed to the
performance limiting effects of ICP and reverse salt diffusion.
The experimental water flux and corresponding projected
power densities (symbols) are compared with model predictions
(lines) in Figs. 6b through 6d. The theoretical maximum power
densities for each draw solution concentration (1, 1.5, and 2 M)
are 1.03, 3.17, and 6.76 W/m2, respectively. For the osmotic
pressure difference between the 1 M draw and 0.5 M feed solu-
tion (Dp ¼24 bar, Fig. 6b), we observed a peak power density of
0.73 W/m2 at a hydraulic pressure difference of 9.30 bar. How-
ever, for the higher salinity gradient conditions using 1.5 and 2 M
NaCl draw solutions, we were able to confirm only the increasing
trend of the projected power density, because PRO experiments
were not possible in the PRO test cell loaded with the commercial
FO membrane coupon at pressures greater than 12.6 bar due to
the PRO test cell’s structural limitations. At a hydraulic pressure
difference of 12.6 bar, water fluxes of 5.91 and 9.23 L m  2 h  1
(1.64  10  6 and 2.56  10  6 m/s) and corresponding projected
power densities (W) of 2.07 and 3.22 W/m2 were obtained for the
1.5 and 2 M NaCl draw solutions, respectively.
The model results, obtained with the parameters derived from
a spacer-filled channel, closely matched the experimental data at
the lowest hydraulic pressure difference used (DP ¼0.47 bar).
However, as the hydraulic pressure difference increased, the
deviation between the theoretical and experimental values also
increased. The theoretical results accounted for the effect of
membrane deformation induced by the feed channel spacer
because they are calculated on the basis of the parameter values
(A, B, k, and S) determined in a spacer-filled channel [6]. However,
the predictions do not account for the spacer ‘‘shadow effect’’,
that is, the blocking of available membrane area for water
336 Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech / Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337

Fig. 6. Modeled and experimental water flux (JW) and the respective calculated power density (W) as a function of applied hydraulic pressure difference (DP). (a) Modeling
results for the indicated draw solutions. (b–d) Experimental and modeling results for 1, 1.5, and 2 M NaCl draw solutions. The osmotic pressures (p) of the 1, 1.5, and 2 M
NaCl draw solutions were 46.75, 72.72, and 100.44 bar, respectively, as determined by OLI Stream Analyzer software. Also, the osmotic pressure (p) of the 0.5 M NaCl feed
solution was 22.75 bar. For each graph, symbols (open squares and circles) represent experimental water fluxes and the corresponding calculated power densities,
respectively, and lines represent model results. All experiments were performed with solutions at a fixed temperature of 20 1C.

Fig. 7. Effect of solution temperature on measured water flux (JW) in PRO and the corresponding calculated power density (W). (a) 1 M NaCl draw–0.5 M NaCl feed
solution, (b) 1.5 M NaCl draw–0.5 M NaCl feed solution and (c) 2 M NaCl draw–0.5 M NaCl feed solution. All experiments were performed with solutions at two
temperatures (20 and 30 1C). The results were compared at a hydraulic pressure difference of 12.5 bar.

permeation by the spacer strands under high hydraulic pressure [6].
Accordingly, we attribute the lower-than-predicted water fluxes to
the ‘‘shadow effect.’’
4.3. Effect of temperature on PRO water flux and power density
In pressure-driven membrane processes, temperature control
can be considered as a way to enhance water flux. Similarly, in
osmotically driven membrane processes like FO and PRO, increas-
ing temperature is an important factor for water flux enhance-
ment due to an increase of the water permeability coefficient
[21,38]. Increasing temperature results in a concomitant increase
in the salt permeability coefficient [16,38], which can be detri-
mental for RO and FO applications. However, for PRO applications,
there is no need for a low salt permeability coefficient as is
required in FO and RO [13], thereby adding another degree of
freedom for PRO optimization.
To investigate the effect of solution temperature on the water
flux and power density in PRO, we performed PRO experiments at
two different temperatures as presented in Fig. 7. Increasing the
solution temperature had an obvious effect on the water flux
across the membrane. When the temperature increased from
20 1C to 30 1C, the water flux and the corresponding projected
power density increased significantly. The obtained water flux
increased from 9.23 to 13.89 L m  2 h  1 and the corresponding
projected power density increased from 3.22 to 4.72 W/m2 for the
2 M draw and 0.5 M feed solutions (Fig. 7c).
The temperature of seawater normally ranges from 12 to 35 1C
[19]. Because desalination plants are often located in hot regions,
the seawater temperature in such areas is over 25 1C. We also
note that the temperature of brines discharged from desalination
plants is generally higher than that of raw seawater [39]. Also, if
evaporation ponds are used for the discharged brine, the brine
temperature will increase with increasing salinity [40,41]. Lastly,
 Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech / Journal of Membrane Science 429 (2013) 330–337
if heat supply by renewable solar energy and waste heat from a
power plant is available, the enhancement of water flux in the
PRO process may be feasible.
5. Concluding remarks
To date, seawater has not been considered as a feed solution
for the PRO process because of severe ICP effects in current
generation membranes. However, once high-performance PRO
membranes are developed, high concentration brines paired with
seawater can be an attractive source for salinity gradient. Future
PRO membranes should not only have porous support layers with
low ICP effects, but they should also withstand the high hydraulic
pressures that are necessary to produce higher power density at
high salinity gradients. There is also a critical need to optimize
feed channel spacers to minimize membrane deformation and the
‘‘shadow effect’’ in order to achieve high power densities. We
therefore conclude that both membrane and module designs
remain a major hurdle for PRO osmotic power generation. Future
PRO installations must also address pre-treatment of the low and
high concentration streams as well as membrane fouling both at
the membrane active layer and within the membrane support layer.
Acknowledgments
Dr. Yu Chang Kim was supported by the Postdoctoral Program
of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM).
Professor Elimelech acknowledges the support of the World Class
University (WCU) Program (Case III) through the National
Research Foundation of Korea and the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (R33-10046).
References
[1] B.E. Logan, M. Elimelech, Membrane-based processes for sustainable power
generation using water, Nature 488 (2012) 313–319.
[2] T. Thorsen, T. Holt, The potential for power production from salinity gradients
by pressure retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 335 (2009) 103–110.
[3] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, Power generation with pressure retarded
osmosis: An experimental and theoretical investigation, J. Membr. Sci. 343
(2009) 42–52.
[4] N.Y. Yip, A. Tiraferri, W.A. Phillip, J.D. Schiffman, L.A. Hoover, Y.C. Kim,
M. Elimelech, Thin-film composite pressure retarded osmosis membranes
for sustainable power generation from salinity gradients, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45 (2011) 4360–4369.
[5] S. Chou, R. Wang, L. Shi, Q. She, C. Tang, A.G. Fane, Thin-film composite
hollow fiber membranes for pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) process with
high power density, J. Membr. Sci. 389 (2012) 25–33.
[6] Y.C. Kim, M. Elimelech, Adverse impact of feed channel spacers on the
performance of pressure retarded osmosis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2012)
4673–4681.
[7] A. Achilli, A.E. Childress, Pressure retarded osmosis: From the vision of Sidney
Loeb to the first experimental installation–review , Desalination 261 (2010)
205–211.
[8] G.Z. Ramon, B.J. Feinberg, E.M.V. Hoek, Membrane-based production of
salinity-gradient power, Energy Environ. Sci. 4 (2011) 4423–4434.
[9] S. Loeb, Energy production at the Dead sea by pressure-retarded osmosis:
challenge or chimera, Desalination 120 (1998) 247–262.
[10] S. Loeb, One hundred and thirty benign and renewable megawatts from Great
Salt Lake? The possibilities of hydroelectric power by pressure-retarded
osmosis, Desalination 141 (2001) 85–91.
[11] S. Loeb, Large-scale power production by pressure-retarded osmosis, using
river water and sea water passing through spiral modules, Desalination 143
(2002) 115–122.
[12] S.E. Skilhagen, J.E. Dugstad, R.J. Aaberg, Osmotic power—power production
based on the osmotic pressure difference between waters with varying salt
gradients, Desalination 220 (2008) 476–482.
337
[13] N.Y. Yip, M. Elimelech, Performance limiting effects in power generation from
salinity gradients by pressure retarded osmosis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45
(2011) 10273–10282.
[14] S. Loeb, L. Titelman, E. Korngold, J. Freiman, Effect of porous support fabric on
osmosis through a Loeb-Sourirajan type asymmetric membrane, J. Membr.
Sci. 129 (1997) 243–249.
[15] G.T. Gray, J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Internal concentration polarization
in forward osmosis: role of membrane orientation, Desalination 197 (2006)
1–8.
[16] Q. She, X. Jin, C.Y. Tang, Osmotic power production from salinity gradient
resource by pressure retarded osmosis: effects of operating conditions and
reverse solute diffusion, J. Membr. Sci. 401–402 (2012) 262–273.
[17] V. Yangali-Quintanilla, Z. Li, R. Valladares, Q. Li, G. Amy, Indirect desalination
of Red Sea water with forward osmosis and low pressure reverse osmosis for
water reuse, Desalination 280 (2011) 160–166.
[18] C. Fritzmann, J. Lowenberg, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, State-of-the-art of reverse
osmosis desalination, Desalination 216 (2007) 1–76.
[19] L.F. Greenlee, D.F. Lawler, B.D. Freeman, B. Marrot, P. Moulin, Reverse osmosis
desalination: water sources, technology, and today’s challenges, Water
Research 43 (2009) 2317–2348.
[20] A.M. Shahalam, A. Al-Harthy, A. Al-Zawhry, Feed water pretreatment in RO
systems: unit processes in the Middle East, Desalination 150 (2002) 235–245.
[21] S. Zhao, L. Zou, Effects of working temperature on separation performance,
membrane scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis desalination, Desalina-
tion 278 (2011) 157–164.
[22] D. Gille, Seawater intakes for desalination plants, Desalination 156 (2003)
249–256.
[23] S. Loeb, Production of energy from concentrated brines by pressure-retarded
osmosis. I. Preliminary technical and economic correlations, J. Membr. Sci. 1
(1976) 49–63.
[24] S. Loeb, F.V. Hessen, D. Shahaf, Production of energy from concentrated
brines by pressure-retarded osmosis. II. Experimental results and projected
energy costs, J. Membr. Sci. 1 (1976) 249–269.
[25] G.D. Mehta, S. Loeb, Performance of permasep B-9 and B-10 membranes in
various osmotic regions and at high osmotic pressures, J. Membr. Sci. 4
(1979) 335–349.
[26] J.R. McCutcheon, R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, A novel ammonia-carbon
dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process, Desalination 174
(2005) 1–11.
[27] J.R. McCutcheon, R.L. McGinnis, M. Elimelech, Desalination by ammonia–
carbon dioxide forward osmosis: ınfluence of draw and feed solution
concentrations on process performance, J. Membr. Sci. 278 (2006) 114–123.
[28] D. Winter, J. Koschikowski, M. Wieghaus, Desalination using membrane
distillation: experimental studies on full scale spiral wound modules,
J. Membr. Sci. 375 (2011) 104–112.
[29] T.Y. Cath, Osmotically and thermally driven membrane processes for
enhancement of water recovery in desalination processes, Desalination
Water Treat. 15 (2010) 279–286.
[30] C.R. Martinetti, A.E. Childress, T.Y. Cath, High recovery of concentrated RO
brines using forward osmosis and membrane distillation, J. Membr. Sci. 331
(2009) 31–39.
[31] G.D. Mehta, S. Loeb, Internal polarization in the porous substructure of a
semipermeable membrane under pressure-retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 4
(1978) 261–265.
[32] Y.C. Kim, S.J. Park, Y. Kim, I.S. Park, B.I. Choi, K.H. Lee, Apparatus for osmotic
power generation and desalination using salinity difference, US Patent Pub.
no. 2012/0012511, 2012.
[33] W.A. Phillip, J.S. Yong, M. Elimelech, Reverse draw solute permeation in
forward osmosis: modeling and experiments, Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010)
5170–5176.
[34] N.Y. Yip, A. Tiraferri, W.A. Phillip, J.D. Schiffman, M. Elimelech, High
performance thin-film composite forward osmosis membrane, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 44 (2010) 3812–3818.
[35] K.L. Lee, R.W. Baker, H.K. Lonsdale, Membranes for power generation by
pressure-retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 8 (1981) 141–171.
[36] R.L. McGinnis, J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, A novel ammonia–carbon
dioxide osmotic heat engine for power generation, J. Membr. Sci. 305
(2007) 13–19.
[37] J.R. McCutcheon, M. Elimelech, Influence of concentrative and dilutive
internal concentration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis,
J. Membr. Sci. 284 (2006) 237–247.
[38] M.C.Y. Wong, K. Martinez, G.Z. Ramon, E.M.V. Hoek, Impacts of operating
conditions and solution chemistry on osmotic membrane structure and
performance, Desalination 287 (2012) 340–349.
[39] R. Danoun, Desalination Plants: Potential Impacts of Brine Discharge on
Marine Life, 2007.
[40] A. Ravizky, N. Nadav, Salt production by the evaporation of SWRO brine in
Eliat: a success story, Desalination 205 (2007) 374–379.
[41] P. Chelme-Ayala, D.W. Smith, M.G. El-Din, Membrane concentrate manage-
ment options: a comprehensive critical review, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 36 (2009)
1107–1119.